Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GhostOfNoMeme (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 14 July 2024 (→‎This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

yearbook photo

It is unclear what year that yearbook photo took place. Can we get a confirmation on whether it was his senior year or another year? Kingturtle = (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that photo has been deleted. Awaiting new version. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I noticed this too. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for the information. ELSchissel (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's being reported by reliable sources. I think it's reasonable to leave it. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

thats not a bad idea IMO NAADAAN (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should be "beliefs", of course. Believes is a whole 'nother word form of fish. ELSchissel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Photo

Perhaps his driver's license picture, as released by NBC News, is the best candidate for a free photo so far. IANAL but driver's license pictures, which are taken by machines, fit a very strict standard under AAMVA standards (p. 34) and hence doesn't allow for any original authorship or creative input; it is uncopyrightable in the U.S. per the Copyright Compedium (p. 17). Maybe the Commons PD-automated template would be a good fit for this. NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good idea Gahror (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, a human being (in this case a DMV worker) still has to initiate the action of taking the photograph, so I would assume it'd be treated like a photograph taken by a photographer with a camera. In that case it'd be copyrighted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's PennDOT. While some U.S. states have public domain release for governmental works, I don't think Pennsylvania is one of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if someone has to click the shutter button, that doesn't constitute creative input especially if they're constrained by AAMVA standards. If there's no creative input in taking the photograph, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot claim copyright on the picture. There are templates like PD-ID-France which are based on this principle. NAADAAN (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Booking photos in the U.S. are taken using a very similar system. We generally consider booking photos to be copyrighted unless released via some other mechanism than automated. Regardless, I've placed the image for deletion on Commons. Whether I'm right or you're right, having an affirmative closure on the issue via a deletion discussion is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

did the wind shoot the bullet? it’s pretty cut and dry Nightmarejessie (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument for the FBI and the Secret Service. BarntToust (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

On July 14, 2024, Brooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He injured Trump and two attendees, and killed one attendee. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team.

Verbiage should be changed to:

On July 14, 2024, Brooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He injured Trump, two attendees and killed one attendee. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. 74.105.228.46 (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Add the photo from the shooting page to the info box

I believe the drivers license photograph image should appear on the infobox Minecraft812 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The file was deleted on Commons. Someone needs to upload a stable, presumably fair-use image of him so it can stay in the article. C F A 💬 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)

Change “Motive: Unknown” to “Motive: Under investigation” Editstobenefit (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... if it's under investigation, then I assume it's currently unknown, no? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

How the fuck did people !vote keep on two different AfDs. This is a useless content fork of the main article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community evidently disagrees. I think the article is noteworthy and valuable, personally. I'm glad it was a vote to keep. GhostOfNoMeme 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelavant to improving the article. We don't need a whole other AfD happening on the talk page. If you don't like the decision, you can always open another WP:DRV. C F A 💬 21:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely should be merged to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E, but give it a week or two to see how things go before starting a merge discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:26F0:4310:2DBA:BA4D:535D:8DB5 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to read the AfD discussion for why WP:BLP1E does not apply (the third condition, which funnily enough explicitly uses the perpetrator of an assassination attempt as an example). But let's not recreate the AfD here. GhostOfNoMeme 21:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks&oldid=1234539761"