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 Berchanhimez (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 15 July 2024 (→‎Inaccuracy of $15 donation.: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)[reply]

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)[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]
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)[reply]
We're relying on what reliable sources say. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do they? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Aaaaand reverting myself because I don't want to sound contrarian. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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]
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)[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]
I feel like the obvious choice would be to change it to "former President". QuicoleJR (talk) 23:45, 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]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

AFD

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks&oldid=1234571516"