Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

Inaccuracy of $15 donation.

The $15 donation remark should be deleted as it's speculation. The city listed on the donation does not match Thomas' (Bethel Park), the full name is not mentioned, and there is a Thomas Crooks in a northern suburb of Pittsburgh (the city listed); he works for a construction company and volunteers at a local YMCA. Who is much older and still alive. 2603:6011:A600:84B1:B196:E0F:2E48:A108 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this too. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is being reported as fact by a number of reliable sources, including the BBC and the New York Times. Is the donation's attribution questioned in any reputable source? If so, such a reference would be worth adding to the article. GhostOfNoMeme 15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the NYT would answer a request for better evidence - and their errata/retractions are rarely of anything substantial, tending to belong more in the "the font was actually Geneva" category - but the BBC might be another matter, has anyone asked them?... ELSchissel (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

youre a loser lmao 82.38.116.112 (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The address listed on the donation form (2506 Milford Drive, PA 15102 is exactly Bethel Park (https://www.google.com/maps/place/2506+Milford+Dr,+Bethel+Park,+PA+15102). That Pittsburgh was listed on the form was undoubtedly a minor mistake because this zip code is a suburban part of Greater Pittsburgh. 100.15.106.249 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No exact address is listed on the donation, only a zipcode (see: The National Post Article featuring it). If you have proof otherwise, please provide it. 2603:6011:A600:84B1:98CA:4ED4:C5B4:42BF (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the original FEC filing there is an address on the contribution - you can view the file here: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Thomas+crooks&two_year_transaction_period=2022&min_date=01%2F01%2F2021&max_date=02%2F01%2F2021 Katealamode (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR; Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources have stated as fact. Once a RS has disputed this, then by all means, introduce the dispute into the article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the file as posted by the New York Times - https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/fe91e6ba36695009/ac182c3a-full.pdf - linked from this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html . In any case, the full address on the file is consistent with other published information about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Katealamode (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, I do not have paid access to NYT article. Can you post a mirror of it so I can review? 2603:6011:A600:84B1:98CA:4ED4:C5B4:42BF (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240714130125/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html - it looks like this version links to the FEC site, but the NY Times have since saved a version of the FEC filing on their servers Katealamode (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hang on, how is this original research? It's a citation directly to the relevant FEC filing. Near as I can tell, however, by cross referencing the voter registration using personal information I've managed to collect online, the person at that address has a birth date of 9/20/2003, so the point is moot: the address on file for the donation is the same as the address for the accused's voter registration, so there's no reason to believe it's some other Thomas Crooks. All of this information is assembled from government data. John Moser (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. ELSchissel (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is further evidence that the donation was made by a 69-year old man living in Pittsburgh who has the same name. See here: https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897. 171.66.130.133 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. The organisation itself appears to have corroborated the fact he donated, as reported in a number of reliable mainstream sources. GhostOfNoMeme 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's being reported by reliable sources. I think it's reasonable to leave it. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some reliable sources are reporting it. But this still falls under breaking news guidelines, which specifically state that "breaking news" may be unreliable. And furthermore, there are quite a few sources that are not reporting it, or are reporting that it is inaccurate/another person of the same name. Per recently deceased persons, we should not be making potentially inaccurate/disputed claims about a recently dead person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This entire article is WP:BREAKING (which is one of the reasons I voted to delete it for now). Could you share which RS are reporting that it’s inaccurate/another person? Have there been any retractions or corrections by the already cited RS? Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It should've been deleted, yes. I don't have any specific links, but my readings of the news - they are reporting that someone of the same first/last name has made a donation. And from other sources (that are not necessarily reliable), it is being reported that there is at least one other Pennsylvanian that shares the first and last name (all that is reported for political donations) with the shooter. We need to err on the side of caution and not report any potentially inaccurate information until reliable sources settle on the veracity of the information. We do not and should not report breaking news when it is known to be unreliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting information comes from the fact that he put down Pittsburgh as his city, even though he lives in a suburb of Pittsburgh. OpenSecrets only contains his city/zip code. However, the official FEC filing contains his full address, which matches that of the shooter.

Given that there are no other Thomas Crooks at his address, we can say with complete certainty that the donation came from him. Or was at least made under his name/address. 2601:243:C004:F790:4917:A3F:CE28:C2FF (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim you are making amounts to original research and investigation, and should not discount reputable sources. Reputable sources have said that he is the one who made the donation. This is alike discounting climate change scientists based on your own analysis of the data and interpretation of what it means. https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/trumps-shooter-gave-15-to-a-progressive Hikeddeck (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments about uncertainty of political leanings

I don't know how to word this, or if it's even NPOV or OR, but I feel that it needs pointing out that the current reports are just based on what little information is available in public registers.

My current best wording to go before the paragraphs about the donation and his republican registration:

Although being named within hours by the FBI as the shooter, initial reporting on his political believes or a possible motive have so far been based on scarce publicly available information.

Anyone else feel the same or want to word it better? the information vacuum won't stay like this for long, but I think it should be pointed out that this is article a 1000-piece puzzle where we only have a few pieces right now. EditorInTheRye (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

thats not a bad idea IMO NAADAAN (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

should be "beliefs", of course. Believes is a whole 'nother word form of fish. ELSchissel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I came here to comment on this. "Described as right leaning" has no source associated with it and every report I've read says that those interviewed so far didn't know his opinions on politics. We know his dad was a libertarian and his mom a Democrat and that he's a registered Republican who donated to Democratic causes in the past. It's all very muddled and uncertain and the existing article doesn't make that clear enough. Demosthanos (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. How is the comment about "right-leaning" still up when there isn't any source that's stated that? All we know is that he was a registered Republican. Being registered to a party and having those beliefs are two different thigns. Twinbros04 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I added the right leaning part, it was in the NYT article. A former classmate said he was. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't get past the NYT paywall, but the other things classmates said about him was he was a loner who didn't talk to anyone. In light of that, a single classmate's report that he's "slightly" right-leaning doesn't seem to justify the intro saying that he was "described as right leaning" without qualifiers about the source or the adverb used by the student.

It looks like that no longer exists in the intro and the Political Activities section reads fine to me now, so I'm not too worried, just wanted to make sure that we didn't accidentally fan flames. Demosthanos (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, NYT is a left-leaning journal and not a reliable source to this case. Wikiuserpedia96 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiuserpedia96 perhaps you should review WP:RSP and WP:YESPOV. The NYT is certainly a reliable source here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s fine to say that he’s a registered Republican who contributed to a Democratic PAC. That’s been widely reported. However, Idk if there’s enough evidence to say that he’s right-leaning. It could be mentioned that 1 former classmate described him as slightly leaning to the right or that could be omitted from the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the intro is missing both "slightly" and the fact that a single classmate is the source. That needs to be called out to avoid feeding speculation. Demosthanos (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he was right-leaning. If anything, the donation (which is itself not confirmed) is the strongest evidence of his political beliefs and suggests he was progressive. In the absence of certainty, this statement should be removed. justdweezil (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As of now there is the statement of two classmates suggesting that while in school he may very well have been right-leaning, but one of those is explicitly dated as in 8th grade (which would have been 2017-2018). I do think that that date should be called out in Wikipedia's quote, because that's an awful lot of time during an awfully critical age window for things to change.

I'm open to him having been right-leaning, but I don't think anyone benefits from Wikipedia seeming to come down one way or the other before we get more details, which means that the facts should be transcribed as precisely as they are in the sources. Demosthanos (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth considering that high schoolers do not necessarily have the most sophisticated grasp of ideology, and may have been stereotyping based on his affinity for guns or painting libertarian beliefs with a broad brush. A claim that he is "right-leaning" definitely needs qualifications. 38.49.79.101 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary documents

I removed a posted image containing info on Crooks as well as personal details of other people, presumably still living, not related to this controversy, per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. We can cite reliable sources that have examined primary documents without needing to showcase the documents themselves, public domain or not. We don't need to turn this or any article into a scrapbook of court documents, receipts, and voter registration records, especially if it increases risks to other people's security. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

feels like the “he had a discord account” bit is unnecessary

can’t edit it out myself since it’s locked obviously, but it’s what it says on the tin. most people have social media accounts, and it doesn’t seem to be directly related to what he’s infamous for. he wasn’t plotting it with friends on discord or anything, it’s just fluff. 70.57.80.178 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he shared or said something there that's relevant to the shooting, it should be removed. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is very irrelevant especially considering it was inactive KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"and would have been an illegal contribution as Crooks was under 18"

According to the FEC,

"An individual who is under 18 years old may make contributions to candidates and political committees, subject to limitations, if:

• The decision to contribute is made knowingly and voluntarily by the minor;
• The funds, goods or services contributed are owned or controlled by the minor, proceeds from a trust for which he or she is a beneficiary or funds withdrawn by the minor from a financial account opened and maintained in his or her name; and
• The contribution is not made using funds given to the minor as a gift for the purpose of making the contribution, and is not in any way controlled by another individual."

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

The 2 sources for this statement are a substack post that has corrected itself and a local Pennsylvania news website. The latter may or may not be a RS, but it's simply incorrect. Woozybydefault (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Legality of the donation

The article currently reads "[h]is donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office and would have been an illegal contribution as Crooks was under 18" while referencing a Triblive article that doesn't discuss the legality of said donation and another on Dropsite which since added a correction stating:

"P.P.S Correction: An earlier version of this story said that the donation at the age of 17 would have been illegal. Some such donations are legal for minors to make."

quidama _talk 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

removed after dropsites correction NAADAAN (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Political party is not necessary in infobox

Besides the obviously non-neutral rationale for including this in the infobox, it is not relevant to the assassination since the current motive is unclear [1]. For instance, the article for John Wilkes Booth lists his political party in the infobox because it is relevant to his motive. While this individual is a registered Republican, there are many uncertainties regarding his political beliefs and whether those were his motives. Bedrockbob (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, when there are less uncertainties than maybe we should add it back in this Wikipedia article. Zyxrq (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth's political party wasn't relevant to his motive. In his career as an active supporter of the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party, he had campaigned in favour of Henry Winter Davis who later became a radical Republican. By the time he assassinated Lincoln, he had converted to Catholicism showing that his views had changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism#B 2A00:23C6:E10C:3201:C84D:9D44:9CCB:9D37 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth’s affiliation with the Know-Nothing Party is relevant to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because, unlike this instance with the president being in the same party as his would-be assassin, it helps to contextualize his motivations. Booth's nativist and pro-slavery beliefs, influenced by the Know-Nothing ideology, fueled his perception of Lincoln as an existential threat to the political values he championed. Booth’s membership in the Know-Nothing Party reflects his deep-seated nativism and possibly racist ideologies. This nativist sentiment likely extended to a strong pro-slavery stance, as the Know-Nothing Party had members who were either indifferent to slavery or actively supported it to counteract the influence of immigrant populations. Bedrockbob (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that he was registered as a republican and it has been reported by several media, it is justified to leave it there. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a registered Republican is a very noisy measure, and relying on it alone risks giving undue weight. What happens in the future if it comes out that he was nonetheless a self-identified Democrat? 75.80.108.189 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We're relying on what reliable sources say. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources also contradict this registration; additionally, political party in the infobox predominantly used only on BLPs for politicians. There are a lot of people who have BLPs on wikipedia, and they’re registered as one party or the other; yet this information is not included in the infobox — why should we include it here? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Do they? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For a couple very relevant examples, John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer.

If those don't justify a political party because it wasn't relevant to their motives, then I don't see why we should include one here until we know it was relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no reliable source reporting his self-identified political affiliation. When you put that in the infobox, you run the risk of misleading people about this. Being a registered Republican is not considered determinative as to whether someone is a Republican. The fact that he's a registered Republican is adequately reported in the article with appropriate context. This box is, to me, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. KJKistner (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a registered Republican is exactly what makes someone a Republican

Cutelyaware (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears several editors disagree to it’s inclusion. I’m making a WP:BOLD edit and removing it. I suggest editors seek to find consensus for it in the infobox before reintroducing per WP:ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm making a bolder edit and reverting. The onus is on you to prove the sources contradict it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaand reverting myself because I don't want to sound contrarian. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It ended up re-re-reverted. I appreciated you backing out, because the issue at hand isn't whether the sources contradict it, the issue is whether we know it's relevant enough to go into the infobox or if featuring it prominently violates WP:NPOV. As I linked in another comment, many assassins and would-be assassins in the US don't reference their political party because it wasn't relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to get into an edit war over a WP:NPOV violation, but the editors reintroducing this are not new to wikipedia, they know better, and they know what WP:ONUS means. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They're also wrong to do it, and not being new is irrelevant. Everyone here has a political slant of some kind and what I'm trying to do here is avoid having Wikipedia include information highlighted in the sidebar just because it's true.

John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, and Arthur Bremer all lack a party affiliation in the sidebar. Placing it there brings that fact out of other context like the fact that he donated to other causes, giving a WP:POV. Demosthanos (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to you removing it, but the odds are someone will just add it again. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like locking doesn't actually work to force people to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page before getting into and winning edit wars. Demosthanos (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The page was mostly protected because of vandalism and unsourced additions by anonymous/new users. The page is subject to WP:CTOPS but there aren't actually any Arbitration Remedies in effect so I believe WP:1RR doesn't actually apply. Not entirely sure though. C F A 💬 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

PA is a closed primary state, so he registered as a Republican in order to vote against Trump in the Republican primary elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.110 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to include his political party affiliation - either in the infobox or the article - at this time, per WP:BREAKING and WP:BDP. When the dust settles, that can be discussed/added if/when his affiliation is relevant and confirmed. But as of now, the only information is speculation from people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by talking to media, and of his registration for a primary that doesn't necessarily mean he affiliates with that party at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheXuitts:, please discuss and get consensus here instead of reverting without an edit summary. Some1 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Shoouldn't he be considered a "Suspected shooter"?

Yes, he should be! There won't be a trial, so the wait to say "shooter" won't be long, but it is too early to say with certainty. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

did the wind shoot the bullet? it’s pretty cut and dry Nightmarejessie (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for the FBI and the Secret Service. BarntToust (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Political views

It's odd that this section starts with the views of his parents, rather than information about Thomas Matthew Crooks himself. The information about his parents should be moved after information about registration and contributions. Katealamode (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN cites state records as the source of information about the parents' political registration (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/trump-rally-gunman-thomas-crooks-invs/index.html). I also found an inaccuracy: the politician described the Bethel park area as a "large spattering", not the family.

Please change:

According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, his mother was a Democrat and his father a Libertarian. The politician described the family as a "large spattering of different backgrounds and ideals".[6]

Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]

On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]

Change to:

Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]

On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]

Crooks's father is a registered Libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.[7] According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, the family's political mix is "fairly typical" for the Bethel Park area.[6] Katealamode (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Reordered the section so that his political views come before those of his parents. C F A 💬 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The information about his parents is a BLP privacy issue and shouldn't included. Please remove it if it is re-added. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also a misquote. The source states that a single, unnamed classmate said that he "seemed" (meaning that he's not sure) "slightly right leaning". That's vague and amorphous enough to mean almost anything. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we should definitely not engage in speculation of him being conservative, liberal, socialist, or fascist until more information is given. KlayCax (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It reads like he shot the president

Currently the article says "Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate ... the 45th president of the United States", but this doesn't make clear that he did not shoot the president. I appreciate the USA sometimes blurs the lines with their Mr. President, Secret Service, and so on, but shooting a president is still different to shooting a former/candidate, president. The difference in consequences is huge. I can't currently think of a clean and timeless way of clarifying this, so at this time I'll just leave this explanation in case I do change it, or suggest someone else have a go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to “45th president and presidential candidate”? The changes may be wordy. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the obvious choice would be to change it to "former President". QuicoleJR (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump not shot, hit by flying glass

multiple sources quoting secret service that Trump was not shot but nicked by flying glass from a teleprompter that was shot 108.218.143.27 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Many independent, reliable sources are still reporting that he was shot. Wikipedia follows what secondary sources say, whether or not it's true. As to whether it is true, you might be interested in reading this NYT analysis. C F A 💬 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the guideline needs to be renamed. It should be titled Verifiability, not opinion, as it would be quite eyebrow-raising for an encyclopedia to reject the idea of an objective truth. We do want the truth, we don't want conjecture and non-expert speculation marketed as the truth. Bremps... 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • There's a lot of history behind that page, including but not limited to an entire movement some years ago to replace verifiability with something else entirely. A lot of what you see there is a reaction to common situations in the early years of Wikipedia, and one really needs to know a fair amount of Wikipedia history to fully understand what it is getting at. "Verifiable and true" is the best explanation that came out of the decades-long discussions of this. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Actually, we want Wikipedia to contain things that are both verifiable and true. So if there's evidence that something verifiable is not, in fact, true it should not be in Wikipedia. (There are plenty of occasions where editors have wrongly used outdated sources, alas, and considered their reliability in a vacuum without the context that what they say has since been shown to be false.) However, in this case the converse is the case. It is the early claim about the teleprompter glass that has since been widely debunked. A quick search turned up https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/early-claims-trump-hit-by-glass-fragments-undermined-by-new-york-times-photos/ar-BB1pWfYf as the first match, but there were plenty of others. The teleprompter glass claim may be verifiable by some sources, but it is untrue and so does not belong here. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Sources reported its possibility initially. Not relevant now. NYT article good. I encourage this IP questioner to create an account here, though. BarntToust (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Political views" doesn't describe his views

The "Political views" section merely notes his party registration and then some minor donations through channels associated with the opposing political party. Neither of these provide any insight to his political "views". If any of this is even insightful at all, the section should be titled "Political activity" or something like that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

None of this adoxography about his local shooting club, his $15 donations, and the shirt he was wearing belongs on Wikipedia but there will be no chance any removal won't be immediately restored by votaries. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I decided to WP:BOLD and removed the gun range mention (not inherently an expression of a political view) and changed the section to "activities". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede lacks citation

There is a lot of important information in the lede, but it lacks references. It is especially crucial to add citations, particularly regarding his political leanings. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Typicaly the lede merely summarizes sourced material in the article's body. Is that not the case here? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sections generally do not have inline citations as long as the information is accurately cited somewhere else in the article. See WP:LEADCITE. Donald Trump, for example, has no citations in the lead. C F A 💬 22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede citations in any proper article sumarize cited content within it. Irrelevant (non-) concern. BarntToust (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Southern Gospel" site claim of his parents' ethnicity

I would avoid using this source, it looks like possible pink-slime journalism or AI, or else a minor site without a proper news org backing it up. The article cited to claim this cited random Twitter accounts and unspecified "reports". VintageVernacular (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly it doesn't really prove that he's Jewish. Just says that he is with no evidence. He's from bethel park. A mostly christian town with no synagogues Thunderbolt4000 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Clothing brand of perpetrator

Does the shirt brand of the perpetrator (in this case, a gun YouTuber) need to be specifically mentioned? Has any reliable source made a connection between the shirt and the act? Much is unclear about affiliations and this seem biased and could needlessly cause backlash against an unrelated third party. This was decided against on the article Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump talk page. Joellaser (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. Why mention it? It serves no purpose other to defame a YouTuber who had no involvement in this. Take it down. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • And I did. I removed the mention of the channel for now. Might remove the rest of the sentence later. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. That kind of information does not belong on Wikipedia. If a reliable secondary source summarises his interest in the brand and makes a connection to the incident, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise it's as informative as what he ate for breakfast on the day. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion, but I think the clothing is relevant and worth including. It is pertinent information, particularly as much of the focus will inevitably be on US gun control laws and gun culture in the aftermath of this event. The fact he performed this act in "pro-gun" attire seems relevant enough that it's discussed in a number of reliable sources (BBC, NYT, Telegraph, Sky News, Newsweek, Washington Times, etc.) all of which are referenced in the article. It is also included in the main article, attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It should stay. GhostOfNoMeme 10:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are both bad arguments, when it comes to Wikipedia. A good argument, however, is that the reliable sources use weasel wording, and the usual journalistic get-outs, to cover for claims that are possibly not in fact accurate. For example, an early NBC report, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/trump-biden-rnc-election-live-updates-rcna161404/rcrd45880, said "appear to" and "partly obscured". The Associated Press at https://apnews.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-thomas-matthew-crooks-shooter-881581c46c07025898027143fc9132e5 currently also says, datelined about an hour before I am writing this, "appear to". We could write the article to say "appeared to be" (as it currently does, note, although that hides who it is who looked at the photographs and judged the appearance). But we could also hold to the standard of waiting until someone who has seen more than photographs of a "partly obscured" thing to tell us with confidence and no weaselling what the shirt is. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sportsmen's club membership

Twice now I've removed mention that he was a member of a local sportmen's club, which includes a shooting range. Membership does not imply anything. Unless someone has a RS showing that something about him being a member here is directly related to the shooting, it is trivia. If we want to include in a "Personal life" section perhaps, but not where it's been included thus far. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is television commercial appearance notable?

"He is featured in a 2023 advertisement for BlackRock, an investment firm, that was filmed at his high school." [12] -> CNN "What we know page"

I can sort of see an argument for both sides

but I also pretty much guarantee its gonna be a talking point on A. Jones' show by end of this week if it stays in the article (maybe also if it doesn't, but yeah) Donald Guy (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Was added by CFA in this rev Donald Guy (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was requested in an edit request. Seems reasonably notable, is mentioned in the source. I see no issue with it. C F A 💬 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

would you be willing to provide a rationale for its notability? (ideally beyond that it appeared in a perennial source?)

because from where i sit it seems as much trivia as the sports club membership point discussed above, if not moreso. It is notable insofar as there is little information in general, but i very much doubt it will be on this article (or the section merged into the event main article) in months or years once more is known

my concern is that the request for inclusion (by an anonymous user at that) may be ill-intentioned, as BlackRock is a not an infrequently mentioned player in New World Order type conspiracy theories (separate from any legitimate concerns about BlackRock as a market manipulator, etc.)

as such, the inclusion in the article seems likely to be read that way (i.e. as a dog whistle of being involved in a grand conspiracy) by some, and is trivia of little relevance to the rest. inclusion may operate in effect as misinformation

so in the absence of evidence that his participation in the commercial was related in any way to the events which have made him notable, and whereas he was not an actor or marketing professional (and notable for these reasons), I'd equally request its removal Donald Guy (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well the threshold for notability is usually that it is discussed in independent reliable, sources. This has been mentioned (and sometimes featured as an independent article) in many reliable sources. There is the CNN article in the article, this NYT article, this article in Fortune, this article in Times Now and many mentions in other articles. The ad was pulled because the gunman was featured. This is clearly notable for inclusion somewhere, and one sentence seems like due weight here. We need to assume good faith and saying a user suggested its inclusion to promote conspiracy theories is not doing so. They probably just saw it while reading an article or watching the news. It is not an obscure fact by any stretch of the word. C F A 💬 03:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I (will) still worry about its potential to act as misinformation-in-effect (and I still fully anticipate its eventual removal on grounds of lacking relevance),

but certainly the fact of the event of the pulling of a still running ad, as a feature of the aftermath of the shooting (in a similar vein to the Biden campaign suspending ads) is definitely a more reasonable frame of notability (though if pressed I'd say more in the article on the event than the person).

Could you/someone please rephrase to something closer to framing/emphasis of those headlines regarding the focus of the story (the removal of the ad):

• "BlackRock removes an ad from 2022 that included images of the gunman." (NYT)

(also 2022 or 2023?)

• "BlackRock says gunman from Trump rally briefly appeared in an ad for the top money manager and was unpaid" (Fortune)

Because as it reads now, with emphasis/inclusion only on his participation in the ad, it seems as easy for a bad faith or misinformed actor to read as "the shooter was influenced/directed by BlackRock [a known arm of the nefarious globalist cabal]" as to convey the notable information Donald Guy (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done: I've updated the wording. C F A 💬 03:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not authorized to access facility

This might fall afoul of WP:NOR (or just WP:RSPX) since as far as I know it was only published on twitter, but in the interest of contributing something rather than just being a non-inclusionist:

Robert Evans (journalist) spoke with a source who is an employee at the facility whose roof TMC was killed on who confirmed that he was not known to him nor someone authorized to access the facility:

https://x.com/IwriteOK/status/1812567674914009160

that might simply follow as an assumption from other information in the article, but also might be reasonable to clarify

(other information from their correspondence regarding secret service and police (non-)activity at the facility might also be [more] worthy of inclusion in the event article, but is apt to have the same sourcing issue) Donald Guy (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just tried to AFD this, thinking WP:TWINKLE would've notified of past AfDs when trying to AfD it. I was mistaken. I apologize for any editors that were forced to read my rationale and comment there, and I don't intend to renominate this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"I probably had seen him wear a Trump shirt"

How can "probably" be used as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Any port in a storm. 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2600:4040:58DC:D200:F873:7F90:8BC6:F846 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings

(It does not appear there is a specific consensus on reliability of The Philadelphia Inquirer but I take from its inclusion in Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers that its probably fine):

this article has some reporting / interviews regarding the subject of his political views pre-2021:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/thomas-matthew-crooks-trump-shooting-bethel-park-20240714.html Donald Guy (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In particular this passage:

“

Sigafoos did not recall Crooks making political overtures in class, but rather as someone interested in how government works, and “not trying to insert his own beliefs into it.&

Another former classmate did not share this view.

Max R. Smith recalled taking an American history course with Crooks as a sophomore. He did recall Crooks making political statements — but they shed no light on his actions Saturday.

“He definitely was conservative,” he said. “It makes me wonder why he would carry out an assassination attempt on the conservative candidate.”

Smith recalled a mock debate in which their history professor posed government policy questions and asked students to stand on one side of the classroom or the other to signal their support or opposition for a given proposal.

“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other."

”

Donald Guy (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely something we should wait for, @Donald Guy:. It's very possible he started off as right-wing and then changed his opinion over time. There's stories of people from going from like Groypers to communists and liberals to fascists. It would be wrong to list his political ideology in the lead unless there's widespread reports or a direct confirmation that it was his motivation.

For instance, Reagan was shot because an insane dude was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Maybe Crooks had mental issues, maybe he was radicalized over time, we just don't know.

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and there's no need to rush. Particularly on an article such as this. KlayCax (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean i'm not pushing for anything, just offering it as a reliable source that doesn't seem to be utilized as yet

but I also disagree with your implication of irrelevance in view of possible change of views (as a type of recency bias). I think that if some sort of radicalization took place in the final months or years of his life, what his "starting point" was remains quite relevant (especially in terms of whether the understood psychology was more like "zeal of the newly converted" or "reality tunneling" against a lifelong foundation) Donald Guy (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

if indeed his motivations are somehow later discovered to have also been apolitical/based fully in delusion, than I guess I'll agree it wasn't relevant, but right now that isn't the occam's razer assumption being applied either by the world or indeed the content of this article as it currently exists Donald Guy (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not assume what will be determined in the future, and for recently deceased persons (and living persons, for that matter) we do not speculate, and we only report what is certain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly right. Sources (including classmates!) can't agree on whether he's right, left, centrist, or apolitical. No claim should be in the article until it's verified.

We could easily be spreading false information + at most, we're just going by what classmates state, which is a low-quality source at best. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, speculation is being added into the article, @Berchanhimez:. There's absolutely no certainty on whether his politics were right or left-leaning when he did it.

Nor, is there clear evidence of his motivations. Most political assassinations have had little to do with politics itself. This is even more so when it's been widely reported that he's a loner.

Vague comments from one single unidentified classmate - on an article like this, again - is exactly what we should not be doing. KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

His (possible) evolving political ideology & possible radicalization definitely is notable. But we should wait. We're still in a "fog of uncertainty" and a lot of early stuff surrounding cases like this is later shown to be false.

Indisputable facts, such as his registration status as a Republican and donations, are the only thing that seems WP: DUE for now.

There's also been widespread reports that he was a loner. So perhaps, for instance, he saw it as a means of getting attention & spread chaos in a world that he saw fail him. KlayCax (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elspea756:. The claim wasn't from the Hindustan Times. It was from CNN. Classmates and reliable sources have given contradictory claims about his political views. It's massively WP: TOOSOON to claim that he was conservative. CNN states that there's strong evidence that "suggests he may have had divergent political leanings". Giving contradicting accounts from classmates (including those who claim he was "center-left", "centrist", "slightly right-leaning", and "definitely conservative") is the last thing we should do. Note that this page is probably going to be viewed by millions of people and there's a good chance that this information is completely inaccurate.

(As @Berchanhimez: noted.) KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, KlayCax, you removed sourced information that was sourced to The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and your edit summary included a link to https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-rally-shooter-thomas-crooks-familys-first-reaction-what-the-hell-is-101721006160628.html so according to your edit summary your claim seems to be definitely related to hindustantimes.com Your new suggestion that the sourced quotes from The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer have a "good chance" to be "completely inaccurate" seems to be unsupported by anything other than your own personal opinion. Do you have a source for your claims? Elspea756 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Times is quoting CNN there. I was quoting it to get around the paywall. The problem with including it is that various classmates have variously described him as a hardcore conservative, center-leftist, centrist, slightly right of center, and apolitical during this interactions with him. That's entirely consistent with CNN's observation where they go on to note that it appears that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings" throughout his lifetime. Classmates also report that he was "socially awkward, nerdy, and frequently bullied throughout high school". Again, most political assassins are not motivated by politics, and there's been a widespread consensus among media sources that individuals shouldn't go jumping for what random classmates, initial reporting, and contradicting reports state, but wait for reliable sources to make a definite determination about what happened.

The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer are just reporting what several of the aforementioned students said. Not that he was. Massive difference. KlayCax (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be removed until a consensus is reached or a RFC is concluded. Tagging involved editors @Some1:, @TheXuitts:, @Elspea756:, @ZimZalaBim:.

Could you self-revert for now? KlayCax (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What is it that you would like me to self-revert? (I don't believe I'm involved in this discussion.) Some1 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagged you to prevent WP: CANVASS, @Some1:, but this paragraph One of Crooks's classmates estimated Crooks's political views as "slightly right-leaning". Another of Crooks's classmates said Crooks "definitely was conservative" and "no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side." that has been inserted into the article multiple times and then removed (including by me) and reinstated without consensus.

CNN notes that: a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings and that it seems likely that Crooks expressed contradicting, and diverging, political leanings in his life. The only consistent agreement among sources is that he was a "loner" who was "frequently bullied at school". Despite common perception, it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, and despite the widespread speculation at the moment, this seems like a very plausible situation. Classmates - as mentioned above - have described him as taking various, seemingly contradicting stances (from being a hardcore conservative to center-left throughout his high school years. Many allege he wasn't political at all. There's no way to properly WP: WEIGHT this. A paragraph such as this is egregious considering that we're in the "fog of confusion" common in situations like this. Very little about his political leanings outside of hard facts, his registered political party and donations, should be mentioned for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, when you write that it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, that is belied in US history by successful assassins John Wilkes Booth who was motivated by his allegiance to the Confederate States of America, and by Lee Harvey Oswald who considered himself a revolutionary communist who supported the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba, and by Leon Czolgosz who killed William McKinley and was clearly motivated by anarchist political ideology. Sarah Jane Moore was motivated by New Left ideology. Lynette Fromm was motivated by extremist counterculture political ideology. When Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola attempted to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950, their motivation was Puerto Rican nationalism. We do not yet understand the motivation in this case, but your general comment is not supported by the facts, and downplaying the potential for a political motivation seems premature. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about revising the paragraph to say:

Some of Crooks's classmates stated that his political views were "slightly right-leaning" or "conservative"; one classmate remembered Crooks as being "not obviously political"; CNN noted that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings."

Though if what his classmates say are insignificant, the paragraph could be removed per WP:ONUS, and people can start an RfC regarding it. Some1 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The CNN report is the only one I can see as meeting the criteria of WP: DUE. But even that openly admits it is speculation. It is however a "high-criteria source" than what random classmates of his said. All of which have given contradicting answers that suggests that his political beliefs changed overtime. I think it should all be removed per WP: ONUS and WP: DUE.

Anything that suggests a political motivation (or against one) should be removed for now. Again, there's no harm in waiting, but there is in spreading incorrect information. KlayCax (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it completely, @Some1:. Having it state that "some described him as conservative and some described him as slightly right-leaning and some described him as centrist and some described him as center-left and some described him as apolitical" is absolutely not something we should be doing. No motivation has been given by authorities and this comes across as speculation to me.

...Which is absolutely, again, not what we should be doing. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What does "slightly right-leaning" mean in this case? What were those "government policy questions" that revealed Crooks as a conservative? There's too much subjectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There are also reports that his parents are leftists, although they bought him a gun. His small donations to leftist groups just a objective episode, the editors don't need to overreact or make excuses for him. I think Wikipedia has been too biased in favor of one side for a long time and needs improvement. Cbls1911 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me but please give a reliable source positing his parents are "leftists". There has been in everything I've seen fairly consistent reporting that his mother identifies as a democrat (a thing few self-identified "leftists" do) and that his father self-identifies as a libertarian Donald Guy (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that some editors are politically biased. They are using vague and contradictory claims from classmates as reliable sources of information, when as discussed, they're very much not and should not be included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

political party should be removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John Hinckley Jr.'s political party isnt listed so it's strange to have his listed. that's not important at all and doesn't help the article any. 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:645A:4640:4027:17E9 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political Parties of Parents Relevancy

Are the political parties of parents relevant? Not much is known about the actual political beliefs of Crooks so I think the section should be much less filled than it is currently. R8cobra (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless it had a major effect on his own personal political stance (which right now is still up for heavy debate), I don't think it should be included as it would be excess and irrelevant. If it doesn't tie in to Crooks, then don't include it. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod Agreed, I am cautious to make the edit myself as this article is red hot with reverts but I would support an edit by someone willing to do so. R8cobra (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP: ONUS controversial changes need consensus to be inserted. One of Crooks's classmates estimated Crooks's political views as "slightly right-leaning".[disputed – discuss] Another of Crooks's classmates said Crooks "definitely was conservative" and "no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side."[disputed – discuss] was also added in over multiple editor's discussions.

If a consensus can't be reached then this is a RFC situation. KlayCax (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And I don't think the political parties of his parents are relevant unless something comes out. I agree with removing that + the aforementioned paragraph. KlayCax (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN about this. Info on the parents should not be included per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPPRIVACY EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir There appears then at this point to be an unanimous consensus against the information being included and this is supported by the above WP references so I will make the edit to remove the information. R8cobra (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I will not be doing that as I do not have 500 edits. R8cobra (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would, but am going to wait until this discussion reaches a consensus. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Weapon

Someone have the exact weapon model ? The infobox only contain the style/type. 74.15.150.131 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what "tuning into" means in this context?

Per the CNN source:

A spokesperson for Progressive Turnout Project said in an email that the group had received the donation “in response to an email about tuning into the inauguration” and that “the email address associated with the contribution only made the one contribution and was unsubscribed from our lists 2 years ago.”

__

Is it possible that he paid $15 to watch a stream of the inauguration, or something to that effect? If anyone is subscribed to their mailing list can you please check for that email on the day of his inauguration? 2601:243:C004:F790:4917:A3F:CE28:C2FF (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are asking Wikipedia editors to perform journalistic legwork, finding out stuff firsthand. The right thing here is to go to CNN's comments section, or use whatever contact mechanisms there are for the people in the byline, and ask the authors of CNN's piece what "tuning into the inauguration" means. The proper people to do the journalistic legwork are the journalists themselves. I suspect that you'll find that they've quoted their source directly because they do not know what the source was saying, either. ☺ But they really should have followed up with their source on what "tuning into" means in the 2020s. Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate any reliable sources that discuss the precise contents of the email. I did find an article on Drop Site News with the author sharing an email he received around the time of the inauguration from the same organisation: source. Some dubious sources have claimed this is the email he received; I have my doubts, but regardless, we must wait for reporting from reliable sources. GhostOfNoMeme 06:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal characterization

The people who knew him best have contested the narrative that he was bullied, quiet, or a loner to an unusual degree. CNN Inquirer In any case, this character sketch follows a vulgar and reflexive (and therefore essentially meaningless and unreliable) trope about shooters. At the very least, the article should take a skeptical stance cognizant of that fact, saying "He has been characterized as X, though this has been contested by Y." Hikeddeck (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• You are duplicating a discussion about contradictions already being had at #Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings. Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the same thing, most people are not even particularly political, especially at his age. It remains dubious whether he was. Following is from the Guardian's blog:

In Bethel Park, where the man who is suspected of opening fire at a Donald Trump campaign rally on Saturday lived with his mother and sister, the houses are small and built of brick, Walmart and Target form central social hubs, and moms watch over their children at a junior league baseball park next to a tributary of the Allegheny river.

Claire, a young woman who had known Thomas Matthew Crooks through his elder sister and who did not provide a last name, said she could not quite believe the boy she had once knew had attempted to assassinate a US president. “He’s so young to want to go do that”, she said.

She said Crooks had had a difficult time socially. “He wasn’t the most attractive-looking and I don’t think he did sports that can add appeal’” she said..."

Claire's straightforwardness here is rather amazing, even if she didn't know him really and he won't hear anymore what he was probably all too aware of anyway. Imagine this is how people usually talk about you, behind your back. Moving away at least a couple hundred miles is about the best option. Provided you have the means, financial or otherwise.

"Jim Knapp, who retired from his job as the school counselor at Bethel Park High School in 2022, said Crooks had always been “quiet as a churchmouse,” “respectful” and kept to himself. He contradicted some statements by former pupils which suggested Crooks had been frequently bullied, telling Reuters he rarely came across Crooks because “he wasn’t a needy type kid.”

Crooks occasionally ate lunch by himself in the school cafeteria, said Knapp, who would engage such students to see if they wanted company. “Kids weren’t calling him names, kids weren’t bullying him,” Knapp said.

Knapp said he never knew Crooks to be political in any way. “Anybody could snap, anybody could have issues,” he said. “Something triggered that young man and drove him to drive up to Butler yesterday and do what he did.”

Finally someone who knows what he's talking about. Maybe an introvert but there's little to suggest he was bullied in a significant way. Likely kept too much to himself and disengaged too far from others as to make that even possible. He didn't care. Can actually be a preventive strategy, whether conscious or not. Like so many people I wasn't unlike this, never got harassed. How to bully a question mark? At this time anything else should be kept out of the article until there's a robust foundation, in particular when it comes to construals regarding "motivations". -199.116.118.201 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

I believe that classmates discussion about Thomas Matthew Crooks should be considered hearsay. They are inconsistent, as some say he was only slight right-wing while others say he was defiantly conservative. Some accounts even say he was apolitical. Even so, the bar of what's considered "right-wing" and "conservative" differs from person to person.

As such, I believe that the only things that should be in the Political Activity section are: "Crooks was a registered Republican, and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18. Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.

"On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue. His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office. According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022." 156.146.74.135 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• You are duplicating a discussion about contradictions already being had at #Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)