Talk:Rust shooting incident

Should something be added about Baldwin's denial that he pulled the trigger?

It seems that Baldwin told Stephanopolis that Baldwin did not pull the trigger. Should this be added? (FairNPOV (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC))

Yes...the claim has been repeated/echoed by other sources, so notability is def established. I think the claim implies that it was a spontaneous fire/slip of the hammer, but we should be very careful in paraphrasing/how it's worded. After that interview, no fewer than 80,000 bearded gun enthusiasts somehow popped up on their youtube channels and gave their take on his claim, saying it was a stretch (the less nice ones said b******). More RS interviews (CNN, etc.) with gun experts seemed skeptical of Baldwin's claim, and said it was likely that he didn't realize his finger was on the trigger when he cocked it, so when he released it, the hammer went down. "I would never pull the trigger" doesn't mean he didn't have it pulled prior to pointing it at her, which resulted in her sealed fate, after his releasing the hammer. It sounds Bill Clinton-ey to me. But we can absolutely include what he said, as long as we make it clear it's his claim. And my hunch is, the experts were in pretty strong unanimous disagreement, and we can include their responses too, assuming we have the sourcing (the RS experts, not the backwoods ones lecturing from their youtube channels, although plenty of them seem pretty knowledgeable). 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment by sockpuppet of User:PeacePeace striked and noted per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article needs expansion with respect to Baldwin's ABC interview. It shouldn't reach a conclusion, but it should take note of Baldwin's claim that he fired the gun without pulling the trigger, and cite a rebuttal. By the way, as a "backwoods expert" who owns 17 guns including one whose action is the same as the one Baldwin used to shoot the cinematographer, I took note of that baseless, smug, arrogant, condescending insult. I reply that we backwoods Bubbas actually know what we're talking about. This is in sharp contrast to whomever puked out that insult. Along those lines, I believed that the death was a matter of civil negligence until I saw that interview. I tested Baldwin's story three times, and could not get my single-action, four-position hammer revolver to replicate what he said he did. I am very far from alone in this regard. People who know single-action revolvers universally scoff at Baldwin's claim.

I realize the ban on research here, and would not suggest that mine be in the article. But someone's ought to be. To put it mildly, it was not the smartest idea for Baldwin to try to float that story in a country with 80-100 million gun owners. So yeah, the "backwoods experts" are dummies, except that we will forget more about guns than non-gunners will know. Any gunner who saw that interview laughed at Baldwin's lie. That said, the article should simply tell both sides of that "triggerless fire" story. I would do it myself, but I stopped editing Wikipedia articles a long time ago after encountering the know-nothing juvenile flash mobs that dominate. From time to time, I'll throw in a comment like this one, knowing that it won't make one single bit of difference. 97.73.100.158 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Prop" gun?

Everybody I know uses the phrase "prop gun" in a way that excludes "real gun". A "prop gun", in the usage of everyone I know, wouldn't be capable of shooting real ammunition with bullets. A "prop gun", to them, is a "fake gun" that meets a movie's or play's requirements. (So, "prop gun" excludes a fake gun carved out of black clay to be used in a bluff.) So, we are at first bewildered when told that someone was fatally shot with a "prop gun". It is apparent to me as I read this talk-page that that is not how industry insiders use the phrase, but Wikipedia isn't being written for industry insiders. I would change "prop gun" to something like

QUOTE:

prop gun (which, in industry parlance, includes real guns (such as this one) used as props)

UNQUOTE

or just change it from "prop gun" to "gun". What would be the loss if "prop" were deleted? Would it make any reader think that a props-department staffer handed Baldwin a gun for a purpose other than its use in a movie, for instance, in case of coyote attack? I think not.2600:8804:8800:11F:8D51:1B8B:3E43:2793 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Absolutely agree about the term. To non-specialists (which is why any encyclopedia exists to begin with), that label is misleading. It implies that the firearms on sets aren't real. This is sometimes the case, but most guns on movie sets are just as real as any other gun. This was the case with the Baldwin shooting, so at the very least that section should be edited to make this clear. 97.73.100.158 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

New Crew Perspective

Per the below article, much of the background statements have been directly contradicted or disputed.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/rust-cast-crew-letter-alec-baldwin-1235059967/

Almost all of the background statements are written to clearly frame the set as unsafe per anonymous sources. However, 24 crew members have signed a letter with their actual names (unlike these "sources") directly attacking that narrative. For example, below are a few excepts.

“Unfortunately, in the film industry, it is common to work on unprofessional or hectic productions to gain experience and credits. Many of us have worked on those types of productions. Rust was not one of them. Rust was professional. We do acknowledge that no set is perfect, and like any production, Rust had areas of brilliance and areas that were more challenging. While we stand firmly with our unions and strongly support the fight for better working conditions across our industry, we do not feel that this set was a representation of the kind of conditions our unions are fighting against,”

They go on to write "the disgruntled few do not represent all of us. On Rust, our working hours were fair and consistent with expectations. Twelve-hour days and turnarounds were standard... Housing was provided as required by the Union. Payments were made, generally on time, and amounts were as agreed upon, per individual or department deals."

What is currently written is below. Furthemore, Terese Davis (signatory to the letter) directly disputes the lack of safety meetings, the lack of hotels (also rejected in the letter), etc.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-defense-repost-terese-magpale-davis-halyna-hutchins-joel-souza-1234866703/

The absence of a medic during the construction of the film's sets was an early concern.[5] Firearms safety protocols were not distributed with the call sheets and were not strictly followed on the set; only three safety meetings for the crew were held during filming, including one on October 21.[a][5][4][19][20] From the start, the production assured crew members that it would cover hotel room expenses. However, at the start of the second week of filming, hotel rooms were no longer provided and crew members were mocked for wanting to avoid a one-hour drive from Albuquerque.[5] Several crew members also cited that they were not being paid and began advocating for safer work conditions.[4][5] A crew member added, "We cited everything from lack of payment for three weeks, taking our hotels away despite asking for them in our deals, lack of COVID safety, and on top of that, poor gun safety! Poor on-set safety period!"[21] Furthermore, before the incident occurred, two prop guns had previously fired a total of three times unintentionally (Baldwin's stunt double had accidentally fired two blanks when he was told a prop gun was "cold", and a young woman had shot herself in the foot with a blank round).[5][4][22] However, the production did not launch an investigation into the negligent discharges and later claimed they "were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set".[23][24] Costume designer Terese Magpale David later said that claims of "unsafe, chaotic conditions are bullshit".[25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3520:11D0:A8DC:DA27:9BB0:EACE (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

With production having been indefinitely suspended on Rust, it's no longer clear that the film actually needs a standalone article as a separate topic from the shooting incident anymore. A separate article about the film can always be restored in the future if the film ever actually resumes production and gets released (which is highly unlikely, but I won't say never) — but we really only need one article here, covering the film and the shooting incident as a single topic, rather than two articles treating them as two distinct topics. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I support merger. The article is short and unlikely to be expanded. It is especially short when overlapping content is taken into account. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a merger. If they ever start the movie back up again we can split them. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

i dont support the merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5701:F6D0:B0DF:938C:90F3:7B03 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide an actual reason for not supporting it, instead of just saying "I don't support it, the end"? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to merge this article into the film article so as to make it easier to keep all of the content of both. I would agree to a merge if all of the content of the film article would be added here. Currently, the content would be the Premise, Cast (could be condensed to a sentence or two), part of the Development, and Spider bite incident sections. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a formal proposal? Either way, I would say no for now. Independent of the other existing, each article could be standalone, and we shouldn't needlessly merge when it really isn't clear which is the "parent" - the specific shooting incident couldn't happen outside the production of the film, but the film's production is not defined by the shooting incident; but the shooting incident has far surpassed the rest of the production in general knowledge and encyclopedic content. Even if the film is firmly cancelled, I don't think either subject becomes so reliant on the other for notability that a merge is warranted. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It isn't about notability. The thing is that the film article is short and unlikely to be expanded (WP:MERGEREASON). It's unique content that doesn't overlap with this article is 1-2 sentences long (spider incident notwithstanding which IMO shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia...). It is simply opportune to combine the two articles into one, the way Super Goku V described above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It is about notability, the way both of us have described it: there is content about the film that is UNDUE at this article but still warrants encyclopedic coverage. If the shooting incident hadn't happened, the film article would still be fine to exist even if not expanded beyond its current status. Notability for inclusion is met, and notability of separate production details is also met. The film was notable enough for inclusion before the shooting incident, so necessarily there will be details which do not belong at the article of the shooting incident and which we aren't just going to delete from Wikipedia because one (a few?) editors think the shooting incident has effectively superseded the movie. If you're desperate for a merge, it should really all go into the film article actually, as the shooting incident could* be seen as derivative to its production, while the wider details of the planned film will never belong in the shooting incident article.
*"could" is also generous. I think especially the wider concerns of safety on film sets that have sprung discussions from this incident make it a separate enough topic that it shouldn't just be treated as a production detail of one film. Any merge would be inappropriate, at least for now. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The production "details" (terse as they are) are already included in the incident article. The small part that isn't included would nit be undue, it would be okay. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? Ignoring the spider bite incident, the plot and cast sections could not be incorporated as they are into the shooting incident article, and would have to be awkwardly stated in an extended background section before likely being removed as undue (same goes for the production section parts on order and timing of casting and the plot's source material); the Baldwin-Souza development process and the related films parts would likely also be removed as too fine detail on something tangential to the shooting incident, as would the budget and pre-production distribution deal unless sources exist that connect these to the shooting incident (I could see sources speculating that budget constraints made firearm safety lax, and if the film gets completely cancelled, some legal issues with distribution already having a paid deal - but these sources do not currently seem to exist) - without the sources, any attempt at connecting such production details to the subject (rather than just vomiting all the movie's finer details into a fluffy background section that would be quickly decimated) would be SYNTH. As in, everything at the film article besides the two sentences on the shooting incident would be rife for removal if someone tried to include in this article; the fact that the film article existed before the shooting incident shows that these details are worthy of encyclopedic coverage - but at the appropriate place. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thus this merger is artificially and needlessly creating potential for problems. Flipping Switches (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't support merger. Flipping Switches (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide an actual reason for not supporting it, instead of just saying "I don't support it, the end"? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with reasoning provided by Kingsif. I see no logic in creating the need to potentially leave out parts of either article to fit the format of the merged one or to resolve chicken-egg problem, when things are OK the way they are now. It's not like we have a goal to have less articles in Wikipedia by 2022. Flipping Switches (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about information being left out as well, but Alalch Emis believes that all can be merged into the article without being undue based on their most recent comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Then they're woefully misguided. It would probably take until the incident is no longer considered current, but even just the cast list will be inevitably removed with edit reasons like "actress who was going to play aunt irrelevant because she wasn't involved in shooting incident"... Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose merger, broadly in line with Kingsif. At the very least, this decision could wait until after Rust either comes out or is cancelled. Tisnec (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the merger because it's about the suspended film itself. We should wait until we hear whatever or not it is cancelled before we go there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be the other way, with this article being merged into the movie article, rather than the latter being merged into the former. My reasoning is because it would be weird to have an article that is presumably about the incident to have all the info on the movie itself as well. Rather, it would make more sense to merge it that way so the article title matches the content of the article better. I think either that, or just no merger at all. Thank you for hearing me out. P.S. I just realized someone else said this, so I agree with @Super Goku V:. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And someone else (me) already said that there would be a need to consider the fact that this incident has far surpassed the movie it stemmed from in notability and coverage. There is no good way to merge the articles. I mean, even just look at the length of this compared to the movie's article, and remember that the main focus of any text at the movie's article should be the movie - this incident should be a footnote there, as it is. Basically, there are two main topics, so two articles. If/when things change, more proposals can be made. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Should it be the other way?

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've heard that there's a discussion about if the article about the movie should be merged into the article about the shooting incident. But, I feel like it should be the other way. For one, I think there would be a lot of people wanting to look at the article to the movie itself. And an article about a shooting incident that tells about the entire movie seems weird. I think the incident article should be merged into one section of the movie article. What do you think of this? Thanks. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed If they are merged, this article should be moved into the other one. This would be consistent with the death of Sarah Jones in Midnight Rider (film), where information on the incident along with all subsequent lawsuits are discussed in the article about the non-canceled movie. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we not have a separate discussion. Put any opinions in the technically-still-ongoing one above. Kingsif (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2022 (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.