Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Matthew Crooks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidents Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).

Page history

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 15 July 2024, see discussion. Keep, 14 July 2024, see discussion. Closed, 14 July 2024, see deletion review. Keep, 14 July 2024, see discussion. This article was nominated for merging with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 20, 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was WP:SNOW-opposed. This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 14 to 20, 2024

No mention in the article that he was an unpaid background actor in a Blackrock ad? https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/business/blackrock-commercial-included-trump-shooter/index.html 142.67.134.132 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to mention it, not sure who removed it or why. There definitely used to be a discussion in talk about it too, unless I'm mistaken. Hella say hella (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it's entirely irrelevant. —Alalch E. 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all good. agreed. Hella say hella (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant by what measure? 142.67.134.132 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looked through the archives, looks like there was a consensus to keep it in the article as noteworthy, then one editor decided no. 142.67.134.132 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:CFA Hello. In the context of this conversation and with respect to this, do you have any response to my following comment about how to treat the BlackRock advertisement in this article:

The conspiracy theory that BlackRock planned the assassination does not belong in this article. This article is a straight-fact biography of Crooks. It doesn't have a "Conspiracy theories" section. Coverage thereof belongs at the article about the event, as their emergence is a noteworthy phenomenon that followed the event. The fact that he appeared in the advertisement is only relevant as the background to the conspiracy theory, it isn't relevant for understanding the topic of Thomas Matthew Crooks as a biographical subject. The sole fact that he appeared in an ad as a high school student, filmed at his high school, doesn't say anything noteworthy about him, and the sources that report on this fact don't say that it has any relevance for understanding him. The BlackRock conspiracy theory is covered at the assassination attempt article. In this article, inclusion only of the fact that he was in the advertisement would be an instance of collecting all available facts about a topic just because they are verifiable, and that is not how we write articles. I oppose including this.

Sincerely—Alalch E. 10:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying but the BlackRock information was not included in the context of the conspiracy theory. It is just a fact. Whether or not people develop conspiracy theories based on that fact is irrelevant to his biography. There have been many in-depth, full-length articles by reliable sources (see: CNN, Reuters, CBS, Business Insider, The Hill, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc.) covering the BlackRock commercial. It would be undue to ommit it entirely, but also undue to have a whole paragraph on it. Two sentences seems reasonable to me. Not including it solely because the fact has generated conspiracy theories, is, in my opinion, leading towards original research. Since the fact appears both in full-length articles in reliable sources and "profiles" of the shooter, it should be included in his biography. It is just like including his winning of a "$500 star award" which has been covered extensively in reliable sources, but has little relevance to his notability or anything else. C F A 💬 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging other editors who have shown an interest in this (see past discussion; diff): @TrangaBellam, Bohbye, and Kcmastrpc: Unlike what the IP above says, I would rather say that there is a consensus not to keep this information in the article —Alalch E. 10:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this topic will undoubtedly come up again in the future, I've started an RfC to help settle the debate and get a consensus that editors can refer back to when needed. Some1 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Seems like it's only brought up in relation to a conspiracy (which has it's own section). Other than that, it's no more than a fun fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hella say hella (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the same is true for BlackRock, where it should not be listed either, See talk page. Bohbye (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we update Crook's picture by a still of the recent Tomko footage, such as this one. We can sort the permission in a few days by contacting the owner of the picture rights. Its a much more recent than the current one which look like Crooks was almost a child.Forich (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works with regards to using potentially copyrighted media. We'll need to find a way to contact the owner to grant permission before we can use it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Kcmastrpc, the Wikipedia rules regarding images are [[1]], and the implementation procedures for non-free ones is [[2]]. I think from my reading of the non-free image rules that editors can simultaneously discuss the picture and follow the steps. The first step is determining the copyright license template which identifies the type of copyright that the original work is under license. I'm on it.Forich (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can obtain permission that’d be fantastic, an image of the perp shortly prior to the attack would be much more appropriate for this article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The person who donated $15 to democratic party was a 69 year old with the same name. The 21 year old who shot at Trump did not donate to the Democratic party. The shooter was a registered Republican. 107.161.193.56 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. C F A 💬 18:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false claim that began on Twitter/X. Please see this CBS News article on the matter. It addresses the false claim, and states: In fact, Federal Election Commission records show that the Bethel Park address on the $15 donation, earmarked to Progressive Turnout Project, is the same street address and ZIP code where the gunman lived.

No reliable source that I have seen is contesting that Crooks made the donation. If you have one, please provide it. GhostOfNoMeme 14:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The reference to his donation to a "voter turnout group" should be edited to specify that ActBlue was the donation recipient. 2603:6080:E00:4F67:5196:445E:87BC:A0FE (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: § Political activities already explains that the donation was made through ActBlue but to the Progressive Turnout Project. I don't think this level of detail is necessary in the lead. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

- It's been 2 months all of the vandals are probably gone

- The amount of edits are slowing down anyways

- 2 edit requests

- Why does it even need protection??? 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking for WP:RFPP to have this discussion, though don't be surprised if it is rejected due to the problems caused when it wasn't protected. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]