:Per [[#Mass shooting categories]], a consensus was reached not to include mass shooting to parts of the article at this time. Editing the attack type would be editing the infobox, which is restricted in this situation. If you still wish to have the infobox adjusted, then [[Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#c-Levivich-20240716170300-Mass_shooting_categories|please review the closing statement above.]] --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:Per [[#Mass shooting categories]], a consensus was reached not to include mass shooting to parts of the article at this time. Editing the attack type would be editing the infobox, which is restricted in this situation. If you still wish to have the infobox adjusted, then [[Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#c-Levivich-20240716170300-Mass_shooting_categories|please review the closing statement above.]] --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
first fix the events sequance
:... he crawled into a firing position due to the slant (too sloped for SS[1]) of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[59] <but two nothern snipers on video[2], at least 40s, pointing guns in his direction while Trump was talking, and openning fire, withouth rescaning for target or reaiming, not before but only after Trump was hit [ALD 0]. (some report for 10 min but I didnt foud video)
...
Which refs[[0-9] are new and nedded for the content?
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.
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 has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2024.
Wikipedia
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
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
Hava Mendelle (July 16, 2024). "Wikipedia's powerful editors: our history is being written by Anon". The Spectator Australia. Archived from the original on July 15, 2024. Retrieved July 16, 2024. For example, take the newly created page Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump and a talk page section below. The section is some 700 words all about how many times Trump's 'raised fist' is mentioned in the article. That is just one section of one article. There are now over fifteen sections on this page and growing fast.
This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Bullseye comments
So tired of citing shooting metaphors.
The current article lede states:
Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".
This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes Political speech § Shooting metaphors to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks.
Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.
Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources covering the incident that also mention the fuller quote, such as the AP:So, we’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. He’s gotten away with doing nothing for the last 10 days except ride around in his golf cart, bragging about scores he didn’t score. … Anyway I won’t get into his golf game. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well some guy took that literally it seems. Reliable sources are important here but we have to find a good balance being Wikipedia and all... Woobab (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement made from the Joe Biden Twitter account. July 8th 2024 "It's time to put a Bullseye on Trump" Referencing a call to action for continued Political Violence. Bullseye is referenced in Webster Dicitionary as the center of a target for archery, shooting, and darts. 75.112.4.134 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No serious person thinks that Crooks saw that tweet and thought "yes sir Mr President" come on. The issue is the relentless demonization of Trump "He's a threat to democracy" "he's a threat to your rights" "he'll be a dictator" "he'll destroy the planet by ignoring climate change" and on and on and on and we're papering over that as "polarization". --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for a new article might be good, but it highlights the issue with the rest of your position. Even if such an article were created, it wouldn't change the public's use of rhetoric, which can be controversial and be the very reason they end up in articles.This site is more about recording what happened, not injecting a desired redirect or correction, no matter how logical or well intended. We can say Biden's use of "bullseye" is normal political discource but then Palin's name appears 9 times in the Tucson article, entirely because her website had a bullseye. I wish I could point out what might be a majority of political discource is people intentionally or unintentionally misconstruing what other people say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shootingCalifornianin (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I largely agree. As I wrote, on reflection what really bothered me was the weight of this statement given by placing it in the article lede. It was a subject for a later section, not the lede. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence yet that Cooks was aware of Biden saying that? He would have to have been aware for it to have influenced his decision. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not be written in accordance with any particular Wikipedian's point of view vis-a-vis the remark. Both the news media and individuals have generated a large amount of attention and discussion around Biden's comments, so I think it meets the WP:NOTE benchmark for inclusion. Glass Snow (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am unable to add it due to the protection level and also because last time i tried, i got a nastygram from an administrator claiming i am an vandal, and a different admin claiming i am on thin ice so i will leave it to others to determine whether to add this material. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really does seem conspiratorial at this stage.
As well as the bullseye comment, Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. I've yet to see any news site mention that in relation to this shooting, but it's something that was said and is arguably as related as the bullseye comment, in that it's pure conjecture and likely had no bearing on the shooter's motive. Just throwing it out there. Caesar35 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesar35:Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. [...] it's something that was said Can you provide a reliable source and direct quote for this claim you just made up? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should assume good faith before accusing someone of making something up. In this case, here is a source. When asked by Sotomayor "The president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?", Trump's attorney John Sauer responded "It would depend on the hypothetical. We could see that could well be an official act." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bidemade this comment, some republicans have highlighted it and it's well covered by the above reliable sources. That's it, what are you opining about "conjecture" and bringing up the Supreme Court? That is a distraction. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's conspiracy to link it directly to the shooter's actions. There's no evidence he even heard of it - I didn't before - or that it in any way influenced him to carry it out. In short, it's conjecture to say Biden's bullseye comment and the shooting were directly related. The reason I threw the Supreme Court arguments in was to prove that point. Theres just as much evidence he could've been influenced by that than Biden's comment, in that there's no evidence for it.
Keep the quote for all I care. The amount of buzz it's received is probably relevant. But make sure to word it so it doesn't imply that's what tipped the shooter over into actually committing the attack.
My suggestion would be to have it under the Conspiracies section, in that some believe Biden's words were a call to literally shoot Trump, rather than a figure of speech, as they almost certainly were. Caesar35 (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this in a different thread. Basic and stick to the facts.
"On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion in a previous thread was having it in the conspiracy section, something to the effect of "During a call with donors on [whatever date], Biden said he wanted "Trump in a bullseye". In the aftermath of the assassination attempt, some members of the Republican party took this as a literal call for Trump to be harmed, with some blaming Biden directly for the attempt".
I don't know if it'd really fit in anywhere else. It's only really relevant in that people took Biden as literally saying he wanted Trump killed, which is almost certainly not the case and this speculation/a "conspiracy theory". Hmm, maybe under Republicans' reactions, in that Biden's words were later criticised/considered inflammatory? Or around the part talking about heightened political tension?
As I said, it's not that Biden said it in the first pace that's up for debate; my issue was with it implying that what he said directly contributed to the shooting. Unless it's proven that the shooter heard what Biden said, and that's what prompted him to commit the attack, such phrasing would be thus speculative. Caesar35 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what source calls this a conspiracy? That is your judgement. I believe putting in conspiracy section is biased by wanting to de-legitimize what is reported by many RS. The two sentences I proposed are very clear. Shall we get an unbiased admin in here? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What section would you like to put it in?
Again, it's conspiracy/misinformation/whatever you want to call it to say Biden ordered the attack by using those words. That's my issue with how it was originally worded in the article. None of those sources above mention it in such a way; merely that various Republicans claim it was. It doesn't matter if a politician says so or thinks it's true, it's still not fact.
Johnson even says in the CNN article above: “President Biden himself said in recent days, ‘It’s time to put a bullseye on Trump.’ I know he didn’t mean what is being implied there, but that kind of language on either side should be called out,”
It seems he also doesn't believe Biden was actually, literally, calling for Trump to be shot by using a fairly common turn of phrase.
Like I said, put it under either Conspiracy Theories (which is no longer there, thankfully. The internet could do with less of that) or under Republicans' reactions. If you're so Hell bent on getting it in the article, then by all means I think an admin's opinion would be best. Caesar35 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put under “reactions, domestic” in fact there is now a part noting that republicans accused Biden of inciting. Can just add the first sentence I had with the “bullseye” quote. That's all that is incremental, not that the article has evolved. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden statements before shooting belong in background
Reliable sources attributing the following statement to Biden on July 8th and associating his rhetoric with the shooting. This belongs in the article.
Biden statement:
"It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye"
The background should have a couple sentences like this:
"On a call with donors on July 8th, Presoent Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting."
you seem very intent on relegating this information to the conspiracy theories section. do you have a reliable source that paints it as such? Daddyelectrolux (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden said those words, but it's a conspiracy theory to say the shooter acted on those words, because there's no evidence they had any bearing on his actions.
is there a reliable source that calls it a conspiracy theory? The reliable sources are attributing the quote to Biden. The reaction to the quote is also reported by reliable sources, It’s quite simple. The background section is for events proceeding. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to see more RS covering this or is the list of CNN, USA today, BBC and WSJ not enough? This legitimate reporting on a relevant fact that they have all covered in their articles. The link you dismissed is covered in the RS. Is it your opinion that the link is "speculative"? I don't see the RS uaing that language. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't even able to properly interpret the sources you're mentioning. The sources aren't reporting that "Biden is responsible," they are reporting that "Republicans ACCUSE Biden for being responsible." You're trying to pass off the latter (an opinion) as the former (a factual claim). Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read my proposed language here and tell me what is not accurate as reported in RS. I slight revised what I put above. Not interpreting anything, just summarizing numerous RS. I haven't proposed language that "Biden is responsible". Please read and be objective.
"On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs in official reactions, I don't see why it would be in conspiracy section; AFAIK nobody is claiming Biden ordered a hit. There's already crazier content there about Republican U.S. representative Mike Collins of Georgia called for a Republican prosecutor to charge Biden for inciting an assassination and very parallel content about Senators Vance and Scott + Leader Scalise generally criticizing rhetoric.
It's probably better to have an actual statement to link back to that's consistently covered in RS rather than vague "X accuses Y of supposedly infallamatory content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little late to the conversation, but agreed that this belongs in the official reactions - as well as the fact that Biden later apologized for the remark, saying that it was "a mistake" to make the comment. That being said, I believe that Republican criticism of the remark is incredibly disingenuous, and that the odds that the shooter acted on Biden's remark was slim-to-none at best, but putting that in the article would be needlessly pontificating.
It needs reduction as the original comment was made before the attack, and all we need is "republicans blamed the attack on a comment made by Biden months before the attack, a claim disputed by both the Bien campaign and others", this is all it deserves, its a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was not "months", it was a few days, and Biden conceded it was a mistake to use the term. this concession should be included in the article, in my humble opinion. "It was a mistake to use the word," the president conceded, but added, "I meant focus on him. Focus on what he's doing." is the full quote from the link from I.am.a.qwerty above. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no? It's nonsense intended to distract from years of incendiary, violent rhetoric from Republicans calling for the deaths of their opponents. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the Democrats or Biden. Trump was shot by a fellow Republican with a gun the Democrats have been trying to ban for years. Of the 350 violent political attacks over the last several years, only three or so were made by leftists. This is a phenomenon of right-wing extremism, and there's no debate over it, the facts speak for themselves. Full stop, end of discussion. Enough with the distractions, the red herrings, the misdirections, and the lies. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA
Pennsylvania does not have unincorporated areas. If it’s outside the city limits of Butler it’s likely part of a township. Dough487200:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled. Butler County, PennsylvaniaRaskuly (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskuly there are no unincorporated places per se in Pennsylvania as per @Dough4872. Boyers is just a community within the incorporatedMarion Township. Townships are incorporated; better cite sources that actually specify Connoquenessing Township instead of "just outside Meridian, Pennsylvania". JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I am not familiar with how Pennsylvania divides itself. My stance then is that this incident should be referred to as being within Connoquenessing Township or near Meridian. Raskuly (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map of that has been added to the article clearly shows that the incident happened on the Butler Township side of the Connequenessing/Butler Township line – therefore it happened in Meridian. Trorov (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trorov: Found the section! Is this based upon the dot on where the stage/specific event happened? One issue is that the local newspapers say it is in Connequenessing Township. If the assertion that it took place in Butler Township (as in the specific site) is to be added, one would need to find a newspaper article saying specifically it took place in Butler Township (otherwise people would have a lot of difficulty analyzing the specific lines and trying to see if the specific site is on one side or the other, and this is why people defer to WP:OR) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill Williams: Hello! Postal address city names often do not match actual locations, and in my view the readers need to be taught this.
We have local newspapers giving the exact location here (similarly, St. Louis County, Missouri, does not coincide at all with St. Louis City but has places with St. Louis postal addresses, but the local newspapers clarify this).
Readers read Wikipedia to gain a comprehensive knowledge and attention to detail, and in my opinion readers should understand that this did not take place in Butler, full stop.
I wrote in the background that it is between the township and Meridian, but the infobox is listing a specific location and its address is Butler. The lead is stating what is notable which is that it is near Butler, as the vast majority of media outlets report it is there. Bill Williams05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I put "between Connoquenessing Township and Meridian near Butler, Pennsylvania" which is technically true because it is between the two, and Butler is separate from Butler Township. Bill Williams05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While technically you are correct, no one who lives there would refer to it as Connoquenessing or Meridian. They would call it Butler. Trump's campaign also called it Butler: "President Donald J. Trump to Deliver Remarks in the Splendid City of Butler, Pennsylvania". So "near Butler" is probably the best description of the location. Nosferattus (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "near Butler" is best for what is in the lead, while the specifics may be buried deep in the article. The local newspapers had more specific descriptions of the location, and so people living there talking to each other would be more specific. However, if they are talking to people from elsewhere, they may feel it's not necessary to use specifics and just call the area "Butler" based off of what the postal address says. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Postal addresses are garbage (GIGO). Will any reader of the article be putting pen to paper and writing a letter, sealing it in an envelope, affixing a stamp, and addressing it to the Butler Farm Show? Trorov (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah gotcha, now I see where I made a mistake. Since it seems that everything took place in Meridian then, I would think just listing that would be the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, non-local RSes get locations flat out wrong and the reason is apparent (relying on US postal service "city names" which don't take into account actual locations), and this needs to be pointed out in every discussion. However, we do need to take into account where the public thinks the event took place, and this is why "near Butler" is perfect for the lead. "In Butler" is 100% incorrect, but "near Butler" is in fact correct and it fits what the reliable sources say. Also, using local RSes (newspapers/media from the area) are more likely to get the actual locations. One local RS stated that the farm show venue is in Connoquenessing Township (which is at least partially true). See also St. Louis County, where various places use "St. Louis, MO" postal addresses but are very much not in St. Louis City, which is independent of the county). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The property is intersected by the border of Connoquenessing and Butler Townships, and the part that is inside Butler Township is in Meridian. Therefore, I think its best to continue with saying "near Butler", but for example it is best to say that on Crooks' article that he died in Meridian because well, he did. Raskuly (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So definitely a slow reaction from security as a whole, which was poor (to say the least) in the lead-up to the assassination attempt. Once the assassination started they did as good as possible though. You can see the surprise of the Secret Service agent who first spotted assassin a split-second before the ear-shot, and then engaged the assassin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c0AEGIMo8 he probably caused the following shots from the assassin to be less accurate. However for the first shot, the only thing that saved the President's life was that he happened to turn his head. If he had not turned his head, the fact that the security didn't take the most basic security precaution of securing the roof, and also knew about the threat a few minutes before... forget worrying about conspiracy theories, I honestly think today's events could have easily spiraled into a cycle of long-term violence. Ikmxx (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up. Business Insider says a police officer climbed onto the roof, saw the gunman, and retreated down a ladder back to the ground shortly before the first gun shots rang out. Ikmxx (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source seems to be the AP, which says the gunman pointed his rifle at the officer. In that case, noping the fuck out of there seems less like "doing nothing" and more like "basic common sense". (Or maybe you could say doing nothing is basic common sense in that case.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, an edit was made that added list-defined references, which broke much of the referencing on the page. I oppose converting this to LDR for this reason and, per MOS:CITEVAR, we should continue using the inline template references. I will work to try to restore the content added between the LDR-inserting edit and the reverting edit. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten more edit conflicts in the last two hours than in the last two months and I'm not even trying to do any politics stuff I'm just fixing the formatting 😔
@Red-tailed hawk: The reference formatting script has an option to remove LDR, if it is that big of a deal as to warrant a gigantic revert, but I don't know why it would be helpful to put them all inline -- the source code for this page with all the refs inlined was completely unreadable. jp×g🗯️03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were all bare URLs or light citation templates it'd be one thing, but with the archive URLs (which is the only way for people to verify the (subscription required)s) it's a total disaster. Like, this is the source for a three-sentence passage:
According to Butler County district attorney Richard Goldinger, an alleged perpetrator and an audience member were killed.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said two people are dead, including an apparent shooter. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713232323/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> At least one other person is in critical condition.<ref name="casualties">{{Cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Chris |last2=Lawther |first2=Fran |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Donald Trump is 'fine' after being rushed off stage at rally amid possible gunshots – latest updates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |access-date=July 13, 2024 |work=the Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=July 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714015033/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PowellShelton>{{Cite web|last1=Powell|first1=Tori B.|last2=Shelton|first2=Shania|last3=Meyer|first3=Matt|last4=D'Antonio|first4=Isabelle|last5=Tucker|first5=Emma|last6=Yeung|first6=Jessie|date=July 13, 2024|title=Live updates: Trump injured in shooting at Pennsylvania rally that left at least 1 dead {{!}} CNN Politics|url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|access-date=July 13, 2024|website=CNN|language=en|archive-date=July 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713222828/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Rep. [[Ronny Jackson]] (R-Texas) told Fox News that his nephew was shot in the neck.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
I mean, there's probably a solid month of edit wars already booked for this article, so I don't know if there is space here for a reference format argument. I guess my screed here is that it's extremely stupid that we have to deal with unreadable shit like this when there's a perfectly-functional alternative because nobody can be arsed to fix basic functionality in VE. It's especially dumb because it's not like LDR is some newfangled thing -- it was already four years old when VisualEditor was introduced, and VisualEditor itself is now eleven years old. jp×g🗯️03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No -- it had nothing to do with that. The byte difference was because the templates were vertically spaced, e.g. instead of
<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
they were formatted like
<ref>{{Cite web
|last = McGraw
|first = Meridith
|last2 = Allison
|first2 = Natalie
|date = July 13, 2024
|title = Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting
|url = https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
|url-status = live
|access-date = July 13, 2024
|website = Politico
|archive-date = July 13, 2024
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
}}</ref>
. So that the vertical space increase didn't make the source code even more impossible to read or modify, I reformatted it to use WP:LDR, so that all the references would be moved to the bottom of the article instead of being plopped directly between the sentences of prose text. The reason this doesn't work in Visual Editor is because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided it doesn't matter if the default editor on Wikipedia can work without breaking when used to edit Wikipedia articles. jp×g🗯️03:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just switched only one section to list-defined (international reactions), which section was literally impossible to edit and the highlighter was broken. @Red-tailed hawkWP:CITEVAR does not apply to selectively switching some of the references to list-defined. CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored. List-defined is commonly done for tables, infoboxes etc. —Alalch E.14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEVAR, under the "To be avoided" subheader, does include changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. As such, I don't think that CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored holds here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Yeah, alright. I will move them back, which should be fine now because of the particular cosmetic formatting I've added to that section in the meantime making it easier to see what's going on. —Alalch E.14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I have to note here that that part of CITEVAR is not good. It indirectly means that list-defined references should never be used, because articles are basically always created not using them, and suggests completely unnecessary uniformity (either all are defined in the body or in the reflist -- bit of a dichotomous thinking moment). It is not consistent with how, sometimes, very justifiably, ibx, table and list cites are list-defined to make the content more humanly editable (while the prose cites are left alone). The result for the reader is the same, so this is just about making our lives easier. —Alalch E.15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that part of CITEVAR does is ask people to go to the talk page and get consensus to change the citation style. Per the guidance, if you think that a particular citation style is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions
Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm
I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a topic for an article about Elon Musk's political donations as it stands. Besides that, we need to wait for someone to say that Musk is doing his usual nonsense. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning)00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 193 countries on earth, each with many leaders. Javier Milei and Benjamin Netanyahu saying they offer condolences do not have lasting impact on politics. Unless the media hyperfixates on any specific leader's comments, they are trivia or clutter. We have set a very low bar to entry by allowing one line responses from even previous world leaders. When we mention Biden's responses, that is because it is an extension of the US government's attitude and because it will be highly covered. The same will likely not be true of Kier Starmer. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are politicians mouthing platitudes. That is the job of politicians, and deserves no more mention than any other non-encyclopedic topic. Abductive (reasoning)01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of a single realistic scenario where this would be necessary. The point remains that we need to prune this section down to three or four sentences max. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions of world leaders are relevant. The reactions of former world leaders (e.g. Liz Truss, who was in the office for less than two months), and Opposition Leaders (e.g. Pierre Poilievre) isn't. Luminism (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you on that last part. Hopefully we can get more support so this doesn't turn into WP:WAR. I beg to differ on the first part, and I suppose we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. Again, my reasoning is that their thoughts do not impact politics in either country. This is a national event, and unless/until other countries take it as a cue to update policies or treat the US a different way, this is politically irrelevant. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responses section is the largest section in this article at 12,983 bytes. It is continuing to grow because we are allowing additions too liberally. Please use this area as a discussion section for this topic. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few edits trimming down this section. It appears to be a bunch of copy paste tweets and other irrelevant information. The primary topic of the article is the shooting not the reactions. SKAG123 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this. RFK needs to be the subject of like two NYT op-eds about this specifically (even one) for this to be notable. It will take months. Same for Elon. Right now they're just some schmucks. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But have they actually lent that heavy influence? Musk can say that he likes an anime today. If we don't see a spike in people watching it and talking about it crediting him, he has no connection. His PAC donations are an interesting lead, but they precede the shooting. Only if he donates more now will it be notable. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions. Right now, it is at what I hope is the peak size. 17k bytes is excessive when nobody is doing anything more substantial than saying "sending love and prayers xoxo such tough times" Ornov GangulyTALK16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a reactions section, I see a responses section. And the responses by politicians is quickly bordering on lunatic fringe. Seriously, claiming the radical left and the corporate media is working together? And claiming Biden should be held responsible? Just total lunatic fringe nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lunatic fringe is what has more longevity here. People are talking about them disproportionately. We're keeping RFK off unless he suggests that the CIA tried to kill Trump. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a separate page called "Responses to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" which would have all the responses collected on it. This page would be reserved for the "big ones." BootsED (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in anyway astonishing or even notable that politicians are chiming in to say that they are against people shooting at politicians? Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Hardly any reactions besides those of Biden, Harris, Shapiro, and maybe Trump's core team are notable on their own. They set precedents for political relations and local rule. If we make another article just for this, it would be pointless and begin a debate there about how much is too much in an already unnoteworthy article. Ornov GangulyTALK17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did previously endorsed democrats. But he never was a democrat politician. He just was an investor trying to get political support for his investments.
It is only in the past few years that he began to make statements about politics on a very regular basis, even more since he bought Twitter. And during all this time, journalists always described nearly all of those statements as leaning towards Trump. Dumbleporte (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add comments from Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver
Comments from the Oliver should probably be added to the Responses category.
Might read something like "Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver extended well wishes to the former president, saying 'Political violence is never the answer, no matter how divided we may be.'" Abbyfluoroethane (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a WP thing about how it's easier to keep adding to an article than to trim it. There's no discussion with them often because they don't go to the talk page, but if we remove it, it'll become a huge thing. Ornov GangulyTALK17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the reactions section is a long paragraph. I suggest we make it a table and then if I understand correctly a map can then be autogenerated of the nations with responses. ItzSwirlz (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a very effortful workaround to a problem that exists only because we are ignoring the discussions here to keep adding international reactions. This should be two sentences maximum until and unless a foreign leader makes a substantive change to their own security as a result. Georgia is possibly the only exception to this rule because they are making huge political claims. Ornov GangulyTALK17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way, way too long, and efforts to discuss it are being ignored
The reactions/responses section continues to grow rapidly. Since yesterday, I would argue that progress has been made. The intro paragraph is good, Trump and U.S. Officials' reactions give due weight and are relevant, but the International leaders and Others sections are a bit wanton. Why do we care about Broglio? Evidence of people listening to these influential people or them making substantial contributions to Trump's campaign are the only things that would validate mentioning them.
43,717 bytes. 19k of which are just the international reaction. This is absurd.
Elon donated money to Trump before the shooting, but right now he is offering platitudes. Endorsement here is not meaningful because he has already endorsed Trump on Twitter. Why does Bezos even matter? They need to do more than speak. The President earns a mention because his words set a precedent for the country, and because he is caught up in the accusations of conspiracy.
International leaders are not doing anything about the shooting, nor are they offering anything but words to Trump. Irakli Kobakhidze is the exception, undue weight be damned, because it is part of his conspiratorial politics. Who cares what Finland thinks? Israel is not changing their policies based on this. People can find this information any way they want. We have set a horrible standard in allowing everything in. This section should simply be "Many heads of state condemned the shooting. K-I-S-S.
Much of this section will undoubtedly be merged into the Conspiracy theories section once time passes. Let's set standards now because editors are avoiding the talk page and just putting more information in. Ornov GangulyTALK20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. The reactions and conspiracy sections, especially the international reactions section is entirely too long for the article. Should we move them both to the same article or to separate articles?
If it's notable that "Trump was seen by many Americans as a living martyr after the event", it is also notable that many Americans expressed regrets that he survived the attempt. Is there any particular reason for which we are limiting information about the public reaction to views that are considered savory in mainstream politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.89.202 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, the only people saying anything publicly along the lines of "I regret the shooter missed" are either 1) retracting it quickly after due to blowback, or 2) not exactly notable people that Wikipedia should cover? I also haven't seen any credible sources saying that it's a widespread view.
I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say I don't know know anyone who is happy the shooter missed. Granted, I mostly know queer people who are staring down having all of their rights being stripped in away in the next four years because this guy couldn't aim slightly to the left, and for whom this all feels a bit 1933. I think it makes sense that it's hard to find news sources reporting on this, but it's not hard to, e.g., browse through the latest posts with the #KillTrump hashtag on X and find this sentiment being expressed, despite censorship and fear of recriminations. Somewhat more difficult is finding the same sentiment being expressed more covertly, because obviously it's hard to search for it by design, but there's a good deal more of that. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are deviating widely of what is expected of wikipedia and its editors.
I understand that. It is a frustrating restriction, though. It means that I read this article and am presented with the impression that America unanimously and vociferously celebrated the moment when the fate of me and everyone I love was set in stone; that no one was afraid for us; that we ourselves cheered on as the man empowering the people who want us dead escaped the consequences of his actions unharmed. I thought that this country would always be a safe place for me to live. It is becoming clear that in fact, it would throw me and everyone I care about under the bus to avoid discomfort. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article serves as one, though, because it reads like a press release from the Trump campaign. It may as well begin, "Everyone on Earth adores Donald Trump and fully supports everything he does. Here are a hundred or more pieces of evidence to that effect." 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reframe this issue in a way that might be more helpful. Considering the second pillar, how does Wikipedia deal with the issue of the available sources not affording a neutral point of view? If it is the case that "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority" but it is not "easy to name prominent adherents" - as in this case, where the possibility of naming prominent adherents is less viable for fairly obvious reasons - how does Wikipedia handle that? 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in my last comment below, if RS comment on it we can, if RS do not we can't so find some RS comments on this, or get the policy changed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where has Trump said he wants you do die?
I'm talking an original quote. Considering how mainstream media even on both sides distorts pretty much everything, an original quote with day, time and location where he said it would be good.
Also, as a general rule, I never wish anyone dead. Even people who outright hate me. I very much hope every one finds the true source of Joy. Nickalh (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a "not nice" reaction that has RS, we can consider adding it. It likely wouldn't be unless the person is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue for us to include it, it would have to be sourced to RS saying it, thus they have noticed it, thus we should, if it can't be sourced to RS this is just soapboxing and needs hatting. So it is down to those who want to include something about this to find RS backing up their edits, or dropping the stick. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the photo keeps disappearing from the infobox -- there are some technical issues with edits getting messed up and repeatedly colliding with each other and destroying changes, but I feel like this picture has vanished like five or six times already. It is true that it's a fair-use image, and there is a FfD open for it due to copyright issues, but the procedure for ongoing FfDs is emphatically not "go through and rip images out of articles with a steak knife". Please do not remove the photo unless it is actually deleted at the FfD. jp×g🗯️05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that, besides the FfD, there is also the issue of this specific picture being non-neutral for the article's infobox, as it depicts Trump striking a pose in the aftermath of the shooting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As numerous editors have mentioned that is not how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't a non-neutral photo, it's respecting notability and showing what the vast majority of the media is covering. It is just like Battle of Iwo Jima showing a "non-neutral" pose, among plenty of other examples. Should we change Wikipedia precedent just for Trump? Bill Williams06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear to God I didn't see your comment when I was typing out mine. I am kind of embarrassed that we used the same photo as an example, it feels like showing up to a party with the exact same costume as somebody else 😅 jp×g🗯️06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not really our fault if the photo incidentally makes him look cool. It may be worthwhile to compare File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg, a different historic photo of an assassination attempt, which happens to make the Otoya Yamaguchi look really cool (even if he was a deranged piece of shit, as can be seen by the fact that the photo depicts him in the middle of murdering a guy). File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg which makes the United States military look unbelievably cool -- so much so that they've used it in recruitment materials for a bajillion years afterwards -- but I don't think that using it at Battle of Iwo Jima is propaganda, it's just the most recognizable image that came from that battle (indeed, per ja:硫黄島の戦い, both sides agree that it's a dope photo).
Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not generally in the business of formally endorsing governments or militaries or politicians. But I think that, in the business of documenting history and the world we live in, it's appropriate to use the most iconic images, which are the most widely understood and associated with the stuff we're writing about. jp×g🗯️06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely iconic, just like the one where he took the chiefs of staff for a walk to the church across from the White House and waved a Bible around. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that situation (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church), we use a public domain White House photo, Creative Commons licensed images (Ashburton House fire), and a public domain video report from Voice of America, among other later images. People discussed his actions that day, not the individual photos. Fast-forward ten years, are people going to be discussing the photo itself, or Trump's fist pumping? -- Zanimum (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I question the use of this image as fair use, and also it being "the image". We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here. I'm also not seeing this photo very consistently - a lot of news sources are using other images, such as [3], [4], [5], and [6], all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here." Any images taken from the event would be valuable. Why would anyone give it up for free? Trade (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG the article describes how the image is used by his allies, and influencing his public image. The image is appropriate to use in the public image section. As the lead image of the article I would say it is breaching NPOV. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion here and over on the FFD, I've been bold and moved the image to the point in the article where the image is being specifically discussed, in line with the NFCC and fair use, and the emerging consensus on the FFD discussion. Likely to be the less of the evils here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest something along these lines: it seems like the main issue comes from it being in the infobox specifically, but there is no real reason that it needs to be in the infobox specifically. I think it is better to have it down further. jp×g🗯️10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcoolbro I think the consensus here is clear that the usage in the infobox isn't supported, and I don't see what an RfC will add given the mess the FFD discussion has become with people who aren't used to working with copyright. I can go through the article history later to ping those restoring it to get them to contribute, but I can't really work this out on mobile! Mdann52 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a stable image on the page? Maybe through an RfC? The image has been replaced again, this time with an obvious copyright violation that is just going to be deleted on Commons. CFA💬19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please count me as being extremely strongly in favor of any image arrangement whatsoever -- I do not care even slightly -- so long as people quit slapboxing each other moving the pictures around constantly, and the pictures quit getting randomly removed over and over. jp×g🗯️07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA.Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA. I've found some footage which is probably more illustrative of the assassination. It shows Trump being escorted to his car by the secret service right after the assassination attempt. The footage was provided by VOA (I found it on the Albanian channel so thats why the text is in Albanian) and was not attributed to an external source, so as far as I am aware it is the most illustrative free content recording of the event. Perhaps it should be placed at the top of the article instead?
Anybody is free to edit it and remove the watermark. But even with the watermark, it's still highly relevant to the article and should be included. ―Howard • 🌽3313:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The clip was used in the video without attribution in the form of a watermark, whereas every other clip in the video was attributed to the respective providers (AFP, Reuters, etc.), so I assumed it was created by VOA themselves. I will try and see if any original of this video can be found. ―Howard • 🌽3313:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can restore it no problem. The YT video is under a CC license, but it also includes a boat load of obviously fair use content. The VOA thing only covers content that is the original creation of VOA. GMGtalk13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: Yeah, you gotta be careful with YouTube. A lot of the stuff is just uploaded by some intern or something who doesn't necessarily take into account things like fair use or derivative works. GMGtalk14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing raised-fist photo
Per WP:NFC#UUI number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). Ergo, we should remove the image of Trump pumping his fist from this article right? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussions here about the use of the image seem to have stalled for over a day (not long in the general Wikipedia case, but long on this high-attention page), and the point you raise is valid. Yes we should remove the image from here so long as the image has its own article. This is a copyright concerned, and ought not be overruled by people's liking of it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't there just need to be a second NFCC template at the image's information page? Fair-use images can be used in more than one page, can they not? jp×g🗯️06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp -- it looks like there IS a second NFCC, so I don't think there's a fair use basis to remove it from here. I am not familiar with the proper channel for disputing an improper NFCC rationale so I cannot give any guidance on that (I mean, maybe it is talk page consensus, who knows). jp×g🗯️06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
..through a magical cocktail of chance and Vucci’s excellent eye, this scene with the close-knit human group under the stars and stripes echoes Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph of US Marines Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima in 1945. Both pictures portray an embattled collectivity with the stars and stripes triumphant above them. A similar scene was invented by Emanuel Leutze in his 1851 painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. This photograph joins those timeless patriotic images. It would not be the same without Old Glory. The American flag is the best-designed in the world, its abstract beauty striking and poignant in any setting. Here it is surrounded by violence and fear, as in the US national anthem: Trump makes his defiant call to fight on with the star-spangled banner perfectly situated parallel to his fist.
Presently, we don't explain why the images were praised, and a short explanation for why seems entirely WP: DUE for the article.
There should be some explanation for why the images were classified among the greatest works of political photography ever. Vox, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other news organizations have gone and made similar statements. Would you be okay with wording that gives an alternative description of the ideas portrayed in the paragraph? This is obviously a concept that deserves at least a brief mention and I'm open to suggestions. KlayCax (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an overreliance on quotes and I see you've done the same (and had it objected to) on Vance's bio. Not to mention this is the article on the assassination attempt, not the article on the photograph. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more info under the 'misinformation' category
I see a lot of people posting that it was an inside job, talking about how it took the Counter Assault Team a "long time" to respond and "let him climb to the roof" or that "they waited till Trump was down to shoot". Should this be added? Moirrey22 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article on disinformation is currently cited as follows in the article "On social media, there were widespread claims by left-wing accounts stating that the event was a false flag, and that Trump was not shot. According to BBC News, "lots of the most viral [misinformation and conspiracy theories], came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views."" If one were to ignore half the article, that might be considered a neutral summarization. The entire section seems to be based entirely on the author quoting random youtube comments as well as a tweets that was deleted with the author apologizing. After that follows a section on right-wing conspiracies which got many times as many views and include an actual Congressman blaming Biden. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyr7pyd0687o) At least from what I've seen, most of the false flag comments came from ideologically confused right-wingers or not overtly political conspiracy enthusiasts. One notable sentiment echoed on the left was that this incident, and the iconic photo, would almost certainly assure a Trump victory. (Not sure if theres good articles on that yet). Another factor is that efforts to replace Biden as the democratic nominee seem to haven faltered after the shooting, which is a notable consequence (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democratic-effort-replace-biden-comes-standstill-trump-rally-rcna161751https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-democrats-scramble-after-trump-rally-shooting-upends-campaign-2024-07-14/). Kremlin statement should probably also be included (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-gloats-over-shooting-trump-has-bidens-balls-in-his-hand).
This is a long-winded way of saying this is not a neutral summary of the article and the whole section needs work. — jonas (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources note it, @Jonas1015119:. The section starts off by saying: BBC News noted the current normalization of both across the political spectrum, noting that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe". What exactly is objectionable here? There's never a claim that "left-wing conspiracy theories were a majority" or a minority. KlayCax (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole section is silly: do we really need a compilation of times that some guy on social media said something dumb, and then a tally of how many of them were libs? Should we go to the article for Chicago and make a huge section called "harmful misleading narratives" and then list all the people on Twitter who said it was in Indiana and not Illinois, which was baseless untrue damaging evidence-free extremely dangerous misinformation thoroughly repeatedly discredited disproven and debunked by expert fact-checkers? Who cares? jp×g🗯️20:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include a conspiracy theory section in other articles. Two paragraphs is entirely WP: DUE. It's received overwhelming attention in WP: RS's and it's going to be something remembered for a long, long time.
We don't have to think about it very hard to notice that people often say stuff online about ongoing breaking-news events, which turns out to later be untrue, and this is not really a coordinated action, or evidence of societal decay, or part of some sinister scheme. Like, do we need to accompany every single news event with a running feed of "at 1:45 PM, some guy on /pol/ said it was yet another perfidy of the Jew, meanwhile at 1:49 PM @hoxhaistcatgirl said on Twitter it was another fake KKKapitalist action movie staged by the united snaKKKes of ameriKKKa, make sure to get all your news from a reputable source like the New York Times, special introductory offer of just $4.99 per month"? These people say the same crap every day, and for that matter so does the newspaper (e.g. "you should buy a subscription to us!"). jp×g🗯️21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples have nothing to do with the content in question. At least question the content, not theoretical examples. That's why I repeated that you're overthinking it, or arguably not thinking critically enough. Overall it seems like a reasonable summary of conspiracy theories from a diverse perspective, aside from some unnecessary additions; "LinkedIn co-founder...", "Alex Jones livestreamed...", and "Georgian prime minister...". No offence but that's how you criticise content, rather than speculating theoretical exmaples. CNC (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting to remove this also, or return the other examples? Bare in mind it's irrelevant how influential Reid Hoffman is, if there is only one source regarding this content (thus unlikely to be due). I'll remove Jones for now, for balance, as specific individual opinions aren't necessary. CNC (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Jones, Hoffman isn't someone who is just running his mouth and dabbling in a conspiracy theory. He actively pushed reporters to consider the attack as staged. Warrants inclusion imo.— hako9 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's best to stick to weight of RS and summarise as such, but you do you. I'm not here for an edit war so be bold. CNC (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question of edit warring over this. We disagree on a point. That's perfectly fine. I won't restate. — hako9 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's conceivable that a section on social media rumors could be warranted, but repeatedly editing everything about it (including this talk page section header) to push the sensationalized POV buzzword "misinformation" I think is completely unnecessary. jp×g🗯️22:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your idea of "POV buzzword". RS clearly identifies conspiracy theories and misinformation, I don't know where you got the idea of "rumours" from. What RS do you have that describe this predominantly as rumours, rather than conspiracies and misinformation? CNC (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours". CNC (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This needs immediately reverted ASAP, @CNC:. He just turned the section into a textbook WP: BLP violation.
Please stop edit-warring, and please stop lying about what the edits do: you have, multiple times, done reverts to 'remove BLP violations' that do not actually remove the sentence you claim is libelous. jp×g🗯️00:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor recently removed "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" from the section and changed it into a version that suggested that there were valid theories that this event, among other things, was a false flag planned by Donald Trump and a right-wing "deep state" in the Secret Service. This is a textbook violation of WP: BLP and I reverted it under exception #7 of WP:3RRNO: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." This is a blatant violation of policy and is borderline libelous. We should absolutely not amplify any of this or give it credibility. These claims have already been debunked by multiple sources. I don't want to start an edit war here, nor am I asking for anyone to be punished, but this is grossly irresponsible and everyone involved in this definitely knows better: the involved editors making these changes - judging from their long history on Wikipedia and contributions - should absolutely know about WP: BLP before making a change like this. Pinging involved editors @CNC:, @JPxG:, @Hako9:. Also asking for other editors feedback. Thank you. KlayCax (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wildly incorrect claim, and you are completely out of line by falsely accusing me of "giving it credibility". The edit I made mentioned, multiple times, that the claims were unverified and untrue; in fact, I added this, in a place where there had previously been a meaninglessly ambiguous soup of buzzwords. jp×g🗯️23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes absolutely do give it credibility. Changing "misinformation" (which isn't a buzz word) and "conspiracy theories" (which isn't a buzz word) to "rumors" (which implies that the claims might be true) implies that the claims might be true.
Not only that: but then you reverted back (on a WP: BLP issue no less) despite multiple editors telling you to get consensus on talk.
No: you are lying. Here is the text of my revision.
Rumors on social media
Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media. According to The Washington Post: "As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of [left-wing] conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right."
BBC News said that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe. According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views". Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump.
On X, NBC News said that conspiracy theories "gained traction" and "flourished" in the minutes afterwards, with the word "staged" becoming the second-highest trending topic immediately after "Trump". Right-wing conspiracy theories were also posted. "Antifa" also became a top trending topic after posts on X blamed the shooting on a "prominent Antifa activist", falsely identifying him as "Mark Violets" using a photograph of Marco Violi, an Italian soccer vlogger. QAnon-related accounts shared names of high-profile Democrats and Republicans, accusing them of colluding with the CIA.
The text says: "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media."
That directly implies that many of the claims made in the subsection are unverified but have significant plausibility. Multiple editors (including me) interpreted it that way. So it's not a ridiculous claim. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not mad at you, or accusing you of lying, or anything else, and I asked for this to be discussed on talk before any reversions were made. It's definitely true that unverified (but plausible) claims have been made about the event.
But by renaming the section from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "rumors" and without specifying which events have been debunked - while suggesting to many viewers that some of the wild claims listed are plausible or rumors that may have happened - it unambiguously crosses over into WP: BLP territory. Particularly on the extraordinary nature of the claims against a well-known figure. KlayCax (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're invoking 3RRNO over
−
Manypeoplepostedincorrectorunverifiedclaimsabouttheincident on social media.
+
[[Misinformation]] and [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] have spread wildly on social media.
Yes; they have been continually reverting to this version and refusing to explain why. I have just taken out the section entirely, so maybe we can discuss this on the talk page rather than 5RRing on the article (e.g. creating ECs for everyone else trying to edit it) jp×g🗯️00:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".
Your changes imply that the claims are rumors or misinformation. Making the claims made in the conspiracy section sounding like credible "rumors" about Trump. That's a clear WP: BLP violation. KlayCax (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.
"Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
"Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)
The edits you made, as noted above, could easily be read (and I interpreted this way as well/along with CNC) that there are "unverified claims" that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" within the Secret Service (along with the other claims made) are presently unverified but plausible. That's massively problematic to say the least. This is exactly a case where "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." applies. I asked you to respond in a civil manner on talk. I definitely didn't lie. I simply asked for this to be discussed on talk before what looked to multiple editors (including me) as a massive violation of policy.
So, you're claiming 3RRNO for using rumors rather than misinformation and conspiracy theories? Where is there a suggestion that any were true, especially dealing with a false flag? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) The removal of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" with "unverified claims" and "incorrect claims" (see above)
2.) The claim that this is a WP: NPOV violation. (See here.)
Note that the original edit he made completely removed any mention that it was debunked, and left this paragraph, under a section that was renamed to "rumors on social media": According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views".[178] Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump. I would call the practical effect, even if not in intention, a clear case where WP: BLP comes into play. KlayCax (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bring that to BLPN, which you should anytime you're using BLPRESTORE, I think you'll find there is little support that what you're describing is the clear and unambiguous BLP violation severe enough to excuse edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested content for "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" for more objective presentation of data concerning the rumors and misinformation across the political spectrum:
In the aftermath of the incident, social media platforms were flooded with unverified claims and conspiracy theories from across the political spectrum.[1] According to media reports, the spread of these theories highlighted a growing distrust in mainstream institutions and a tendency for people to seek information from partisan commentators and influencers.[2]
The rhetoric has ranged from people across the political spectrum concocting 'false flag' conspiracies and even blaming innocent people for either committing this crime or inspiring it, and inciting fear of a civil war.[3][4][5]
Fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets worked to debunk these claims, emphasizing the lack of evidence for any conspiracy theories. Misinformation experts are calling on the public not to share unconfirmed information.[6]
What's "non-objective" about it? We don't need to say "according to media reports" (which is verbose and vague). The other suggested changes are even worse, obscuring what the articles state. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ [misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online. misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online.] {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Needless to say, all these so-called "rumours" are described as either conspiracy theories, misinformation, or otherwise condemned/identified as disinformation (ie intentional misinformation, as opposed to potentially unintentional). I even searched for "Trump assassination rumours" and there was only the BBC article referenced above, that as identified refers to "false" or "unfounded rumours" - so as to avoid the implication that they could be true.
This seems good. I would propose we use the section previously in the article as a template, since there does not seem to be any consensus substantiating the alleged BLP concerns (e.g. that calling something an "incorrect claim" meant we were endorsing it, and therefore violating BLP).
I am not sure what the significance is of repeatedly quoting specific words (e.g. "rumor", "misinformation", "unsubstantiated claim") -- I assume this is related to the extremely long chain of (untrue) accusations made in the BLPN thread that I was trying to somehow whitewash or justify the claims by calling them "incorrect" or "untrue" rather than, specifically, the word "misinformation" verbatim. jp×g🗯️14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source analysis is so we can decide on the best header and description for the section. Based on weight of sources, I suggest "Conspiracy theories and misinformation", as "rumors on social media" isn't referenced by RS (or even accurate). There's an argument for "Conspiracy theories and disinformation", but I think it's best to play it safe as not all the misinformation is described as such.
The previous section could be used as a template, but in retrospect only two reliable sources (BBC/NBC) of two dozen were used (the other two I'm not convinced about), so starting from scratch using the wealth of RS available might be a better idea. It "just" needs someone motivated to go through the sources and write a summary based on what's due. Given the number of sources available, no doubt most of it won't be due for inclusion unless referenced multiple times. There's enough sourcing on this topic it could even be a standalone article at this point, if editors believe there should be more indepth coverage available. I'm not convinced but not opposed either.
I figured that you were collecting these sources to write the article, not solely to insist on a specific phrase being used as a section header. I have to admit I am still rather mystified as to the extremely-literal approach you insist is required here, and nowhere else. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that strictly mandates the use of verbatim words from newspapers, and forbids the use of any summary/paraphrase/synonym whatsoever. Per MOS:W2W, there is quite a bit of language we are supposed to be actively avoiding, specifically editorial language and journalistic jargon. For example, in your list of headlines, there is lots of stuff that would obviously be extremely inappropriate to write in a Wikipedia article.
"conspiracies outpaced reality"
"conspiracy theories flood the internet"
"unleashes a flood of misinformation"
"disinformation swirls"
"sparks flood of wild conspiracy theories"
I understand that these phrases are florid, emotionally evocative, and that they give a compelling, dramatic image of a dangerous threat. However, it is explicitly the purpose of Wikipedia's house style to avoid florid language that evokes emotionally compelling, dramatic images. This is the exact opposite of what we are supposed to be doing!
Indeed, in one of the versions of the section that was repeatedly restored, it said not only that conspiracy theories were "posted on social media", but that they were -- direct quote -- "spread wildly" [sic]. This is, to me, blatantly editorializing and unencyclopedic; that's why I had started to copyedit it (I was not finished, as I was actively prevented from doing so). I am strongly opposed to the idea of having a section in the article that uses gimmicky language like "spread wildly", such as the one that you've repeatedly attempted to restore. jp×g🗯️16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I agree that these (bolded) descriptions are not encyclopedic and that these descriptions shouldn't be included, so no arguments there. "Spread wildly" would be better written as "spread to X number of users" or simply "became widespread". It does remind of an argument I had a long-time ago over the use "spread misinformation" vs "posted misinformation". The former implies the dissemination of misinformation, the latter implies only publishing it, whereas there is a distinct difference. But otherwise, this has nothing to do with what I proposing regarding the header or otherwise description or the section.
For reference sake I didn't take issue with certain copy-editing that you undertook, for me it was based on the header description, as well as unncessary removal of a basic summary. Unless the sources state "unverified claims", we shouldn't be implying this. To clarify also, I never attempted to repeatedly restore any gimmicky language - you will find no diffs of this, so no need for accusations. To the contrary, I suggested that a section should be written from scratch from a batter pool of reliable sources.
I think it's best to try and get to bottom of this, so as to explain issues with inaccurate language. No one is suggesting to use verbatim language, but simply to use the language which is most accurate. Here are some Oxford Language definitions for context(*):
Rumor: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth".
Misinformation: "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Conspiracy theory: "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon."
This should make it quite clear the difference between the three terms. When reliable sources document false information "deliberately intended to deceive", then we shouldn't be describing it as "uncertain or doubtful truth". The former confirms the claims as false as well as the intent, the latter describes a level of ambiguity with lack of intent. This is unquestionably not a question of using buzzwords, but accurate use of language from an encyclopedic perspective . If you know of any alternatives words to use, then I'm all ears. "Deceptively false or inaccurate information" doesn't sound like a good header though when a single word could replace it.
I'm otherwise currently not motivated to put in the work to comb through all these sources in order to write a section that I have good reason to believe will be stonewalled, given your aversion to the use of such language. I'm otherwise concerned that based on how deep you've unconditionally dug into this, that other editors won't be motivated to try and write another section either.
I support a section summarizing what reliable sources have reported on this subject, and I also strongly support using the previous section heading - Misinformation and conspiracy theories. Yes, leave the buzzwords out and use neutral terms, but there is no reason that a summary of what reliable sources have published should be excluded from this article.Isaidnoway(talk)21:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section title
@CommunityNotesContributor: I see you have reverted someone else to restore the section title -- okay, I guess -- and it is now unbelievably long, to the point of looking like satire; it's longer than the entire section about every reaction from world leaders combined. I would still really prefer you take an approach other than repeatedly editing the article to say what you want. jp×g🗯️16:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert someone this is false. I changed it from "Conspiracy theories" to "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" per @Isaidnoway's suggestion above.[7] "Conspiracy theories" alone wasn't accurate to reflect the content, that is instead predominantly misinformation, as well as some conspiracies here and there. I was consequently thanked by @Ocaasi who had changed the title from "On social media" to "Conspiracy theories" (I assume that's the revert your describing).[8] So there appears to be rough consensus for this, rather than being based on "what I want", as I had no issues with the original title but clearly others would prefer a more accurate version, so I respected this. Depending on what other editors think is best, being titled "Misinformaiton" may be simpler and in line with your desire of a more concise header; based on all conspiracy theories being a form of misinformation, but not all misinformation being conspiracies. CNC (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNC, there is nothing wrong with the sub-section heading, thanks for changing it. And it is notunbelievably long, to the point of looking like satire, that's hyperbolic nonsense. I'd also note the sect. heading is supported by sources:
Per the headlines and articles posted here, would you say that these are encyclopedic ways to describe when false information is posted on the Internet (and not merely encyclopedic, but required to be used over other phrases)?
"swirling", "flooding", "sparking a flood", "dominating", "flourishing", "deluging", "taking flight", "spreading", "flying", "flooding the internet", "unleashing a flood", "providing cannon fodder for a barrage", "surging", "overwhelming"
being "weaponized", "pushed", "ignited", "spread", "spiraled", and "unleashed"
I just really don't think that we should be using breaking-news articles as binding requirements for what words we use to describe things. It's one thing if there is a specific technical term being used, and there is some concrete reason why this term must be used, and absolutely no synonym is permitted -- but my understanding of the term "misinformation" is that it simply refers to "information" that is "untrue". Is there some other meaning to the word, which it is crucially important that we preserve? jp×g🗯️20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the list of WP:HEADLINES have been posted for, we simply go by what RS reports in body. Do you have examples of sourcing to headlines, or is this just theoretical? Either way not going to argue that guidelines on headlines is important to uphold for all editors, but best to provide examples if it's being breached, as I haven't seen an instance of this. Otherwise as already documented above, misinformation means "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive" (emphasis added), so is distinct from simply false information. CNC (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate content
@JPxG. The following paragraph in "On social media" (confusingly the previous header title of Misinformation section), was removed as it was duplicate content of that section, as explained in the edit summary "remove duplicate content" [9]"
"While some people on the Internet (including left- and right-wing users) suggested or claimed that the attack had been staged as a false flag, and the words "Trump" and "staged" were briefly the two highest-trending topics in the period immediately after the attack, no evidence emerged to support that this was the case."
I see you've now restored, claiming the the removal was "unexplained".[10] So as to elaborate, the misinformation section clearly documents the left-wing and right-wing theories in detail, both "false flag" and "staged". So what is the benefit of duplicating this content within the social media section? CNC (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally "prominent Antifa activist" is referenced in both sections; as an example of a hoax in the social media section, and with more context in the conspiracy theory section. These examples appear to be a WP:CONTENTFORK, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories section predates this "on social media" section. There's otherwise two paragraphs left that still works. CNC (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You explained above that you're drawing a distinction between "misinformation" and "false information".
You have, at great length, insisted that the "misinformation" section title not mention social media, and that the content not be edited or expanded to cover social media reactions more broadly.
If you want to own the section -- you've been quite clear that I am not allowed to edit your section, that your section isn't about the reactions on social media, that you do not want anything in your section to be about people's reactions more broadly, and it is exclusively to be about coverage of conspiracy theories and misinformation. You have said many times that your "misinformation" section is NOT for general reactions on social media -- okay, great. There can be a different section for that then.
I am trying to assume good faith here, despite the increasingly convoluted objections to nearly every single edit I make on the article, but last night several hours were wasted in a BLPN thread where you persistently advanced the bizarre (and wildly against consensus) claim that using the words "rumors" and "false and unverified" instead of "misinformation" to describe something was somehow defamatory. You made up fake quotes and attributed them to me multiple times. This is dumb.
I asked you then: please leave me alone, please let me work on the page, and please do not deliberately waste my time with nonsense. jp×g🗯️22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image - Consensus seeking discussion
The image in the infobox has been a focal point of editor attention and has been subject to edit-warring, without discussion or consensus, since yesterday. I'm opening this section for editors to secure a consensus on where the image should be displayed. Should it be retained in the infobox, or moved to the section in which the image itself is discussed? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless and until we have a better image to replace the current Vucci photo, we should be using it for the infobox. Users, please feel free to upload and propose any images that you feel would make good replacements. Ideally, even if we don't use it this instant, it would be nice to have a good replacement handy just in case the Vucci photo gets deleted. Joe (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use in the infobox does not meet our guidelines for fair use of copyrighted material. We can only use the image for discussion of the image itself. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really need something better than the current image for the infobox: it is not even an image of the location at the time of the event, and as it is, at the resolution Wikipedia displays images at, it's largely indistinct. Joe (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info-box image frequently changing
It seems like they keep changing the image back to Vucci's image of Trump. I know it's because of copyright issues. However, I recommend that we soon agree on an image for the info-box we all agree on and like and keep. I'd recommend uploading some images to Wikimedia Commons if possible. But unfortunately, most images of this incident are subjected to copyright. PEPSI697 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I see those consequences there as well at that discussion. Hopefully we can find a free image to use here and upload it to Wikimedia Commons sometime soon if it could be found. PEPSI697 (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add the name of the deceased victim, Corey Comperatore, to the first paragraph of the article, and ensure other victims are added if/when they are named. Youradhere (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page should be updated since 2 other victims have been identified:
57 years old David Dutch from New Kensington (Westmoreland) and 74 years old James Copenhaver from Moon Township (Allegheny). Cicku (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
At this time, the article lead says Trump "was shot in the upper part of his right ear."
At this time, some reliable sources report Trump was shot in the ear, while other reliable sources do not report this. There has been considerable discussion of this here, with no conclusive finding. The Secret Service and law enforcement have not as yet publicly stated one way or the other.
Yes I think the article should say Trump was shot. This has been very comprehensively sourced. There were countless cameras and eyeballs at Trump before, during, and after his shooting, even capturing a bullet whizzing right by him. I don't see any substantive conflict in RS about this, at most minor language differences. Regardless, a list of 25 sources saying Trump was shot in their own voice includes:
There were countless cameras and eyeballs at Trump before, during, and after his shooting, yet none of them actually saw a rifle bullet strike him in the ear soibangla (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what, as in they developed slow-mo vision and saw it? I guess not. They merely heard the report of gunfire, saw Trump get hit, saw the wound on his ear, and did not see a teleprompter or whatever get shot in between and turned into shrapnel, and one extraodinary photographer shot a photo of the bullet itself grazing by Trump. If we're really wp:blueing this though, NBC News interview with photographer who got close up shots of Trump and gave very candid details on before-during-after of the shooting: Photographer at rally says bullet took out piece of Trump's earKiharaNoukan (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mills was shooting at 1/3000th and caught one bullet passing by Trump's left, but not a bullet that struck him in the right ear, unless it was a magic bullet that nicked his ear, changed course and continued past him, rather than passing through his head. saw Trump get hit no they saw him grab his ear and dive. saw the wound on his ear only after he stood up, like we all did. shot a photo of the bullet itself grazing by Trump are you sure it was the bullet, or one of the bullets that missed Trump entirely? and it did not "graze" by him, it blazed by him. the eyewitness actually saw the rifle bullet hit Trump? really? did he get the pics of the bullet hitting Trump? that would be a guaranteed Pulitzer. or is he assuming shooting + injury = shot? as any judge and courtroom attorney can testify, eyewitness accounts are notoriously wrong, especially in split-second incidents like this. there is no evidence a bullet struck him. soibangla (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per KiharaNoukan. It's overwhelmingly sourced and should only really change when there has been a definitive statement by officials that it isn't the case. From what I've seen, even the sources that aren't saying he was shot don't actually say 'he wasn't shot', they're just not specifying – which is a big difference. As KiharaNoukan also pointed out, there is also a photo of the bullet flying past his head. — Czello(music)07:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is true, there is false, and there is null. if it was certain he was shot, every source would report it, but major reliable sources still do not. nor does law enforcement.
no one disputes bullets were fired, but a photo of one bullet passing to Trump's left does not in any way suggest it struck his right ear soibangla (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We conclusively know Trump was injured, but not that he was shot. If all reliable sources agreed he was shot, they would unanimously and explicitly state that.
On Sunday, CBS News reported:
It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but blood was strewn across his ear and face as Secret Service agents ushered him offstage.[11]
At this hour, the NY Times continues to report:
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."[12]
There may be at least one other plausible explanation for the ear injury (that does not include a "shattered" teleprompter) but I will not go that way as I do not want anyone to think I'm some sort of a truther weirdo. But given the uncertainties that remain, I strongly believe it is premature for this article to unequivocally state he was shot.
A parallel to this situation springs to mind: Hunter Biden's laptop. Many who wanted everything about it to be real chastised the MSM for not reporting it was, but the MSM did not yet have the evidence. When (some) evidence later became available, they reported it. Similarly, we should not say shot, a very strong term with potential future implications, unless we've got it nailed down with certainty. And especially not if some want it because of the potential future implications. soibangla (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I had scrolled up to the comment above to get all of the sources from the previous time this was brought up, but I see KiharaNoukan has already done this. These are literally twenty-five of the highest tier of national papers of record and international wire services... jp×g🗯️08:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CBS previously reported he was hit by a bullet, but now walks it back:
It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but blood was strewn across his ear and face as Secret Service agents ushered him offstage[13]
That article you're referencing is by Kathryn Watson, from July 14, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT.
I already referenced an article from CBS written 13 hours later that said Trump got shot in the ear, but I see it's from their Pittsburgh local area.
However, Kathryn Watson also wrote another article for CBS 9 hours later from July 14, 2024 at 7:37 PM EDT where it's stated, in own words: Trump, with blood visible on his face, was whisked off stage at a Pennsylvania rally when a gunman's bullet grazed his ear.KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it can be the case, when you think that you have a more up to date article that throws in claims of shrapnel not found anywhere else, it's "now walks it back", but when it turns out that the more up to date article is in fact affirming a bullet struck trump, it's "confusion". KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, uh, twenty-four of the highest tier of national papers of record and international wire services. Is there any actual reason to doubt them? You have said that there's some kind of motivated reasoning for people wanting to say he was "shot", specifically -- maybe this is true -- but surely it's evidence of motivated reasoning, or evidence of something, if twenty-four prestigious newspapers say something happened, everyone on this talk page agrees we should go with that until proven otherwise, and one single person says "no, I'm not convinced, because this might be made to play into his hands"? jp×g🗯️10:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
everyone on this talk page agrees
others on this page have agreed we are hasty in concluding he was shot
I previously mentioned to you that "groupthink happens." journalists are fallible humans, and sometimes lazy, and in a fast-breaking important story like this they need to publish fast on deadline. journalists rarely get fired for reporting the same thing everyone else in the herd did, because "I wasn't wrong, everyone was wrong." I still see no evidence he was struck by a bullet, law enforcement has not said he was, and there is at least one plausible alternative explanation. it won't kill us to err on the conservative with what we know for certain for a few days, but we sure will look stupid for a long time if we're wrong on this soibangla (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News orgs also come up with a word formula, often a contrived one, for some fact in their early reporting and regurgitate that language for days, months and even years using constructions such as "alleged x" when their peers have long since stopped qualifying, because they reference their own previous articles uncritically and a reporter is not brave or diligent enough to cut the crap and report on the fact sanely, when facts become much more clear, but will by automatism carry over the inherited language formula, out of fear that he could be asked "why did you change this language" by the superior. This can often explain why some outlets that report on something early on stick to deprecated language. It calcifies. —Alalch E.11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if we're going to be totally honest, I feel like if you took the top 500 most active current events editors on Wikipedia and indeffed about 170 of them, you'd have a more literate press corps than a wide swath of the sources we consider reliable, but that's neither here nor there. jp×g🗯️13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes it should be included. We don't require that all sources unanimously and explicitly state that. Wikipedia policy says we look at the weight of the sources reporting it, and if it is due for the article. Those thresholds have been overwhelmingly met here. Instead of arguing what some sources are not reporting and what law-enforcement has not stated, you need to present sources that dispute he wasn't shot in the ear, so we can evaluate those sources and decide if any further content should be included per WP:BALANCE.Isaidnoway(talk)09:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just say what the sources say. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there are reliable sources saying there is any question about this, then cite it. If not, then remember that this is not an internet forum for presenting wikipedia editors personal opinions and/or theories. Elspea756 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The silence of law enforcement should not be used as a basis for our including or not including a thing. By almost all accounts, there is question of their performance of their duties in this incident, and what they say, and when, has to be assumed to be self-serving. Nor should the silence from certain media outlets on the matter... at least they have stopped saying his wound was the result of a Teleprompter getting hit and then a glass shard was launched into his ear. Or that he "fell" and that's how he was injured, as an early report from CNN said. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which does not mean that the ear was the actual target. The shooter missed his target, as would be expected with this type of rifle and at such distance, according to experts. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: per above. It was reported by many reliable sources. It's not our job to interpret what actually happened. That's the job of journalists writing the reliable sources or the FBI. CFA💬17:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: per above. It is pretty obvious that he was shot. Widely reported in reliable sources and there were countless cameras and eyewitnesses as well. PadFoot (talk)
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.
Source Conflict - Police Officer who Saw Sniper on Roof Retreated via Ladder, or Not?
According to the CBS reference Sheriff Slupe stated an officer was hoisted by another officer to the roof of the building where the shooter was positioned, but never actually made it onto the roof because he saw a weapon being pointed his way and retreated. According to the AP reference a local officer climbed to the roof then retreated down the ladder when the shooter pointed his weapon at him. To me this reads as conflicting routes. It's not critical but clarification and\or correction may be useful. 人族 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
人族 literally referenced reliable sources present in the article and commented how they conflicted. Not sure what you are talking about. Catalk to me!09:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the initial AP source with the ladder a few hours ago, and then updated with the CBS source where the officer was hoisted up by another one. The AP was very initial reporting, AFAIK it was the first one to report on it, so I'm inclined to believe that the CBS one is the more accurate one insofar as there is any conflict, especially with the more unique details around being raised by another officer, as well as more details overall. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relevancy of so-called Global War Party
I saw the end of the article:
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze and other Georgian government officials blamed the attack on the "Global War Party", a recurring conspiracy theory of the Georgian Dream party alleging a mysterious international organization that exerts influence on the Western world from the shadows.
I think it is just some sort of delusion specific to that guy and his political party. I don't see this text in the article currently, meaning someone probably saw it had nothing to do with anything and took it out already. jp×g🗯️10:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how you are dismissing the position of the government of a close US ally as just being "delusion specific to that guy (Kobakhidze)". It's the position of the entire government and the country's de-facto leader - oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. The way it connects to Trump and why it is even being mentioned is that Georgian government since 2022 has claimed that the world is under the influence of GWP and is pushing countries into war, attempting to overthrow governments / assassinate leaders which are not "pro-war" (aka pro-helping Ukraine). The party officials have claimed this and attempted assassination of Robert Fico as prime examples GWP being real and of its violent actions. Kobakhidze, after Fico's shooting, even claimed that they were gonna go after him next. The party is basically claiming that Trump was punished because of his anti-war stance.
Yes its a silly conspiracy, but it's an actual response by a government of a country whose closest ally is possibly US. I don't get what "mixing fact with fantastic conspiracy thingy" means. If a government of a country claims that this assassination is a part of a big plot to prolong Ukraine war, I don't see why it should be left out. Zlad! (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted the phrase "that guy and his political party", removed the words "and his political party", and then complained that I didn't mention his political party? jp×g🗯️00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: I added this in response to the initial use of Sky News Australiain this edit. It took an opinion by Brad Polumbo (who doesn't seem reliable) and laid it out as "One female security agent was seen struggling to put her gun back into her holster, while another female agent was busy putting her sunglasses back on, while the former President was being whisked away". After another editor removed Sky News Australia source, I substituted it with negative reactions - blaming the female agents - as well as Kim Cheatle's response, which highlights Tara Setmayer's strengths. Yoshiman6464♫🥚18:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshiman6464: I'm still not sure I see it as being any more relevant than one of the officers maybe being Japanese, Irish, gay, Catholic... at least not for the purposes of WP. It's a pretty major historical event. There's going to be waves of stupid opinions from stupid people for years, if not decades. We probably address them best by ignoring them as dismissably stupid. GMGtalk18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be in reactions? Maybe a subsection? There's content there from various public officials commending the Secret Service, so it stands to reason that content like claims of DEI causing USSS failures that led to the shooting would belong there too. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said this in one of the sections above, but I think that there is reasonable basis for having at least some corner of the "reaction" section set aside for stuff like this, which may well be stupid or false, but is nonetheless relevant for having made some impact on popular/media discourse about the event. I think we should be careful not to let it grow into a gigantic peanut gallery of every time someone said something dumb online, but if it hits the major points, it should be fine and WP:DUE. jp×g🗯️08:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we include a transcript of the shooting in the article? It was picked up by the microphones on the podium and I think it provides important information. We include cockpit voice recorders in many airline crashes and in the article for Reagan's attempt we include the full audio of secret service radio traffic. As we are unlikely to get that, this is the closest we have until then. Should we include it?
CNN and Florida Today provide slightly differing transcripts of what is said by Trump and the agents but I still think including parts of it helps the reader understand the immediate efforts made by the secret service to keep their protectee safe.
I disagree, I think it provides context to the efforts the secret service made to keep their protectee safe particularly when they will be put under a microscope and people will be coming to this article for information. PaulRKil (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than it being slightly funny Trump was so concerned about his shoes, I don't think this really adds anything to the article. Scu ba (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not funny in my point of view but if it’s anything, I think it shows his refusal to listen to the demands of the people sworn to protect his life in these very circumstances. When the secret service will be examined for what they did and didn’t do, I think us including this in the article helps demystify what the SS was trying to do in that very moment. PaulRKil (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao you actually think when the internal review of the Secret Service happens that director Kimberly Cheatle is going to read off the wikipedia page. This actually made my day, maybe the funniest thing I read all week. Scu ba (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did he actually shout the words "Fight fight fight", or did he just mouth them? Sources which aim to recount precisely what happened on stage say he only mouthed these words, for example: [14] and [15]. And if you listen to the video, you can hear voices on stage before and after he pumps his fist, and you can hear Trump himself say "wait, wait, wait" to his guards, but you certainly cannot hear him vocalise the words "fight fight fight". I feel the evidence is stronger that he mouthed them, but even when I change it to "mouthed or shouted" others are reverting it back to "shouted" - what do others think? Liguer (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lets be real, he shouted it, crowd was loud, he was not next to the microphone, so it was not heard out loud on the speakers. Bohbye (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turning his head at, or around, the time of shooting?
Should the article say if Trump was turning his head (and/or body) clockwise (or counterclockwise, whatever the case), toward a chart that Trump was pointing at.--Another thing: the article should maybe (also?) say if Trump was "twisting"/turning his head, away from the direction of the shooter.--Please imagine that many of the readers of the wiki-article, (largely) only have access to stills (photographs), but not relevant video clips. Some readers depend on wiki-articles for details! Thanks, 2001:2020:355:9EBD:A520:1AE7:A49C:5216 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really have the need for sources in this scenario, because the people that are able to watch the video can see how Donald Trump moves with his head, so that he does not gets hit. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump turned his head towards the shooter, towards his right, which narrowed his head profile from a wider side profile to a narrower front-facing profile. Details all in Telegraph article. Added in the article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Service / Law Enforcement knew about Thomas for 30 minutes
Thanks, I missed that - I only searched on WP:RSP for WPXI, not MBFC. So the current consensus is that MB/FC is generally unreliable. The question of whether WPXI itself is reliable remains. I have assumed that WPXI is reliable enough to at least be cited with attribution. (I incorrectly mixed up WMXI and WPXI; now corrected.) Boud (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Butler Township officer injured ankle when he fell
I added the Butler Township officer who encountered Crooks to the injury count while specifying it was a non-gunshot injury.
Excerpt from source: 'Butler Township Manager Tom Knights said the officer lost his grip and was not retreating when he fell 8 feet (2.4 meters) to the ground.
“He was literally dangling from the edge of a building and took the defensive position he needed to at that time. He couldn’t hold himself up,” Knights said.
The officer, who has 10 years of experience in law enforcement, severely injured an ankle in the fall and was in a walking boot, Knights said.'[16]Raskuly (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohbye Pinging you because you reverted the edit with the reason "Reverted good faith edits by Raskuly. Not a shooting injury". The injury total specified it included a non-gunshot injury so that doesn't appear to me to be a good reason for a revert. Raskuly (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I forgot to mention you reverted much more than just the total injury count, but also any mention of the Butler Township officer being injured. Raskuly (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is clear that the person is injured, then I support adding it. Otherwise, we got two versions of the event that don't line up completely. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The injury is related to the chaos resulting from assassination attempt so it make sense to include so long as reliable sources are including it in the totals. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-gunshot injuries have been included in similar articles and this is not some random dude, it is the officer who attempted to confront Crooks just before he opened fire on the former President.
I notice that you seem to be extremely fixated on the idea of adding more people to the total injury numbers, as in addition to this section there a second one directly below this where you're talking about WP:SYNTHing stuff from sources to say that the other random guy in the audience should be counted in the total because he got "grazed" (to an unspecified degree), and a different one from yesterday where you were saying we needed to WP:SYNTHly categorize this as a "mass shooting" by counting the assassin (who got shot by the police) as a victim of himself.
I really don't think that it is helpful to keep making a dozen different proposals to include every single random thing that happened that day in the article to get the number up, solely so it can be metamorphosed into a "mass shooting". jp×g🗯️07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB, "Klutz" is a violation of WP:BLP policy. Any more violations may lead to a block, so be cautious. You are talking about a human being who was likely doing their best at that particular moment. Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary? Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not WWGB, but I did mention the Sherriff's words in a different discussion which seems relevant to quote right now: The officer hoisted himself up on the roof to check on reports of a suspicious man, Slupe said. But the officer, who was not able to access a gun because he was gripping the edge of the roof, had to drop down when the shooter aimed his weapon at him, the sheriff said. “He lets go because he doesn’t want to get killed,” If the Sherriff's account is believable, the officer did drop to the ground to avoid getting shot. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fixated on improving the article. "and a different one from yesterday where you were saying we needed to WP:SYNTHly categorize this as a "mass shooting" by counting the assassin (who got shot by the police) as a victim of himself." I did not say that. "I really don't think that it is helpful to keep making a dozen different proposals to include every single random thing that happened that day in the article to get the number up, solely so it can be metamorphosed into a "mass shooting"." Per our own article on the topic it already does qualify as such regardless of whether or not Jackson's nephew is included in the total injury total. Raskuly (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said To me it seems like an appropriate thing to add as it has been so far reported that there were at least five casualties. One attendee was killed, two attendees were injured, Donald Trump was injured, and the perpetrator was killed. It is indeed possible, if you go out of your way to use weird nitpicking technical definitions for every single word in the definition of "soup", to say that a bowl of cereal is a "soup". You are correct: nobody can definitively disprove that something described by every source as a cereal is technically a "soup", or that an event described by every source as an assassination is technically a "mass shooting".
The issue is that this is not the actual term that is used, by actual humans on the planet Earth, to describe the thing in question. jp×g🗯️10:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus against adding mass shooting to the article, so we should move past that. Right now, all we seem to have is different accounts of the incident that don't fully line up. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a very minor injury (arguably) not part of the actual; incident as it was not gained by either trying to stop the shooter or protecting Trump (but rather in disengaging with the (at that point) not shooter, who (as the police said) at that point was breaking no law). Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How was it not part of the actual incident? The guy fell after having Crooks point the gun at him. The Associated Press article used as citation: "The officer, who has 10 years of experience in law enforcement, severely injured an ankle in the fall and was in a walking boot, Knights said." That is a more serious injury than a graze which Trump received, so with that logic Trump shouldn't be included in the injury total either. Can you give me a source with this police statement? Raskuly (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as Trump was the target, the police officer was not (and was not shot). He was injured before the incident took place during an attempt to disengage from the (at that point, not) shooter. This was not some hero cop injured in the line of duty, this was another cop deciding discretion was the better part of valour. And (as I said) the shotting had not started, so he was not part of this incident. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your page and I've come to the realization that there is nothing to gain from engaging with you. Goodbye. Raskuly (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Ronny Jackson's nephew be included in the injury count?
Let me begin by stating that a "graze" is a much less severe injury than that of Comperatore, Dutch, and Copenhaver–but it is roughly equivalent to the injury Trump received in the attack. However, as has been noted in the article and under the victims section, Rep. Ronny Jackson's nephew had his neck grazed by a bullet when Crooks opened fire, so shouldn't the Jackson's nephew also be included in the total injury count? There is a possibility of course that Jackson could be lying, but unless that is proven I feel that the injury count should be adjusted accordingly. Raskuly (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have RS to support the updated injury counts? I don’t understand what’s so difficult with the policy concerning WP:OR. Wikipedia editors aren’t here to speculate or do our own WP:OR. If WP:RS are updating casualty / injury counts then we can update ours based on those reliable sources as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kcmastrpc, I don't understand why you always bring up RS when there are RS, because the source mentioned in the article already that mentions the injury to Jackson's nephew (that I referenced) has been there for a long period of time. Raskuly (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump, which does not seem like a thing we can have certain knowledge of by reading a bunch of random stuff online that mentions it tangentially. If there was someone who actually knew what the hell they were talking about and said for sure that they were the same amount of injured, then yeah, it would be worth including; otherwise it would not.
It is not really an arithmetic issue: we do not need reliable sources to give us permission to add together numbers that total less than five. But the decision to call one thing an injury and some other thing an injury, I feel like involves more detailed knowledge than we can bring to bear from a Wikipedia talk page. jp×g🗯️07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump" Trump was grazed and so was he. Why is one graze an injury and the other not? Raskuly (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason you stated, the decision to call one thing an injury… is precisely why we can’t just add up numbers here; imho we should depend on reliable sources to give us total injuries related to this event to use them in infoboxes/leads. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, if it was unbelievably obvious it would be one thing, but this is not; it's a weird socially-constructed edge case where the intended victim of the attack suffered unusually minor injuries, but extremely visible ones. Any reasonably consistent application of principles ought to make this a lower bound on severity, rather than a stupidly disjunct carveout for the one guy. So, okay, how bad was the other guy grazed? But if we really follow the logic to this point, we are so far up the colon of poorly-defined and arbitrary distinctions, there is no reason to not just (at least for now) accept what the sources say. jp×g🗯️11:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"grazed without being injured" doesn't make any sense. It is part of the definition of the word "graze" that it is a very minor injury that causes an abrasion of the skin and also consider that Trump was also grazed, this is not a good argument because if you want to include Trump and not Jackson's nephew by saying a graze can be considered not an injury then one can argue that Trump wasn't injured. According to Jackson there was blood associated with his nephew's "non-injury", if you are curious.[17][18][19]Raskuly (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several days have gone by and there is still no corroboration of Jackson's claim that his nephew was grazed. Surely, in such a momentous issue, there would be some kind of medical, legal, media or political corroboration that the injury was a consequence of the shooting. It remains the case that Jackson is the sole purveyor of this assertion. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the best argument against the inclusion imo, as I said when I opened the discussion people can lie. So, should the total injury count be reduced or should we wait until there is pushback from reliable sources about Jackson's claim or if he retracts it? Raskuly (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worse still, it might be revealed that he listened to dangerous/immoral/harmful content like syncopated musicjazzswingbig band musicrock 'n rollhard rockheavy metalgangsta raphyperpoppodcasts (fill in as necessary) jp×g🗯️05:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like skinhead or neoNazis music might be notable to determining motive if it were found. Or extreme religious music. Never know what evidence might be useful EvergreenFir(talk)19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Location of where he placed the ladder and climbed the roof
Google Street Maps of where he put the ladder and climbed the building.
Google street maps
After several discussions over the last couple of days (1, 2, 3), there is consensus against describing this as a "mass shooting" in the infobox, templates, categories, etc. Editors are reminded that infobox parameters, templates, categories, etc., must be supported by the body of the article with WP:RS. Discussions about whether the event does or does not meet various definitions of "mass shooting" are irrelevant and contradict the WP:NOR policy. If RSes use the term "mass shooting," and that content is added to the article, then "mass shooting" infobox parameters, templates, categories, etc. can be revisited. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Since the other discussions regarding these categories have become stagnant with no solid consensus, I will start a new one and provide reasoning for and against including categories relating to this event being a 'mass shooting'.
For
This shooting resulted in four gunshot-related casualties, including Donald Trump (not including the shooter). This would fit the definitions of a 'mass shooting' set by the Gun Violence Archive and the Mass Shooting Tracker, both of which are considered as acceptable definitions in the article List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024.
Both the Gun Violence Archive (see here) and the Mass Shooting Tracker (see here) have considered this event to be a mass shooting.
Several news articles, though not many, have called this event a mass shooting (or implied it to be one). 1, 2, 3, 4
There is no valid reasoning given that would not make this event a mass shooting, other than citing arbitrary definitions of the term 'mass shooting'.
While motive may be considered important, there is nothing that states a mass shooting must be committed with the intention of mass casualty. (See the 2016 Wilkinsburg shooting, 2024 Kansas City parade shooting, Wallasey pub shooting and 2022 Sacramento shooting as examples of mass shootings where many of the casualties were believed to have merely been bystanders caught in crossfire, rather than a result of an intentional attempt to cause mass casualty.)
Additionally, it can be argued motive is not important, i.e., a mass shooting is a mass shooting.
Categorising the event as a mass shooting does not affect the article in a significant way and will not detract from the content of the article. It will also improve the article's discoverability.
Against
The majority of articles do not call this event a mass shooting, potentially causing issues regarding reliable sources. (It is unclear if the aforementioned sources are considered reliable enough to stand up on their own.) This is the main issue.
To classify this event as a mass shooting may mislead readers into thinking that this event intentionally targeted more people than just Donald Trump, which is not confirmed at this time. On the contrary, to not classify this event as a mass shooting may also mislead readers into thinking only Donald Trump was targeted, which is also not confirmed at this time. To remedy this, a note in the article could be useful to explain this.
Anyway, that was all I could think of. Personally, I think mass shooting categories are applicable to this page, as certainly the Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker can be considered reliable sources and it plainly fits the definition of a mass shooting set by those organisations, which Wikipedia utilises in several of its articles. Macxcxz (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a new discussion on this because the other ones did not gain consensus could be considered WP:TENDENTIOUS.
Additionally, please read WP:CATDEF, which states A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to suggests we shouldn't use this, because reliable sources do not commonly and consistently refer to this event as a Mass shooting. Additionally, you'll see in the footnote for that particular policy: in declarative statements, rather than table or list form suggests the two sources you've mentioned above would further disqualify the inclusion as a category. I'd also refer to the editing guideline regarding categories which states, A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
It didn't "come to no solid consensus" -- my memory is that it was more or less unanimously agreed by everybody except a single participant that this was a bad idea and should not be done. I second the request for this section to be hatted. jp×g🗯️14:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to not classify this event as a mass shooting may also mislead readers into thinking only Donald Trump was targeted what do you mean by 'targeted'? All initial RSes seem to say (IMO) that Trump was the only one targeted - the shooter simply (mostly) missed the target. 185.62.159.164 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Details on the AR-15 ?
When it becomes available details on the configuration of the murder weapon should be added, especially whether the shooter was aiming over iron sights or if he was using a scope, and if so what kind. This is notable because it influences what kind of accuracy is attainable. Lklundin (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is one of such sources. Probably the most important detail is that "It’s unclear if he used any optics to magnify his perspective." According to other sources, he actually did NOT use any optics. That was the reason he missed, along with being a relatively poor/inexperienced shooter. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without an optic, with this weapon, a 150-yard headshot is not something for which it can simply be said that an experienced shooter could do it, unqualifiedly. Not at all. You'll see that the quoted SEAL sniper presupposes that it wasn't iron sights. —Alalch E.18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone posted a video yesterday that reconstructs the shooting, alleging that the bullet would have unalived Trump if he had not turned his head. People here are saying the shooter missed because he was inexperienced, but from the reconstructed video I saw, the bullet was on target, but Trump turned at the last moment, which seems incredible the more you think about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. Honestly i fail to see why we need all the following details "He was carrying a DPMS Panther Arms-produced AR-15–style rifle with a 16" barrel (32" total length), chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO, described as an average rifle of its type and effective at the range intended by Crooks". This is not a shooters fan base forum where all those details matter. Are we going to list also what brand ammo was used? ammo grains and velocity? magazine manufacturer? where does it become fan material? Bohbye (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes sense in the infobox, it makes sense in the prose. I understand that this can be perceived as gun cruft, but I don't approach this from that angle, as I am not a gun enthusiast at all. This is a type of a "conventional fact", that is simply normal and expected by readers in an article with this subject matter. The information comes from reliable sources. I find it more encylopedic to say what something is exactly than to say that it's just a type of something and leave it at that. The Kennedy assassination rifle has an entire article at John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. AR-15 style rifles are often all described as average, popular, and standard, but they do have certain varieties. For example, they can be shorter than 32 inches and have a shorter barrel than 16 inches. They can also have different cartridges. I agree that technical detail such as ammo velocity would not belong in the article. —Alalch E.22:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its still gun cruft. ARs are like lego for gun enthusiast, and i know plenty about it, its endless when it comes to details what to list. Next will be irons, optics, grips, handles, flash hiders, stock, magazines, magazine capacity, ammo brand, ammo velocity, ammo grains, bullet type, store ammo vs remanufactured ammo, gun belt, and what not. DPMS Panther ArmsAR-15–style rifle in the infobox is more than enough detail. Given that you added it back, i would ask other editors to add their opinion as i do not plan on edit wars. Bohbye (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want any more detail about the gun and will be in total solidarity with you if someone adds more. So don't worry that this is some kind of trend. The detail I added is deliberately the exact detail about the gun that I think merits inclusion, but I'll oppose any extra detail as gun cruft just as you would. I find the model, the make, the length, the chamber as exactly the right information for this article. I'm also interested in what other editors have to say. Cheers. —Alalch E.23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we institute one standard, and keep to it consistently across all guns that have spilled Presidential blood. Then, anybody who wants to add an additional technical spec to this guy's gun is required to first go buff up Burr–Hamilton duel#Pistols. jp×g🗯️03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Optics, should probably be mentioned.--Irons, probably mention if they were ready-for-use in the way the weapon was configured at the time of the attack.--Some (other) details should maybe be (in the infobox), under some "Expand" thingy. 2001:2020:337:9E1E:3940:1C6A:CE6E:B887 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoFundMe blacklisted
The fact that we are allowed to talk about the GoFundMe campaign but we can't link it as reference is ridiculous
It was blacklisted because of frequent spam. You can add it to the external links section, but it is a primary, self-published source and should not be used as a reference in the article. CFA💬18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link to this specific GoFundMe would be allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." Since it is an "official link" (controlled by Donald Trump and relevant to why the subject is notable) it is exempt from WP:ELNO #4 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages."). Again, I don't see the point in including it, but it is technically allowed. CFA💬18:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoFundMe isn't the subject of the article. This guidance allows for something like a link to the Pepsi website on the article about Pepsi. GMGtalk18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it "primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable". The GoFundMe, in a way, is the official website of the subject (the assassination attempt). CFA💬18:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be linking to the primary source, but to a secondary source discussing it. I see no reason the link should be whitelisted for this article. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, it seems to have raised about $4.8m of a $1m goal, so I suppose we can be glad that this is accounted for regardless of inclusion. jp×g🗯️19:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"USSS Uniformed Division policemen on guard outside the White House the day after the attack"
Is it not normal for Secret Service to be on guard outside the White House or how is this related to the subject at all? Trade (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Location parameter
Whatever is going on in the Location parameter of the infobox, is it not excessive to list three lowest administrative units that are each unfamiliar to 99.9% of readers? Can't we just say "Butler Farm Show Grounds near Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S."? Why do we need to list three of these anyway? SuperΨDro20:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following article was made in haste within the last hour: Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump. I have nominated it for deletion here ([20]), and I assume that many of the editors on any side of the Wikipedia spectrum here would be interested in partaking in that conversation due to the related subject matter. TNstingray (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with "Recollections from classmates about Crooks's political views have varied considerably"
The article currently says "Recollections from classmates about Crooks's political views have varied considerably," sourced to The Guardian article "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as ‘definitely conservative’." The article describes three classmates's recollections 1) quoting a classmate saying "definitely conservative," 2) paraphrasing another classmate as saying "does not recall Crooks making political overtures," and 3) saying that another student "did not share any classes with Crooks" and making no description of political views, instead describing "hunting outfits ... bullied ... outcast." Based on this, I don't think "recollections [of] Crooks's political views varied considerably" is an accurate description here, since the recollections only vary from "definitely conservative" to "does not recall." Any thoughts on this? Is there another source that would support a "varied considerably" description? Or should this description be clarified to accurately describe the range of "varied" recollections? As written, it sounds like the source is reporting "some said he was conservative, others said he was progressive," when the source says "some said he was definitely conservative, others did not know." Elspea756 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your assessment it sounds like "varied considerably" is referring to one classmate saying he was outwardly political and another classmate saying he seemed apolitical, but given the state of US politics, I agree the sentence in the article does make it seem like classmates placed him at different positions on the left-right political spectrum.
My bigger concern with it, however, is that we are using a sample size of two classmates. Even the layperson knows that's not useful data, and it's just being used by news media to paint a picture. So is it good for use on Wikipedia? And within the context of other sources using solid facts (not classmate recollections) to discuss his political attitudes, is it necessary? Because to be accurate we'd have to say "One classmate recalled him as "definitely conservative", while another felt he was not political", and does that add to a reader's understanding, within the whole section? Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the sample size isn't huge, but we should reflect what the source says. I agree that the phrasing here should be rewritten; the thrust of the Guardian article is that a classmate of Crooks remembers him as "definitely conservative" (it's literally the headline). It goes on to talk to another peer who remembers him as being apolitical and quiet, and then circles back to the first person who remembers a mock debate where Crooks had conservative beliefs. I don't believe that "contradictory" and "seemingly diverging" are an accurate reflection of what the Guardian is saying overall.
Maybe something like (in third paragraph under "Perpetrator"): "Public records have not given any clear indication of Crooks's views; there are no known posts on social media websites or writings indicating his ideology. Authorities have stated that it is unknown what his political views were, or whether the assassination attempt was related to them. He was a registered Republican; his voter registration had been active since September 2021, the month he turned 18. A former classmate remembers Crooks as "definitely conservative," though another remembers him not political. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 20, 2021, when he was 17, Crooks donated $15 to a voter turnout group, the Progressive Turnout Project, through a platform called ActBlue, which is used by Democrats and progressive organizations. On the day of the assassination attempt, Crooks was wearing a T-shirt from Demolition Ranch, a firearms YouTube channel. The FBI said that there had been "no indication of any mental health issues" regarding Crooks. Itsasatire (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's an improvement, but I'd be careful interpreting what the article says. The article ays "does not recall Crooks making political overtures" which is not the same as "recalls Crooks as apolitical." The article just says the former classmate doesn't recall any political conversations. It's possible they were in a class where personal political views didn't come up, particularly with a quiet student. I'd say instead of paraphrasing which may introduce interpretations, just quote the article: "A former classmate remembers Crooks as 'definitely conservative,' though another 'does not recall Crooks making political overtures.'" Elspea756 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch!--Another thing: a classmate in the USA, can mean as little as being in the same classroom for c. 50 minutes every week.--For now it might seem that few fellow-students have given examples of his political views. In other words we know next to nothing about his political views.--I am guessing that some RS say "inconclusive for now" about his political views.--Perhaps best to remove that stuff from the article for now; justification: cherry-pick. 2001:2020:345:8F1C:A988:66D7:49F8:2A69 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neighbor reports Trump signs outside Crooks home
Forbes writes that a neighbor witnessed pro-Trump signs appearing periodically outside of Crooks' home over the past several years. Unclear if from parents or him. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that looks like a good source for the article for that as well as other information. It contains a good summary of classmates' descriptions as well. Elspea756 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recollections about Crooks from peers relating to his high school persona, political views, and biographical information have varied considerably and are inconsistent with one another.[21]
That statement appears nowhere in the cited source, and not just that, the statement is completely and totally at odds with the cited source that says "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as ‘definitely conservative'". So no inconsistency at all. Please fix this nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are apparently not listening or reading for comprehension. Nothing in the cited source supports the text. I will now remove it. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit deleted a reference definition that was used elsewhere in the article, so I replaced it. I did not verify those usages of the reference -- maybe it was your intention to remove to other statements this reference supported, but maybe it wasn't. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed text is found below
Recollections about Crooks from peers relating to his high school persona, political views, and biographical information have varied considerably and are inconsistent with one another.[1]
Thank you. I had created a section above at [22] to raise the same issue. One other editor there (Kingsif) also questioned including this, another (IP) editor said "Perhaps best to remove that stuff," and no one has tried to defend using that source in that way, so I think there's a pretty clear consensus to remove this as that source was being used incorrectly. Elspea756 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
Should be called something akin to "Butler Assassination Attempt" or "Butler Trump Rally Incident" as attempts on his life are not new. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're both correct, but ManOfDirt has a point. See GTD:
06/18/2016: An assailant attempted to assassinate presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. The assailant was arrested as he tried to remove a gun from the holster of a police officer. Michael Steven Sandford claimed responsibility for the incident. Sandford stated that he targeted Trump because he believed "somebody had to stand up for America" and told the Secret Service that he had planned for over a year to assassinate Trump. [23]
09/19/2020: An assailant mailed a letter containing ricin addressed to President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, District of Columbia, United States. The letter, which also contained an explicit death threat against President Trump, was intercepted by security officials. Pascale Ferrier, a Canadian citizen, was arrested for sending the letter as she attempted to illegally cross into the United States from Canada with an automatic weapon. A Twitter account linked to Ferrier included similar language to the ricin letter, including calling the President “an ugly tyrant clown.” Ferrier has also been charged with sending a second ricin letter to a police station in Mission, Texas, United States out of personal enmity after being deported in 2019 for an expired visa and weapons charges.[24]
If there are quite a few entries, then yes, we should have a single, general page of some kind, perhaps pointing to this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most forklifts I've driven could outrun a guy if you really wanted to (although probably not an athlete). I would personally not pick one as a melee weapon, but I imagine it'd be pretty hard to stop, because even though they aren't that big, the counterweight is solid iron and they weigh like ten thousand pounds. jp×g🗯️03:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely should not be called '"Butler assassination attempt'"; egads, that sounds like a bad mystery pulp. As with many things on Wikipedia, we can put a name on the most visible example even if there are things of similar names. This is rather more severe than "guy who doesn't have a gun and likely never used one tries to grab one" (the Vegas incident.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be convinced to rename to something like Trump Rally Assassination Attempt or 2024 Trump Attempted Assassination Attempt; but given the prominence of this event and notability; that'd certainly be an interesting discussion. Absolutely opposed to something obscure like "Butler Assassination Attempt" or "Incident". Who/What/Where is Butler? What's an incident? Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it unlikely this title will be changed unless there's a different security issue later. I'm glad we have one page about all the various incidents. Gives us a place to redirect minor situations if they arise. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic should be changed to reflect Comperatore's death
An entire paragraph and a half at the beginning of the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" emphasizes that most of it "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views", but without backing the claim up with anything specific. All the notable examples of misinformation and conspiracy theories come from the usual suspects in the far right. the claim that "the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right" is not supported by any of the evidence presented. Everything that follows shows that it is indeed very much the people on right who are responsible for the "communal warping of reality". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to go take that up with the editorial board of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It is arguably true that our sourcing policies are overly deferential to the aesthetic and cultural mores of upper-class prestige media, but it seems to be somewhat like democracy, in that it is the worst system except for all the other ones which have been tried. jp×g🗯️11:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in that section is properly attributed and reliably sourced; with examples of the conspiracy theories from left-leaning sources and personalities. If you feel like WP and NYT are no longer reliable sources, consider bringing that up at RSN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the relevant examples in the article itself come from far right sources, whereas the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory. That's natural skepticism based on first impressions of the suspiciously good campaign photo that came out of it, and lasted for a day or two. On the flipside, insane QAnon level speculations about an assassination ordered by Biden or orchestrated by "the Deep State" fit the definition of a "conspiracy theory", and also make up the overwhelming majority of the examples in the article. It's one thing to have all claims be attributed.
It's a whole other matter to cite NYT and WaPo on the claim that the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, only to completely contradict that when the time comes to present the actual examples. Wikipedia doesn't have to reference everything. If a single claim made by two outlets is contradicted by a wast amount of more detailed information, including concrete examples, it should be okay to simply leave that claim out. It wouldn't be the end of the world. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I first saw the section focus initially/primarily on the left-wing conspiracy theories, but it does appear entirely due. It's not just a few outliers like the NYT or WaPo claiming this, but multiple sources including the BBC, Telegraph, even the left-leaning Guardian has acknowledged this. That's probably what makes the analysis in the first paragraph due also, as it documents the shift in the conspiracy landscape from right-wing to left-wing, that hasn't been documented before that I'm aware of. CNC (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neitehr of which is (also) true, right-wing conspiracies about this are also popular. It's just that now the left has something they can make a conspiracy out of as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the section covers right-wing theories and topics as well, but I believe what CNC was referring to is the landscape shift being so well covered by sources that have, historically speaking, been accused of being partisan by those who don't always agree with what they say. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate quote "Lots of the most viral posts, including this, came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views. ". Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNC referenced the source that quote came from; so I'm genuinely confused as to what remedy you're proposing here, be WP:BOLD if you think there should be a change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Slater, but I recommend that the section focuses on actual tangible conspiracy theories and misinformation, and just skip the imprecise and subjective speculations about alleged shifts in the conspiracy theory landscape. As well as to avoid giving undue weight to certain "left wing conspiracy theories" that went viral once when the story first broke, and died down a few hours afterwards, and only focus on actual conspiracy theories that are properly covered and prominently and enduringly promulgated by individuals who are influential voices within their own political circles. If by any chance this will eliminate all of the so called "left wing conspiracy theories", that just means that the claims about landscape-shifts were poorly informed. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the Lorenz piece (subhed is Researchers who track online conspiracies say liberals are increasingly vulnerable to — and generating — QAnon-like bursts of misinformation) we have a bunch of stuff like:
As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of BlueAnon conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is spreading well beyond the right.
I do agree that there are some systemic issues at play here, where our sourcing guidelines are prone to uncritically representing opinion as fact purely because it were said in a newspaper, but inasmuch as this is the general consensus-supported practice on Wikipedia, it does seem like this is what the article says. jp×g🗯️13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should urge caution when it comes to any use of the term "BlueAnon". The word describes a thing that doesn't actually, and originates from self proclaimed centrists (which I can only assume cefers to the center between Far Right and Liberal Right) engaging in what's called "bothsidesism". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a great point, I heard that after this article Taylor Lorenz was given an offer to go be executive editor at Breitbart, and she's taking it, and Ezra Klein will be anchoring for Newsmax, and Nancy Pelosi is switching her party affiliation to Alternative für Deutschland. Come on. jp×g🗯️16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not true. Sources that claim the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, cannot present any examples besides famous left-leaning people being slightly skeptical in the first few hours following the event. To take that claim and assert that the left now became the side of conspiracy theorists is not only dishonest, it's straight up false. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the word “staged” became the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump,” with over 228,000 posts on the platform using the word"[26]. I've added that to the article as it was missing. It clearly documents that the "stages" conspiracy theories were overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) from the left. It's presented as is, it's not intended to suggest "the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left", only that in aftermath the most popular conspiracies were. The right have been more "creative" with their theories from antifa, secret service, to joe biden, and assume the majority. I don't think anyone is questioning that. CNC (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "staged" trended for about all of a few hours. Because of the microphone readjusting to avoid the loud sound of the gunshots from clipping/peaking the microphone, people initially suspected it to be a BB gun. The word "staged" quickly fell off trending once it was confirmed an audience member and the shooter died at the time. Namealreadytak (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the theory that left-wing conspiracies trended "first" with most popularly, followed by right-wing conspiracies (in fact it's entirely what appears to be the case). However from all the RS I read on this I couldn't find any context to support this, even if ideally the section would clarify something along these lines. I just had another search based on the "top conspiracies", but even these fail to document any chronological ordering or relevance. CNC (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So because a bunch of people on social media were initially skeptical about the official presentation of the event, we're just going to take that as evidence that the so called "left" is now just as big on conspiracy theories as the right is? That is preposterous. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what reliable sources say. You're comment above "...the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory." shows that you're not willing to accept the interpretation from RS, that spreading misinformation about the event being staged is a conspiracy theory, it's not merely "speculation" and "skeptisim". CNC (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recollections about Crooks political views etc (thread-start: July 17)
Can one "sew" together, or write, a paragraph based on speculation by 5 or 50 'nobodies' or classmates? Difficult, but nothing is impossible, one might say.--How many students would be necessary to indicate that he took on a role in history class debates (at community college), and the role was regarded as conservative in (some) debates about pro-life and/or gun-control and/or ... ?--For now I am against stuff about he had conservative friends and some of those had 'Trump hats' [a type of hat that has c. no meaning to people who do not live in America].--There actually is no hurry, in that we are not required to be able to lable his political views - this week, or any time soon!--If RS do not give specific cases about his political views, then i think that wikipedia probably should not say that he was conservative, even if RS says so. Thoughts (about all of this thread)? 2001:2020:315:BF09:7004:6012:67CC:9A8D (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. He was a registered republican. That's a matter of public record widely reported on, and the only piece of information that ultimately matters. And considering how much misinformation is being circulated by the right about his possible motives, I say this detail is important enough to be included in the lede. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a registered Republican, but as I predicted, it was up to the foreign, in this case the British news media, to break the story that the shooter’s family had been in a Republican database since 2016 as targeted GOP voters. The US media once again drops the ball when it comes to reporting about the GOP on their home turf. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooter Access of Roof
Current article
says he accessed roof “through” air conditioning unit. No cite at end of this sentence. All news sources and video state/show he climbed “on” to an air conditioning unit on ground then hoisted himself up onto a lower section of the roof before again hoisting himself onto the top of roof. This distinction is not insignificant as “through” gives the impression the shooter was concealed from view while accessing the roof, when he was in fact visible. Tek619 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the article says he went through an air conditioning unit, which he did not. That's all the issue it takes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes ref says he went through an air conditioning unit. I've changed the article to say "by means of" which covers both possibilities (through or climbing onto). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
until he opened fired he was not a threat, is it illegal to be on roofs?
That's a pretty silly statement. The shooter was visible to the public and to police and security for several minutes as a threat while holding a rifle aimed at the stage before he opened fire. There is public video from the scene before the shooting that was released yesterday that shows the public warning people about the shooter and trying to get the attention of the police many minutes before he took the shots. It's frankly unbelievable that the the shooter wasn't immediately taken out by the snipers, so this might be one of the greatest security failures of all time. There's really no other way to explain it. Some critics have described it as security theater run by a platoon of Barney Fifes. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its an open carry state, may be in any other nation this would be true, this is the USA where you are allowed to carry guns into shops and the street. Slatersteven (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not making any sense, friend. The shooter was visibly laying on the roof aiming a rifle at Trump, and if you watch the video that was released yesterday, something like four minutes passed with neither the police nor the snipers doing anything, while the public on the ground was repeatedly telling them there was a guy on the roof with a gun. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This troublesome lead
There are a couple things in the lead which seem a little silly. Here's one:
No specific political views are indicated in his social media posts or other writings, and authorities have stated that it is unknown whether the assassination attempt was related to any. Experts considered the shooting a sign of political polarization in the United States
First of all, experts of what? Second of all, the way this is written is self-satirical: there's a giant sentence which says very clearly that there's no evidence that he had strong political beliefs, there's no evidence they were a motivation or that this was a consequence of political polarization, et cetera -- then we have "experts" chiming in to randomly claim the exact opposite.
I don't know how it got this way (maybe someone was trying to prove a point, or the different parts got written at different times and then mashed together). Personally, I don't think it makes a difference which way it ends up: if the guy really did go out of his gourd over politics and the experts are right, then we can say that. If the guy had no discernable political motivations, then the experts are simply wrong. It would by no means be the first time immediately after some big occurrence, a bunch of pundits ran their mouths off about how this clearly shows blah blah blah, and a couple days later it turned out everybody was wrong about basic detail, meaning all the "expert analysis" was a bunch of hot air.
Yes, I agree this is contradictory. The "experts" statement needs some qualifiers. Suggestions: 1) Don't call them "experts," clarify who they are, at least generally, and make clear it not all "experts," as the current version implies. Some political science professors? Some politicians? Some political pundits? 2) Clarify the time frame, as speculation shortly afterward, when there is no information on a possible political motive. 3) Remove this from the lead since these opinions are unsupported by facts and make these clarifications in the body of the article, in the reactions section. Elspea756 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence fom the lead section describing about "experts" spoeculation[28] that was contradicted by the previous two sentences. Elspea756 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, to my understanding, there is still zero evidence that a bullet ever touched Trump. Now, I'm not saying I believe that, and there's a really convincing video that was uploaded the other day that shows how Trump's ear was hit by a bullet, but other than Trump saying "I was injured by a bullet", there's no evidence, and the article should mention that. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If news sources are wrong due to lack of evidence, it's still not the editors' job to comment on that lack of evidence. I will add that wikipedia is not a race toward some imaginary finish line. Certain facts can take a while to emerge and getting ahead of ourselves is just bad practice. Ultimately, whether he was hit by a bullet or a piece of glass is a barely important fact compared to basically everything else in this event. Yvan Part (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. The pattern goes like this: Event happens; sources are published; many sources disagree; sources eventually converge over a period of time to a single, unified narrative, although this can take longer than usual. Within that unified narrative, there are subnarratives indicating how each narrative came to be. The notion of a paper trail, which includes medical records and professional opinions about Trump's injury are part of this narrative. We've discussed many times over the last several decades what to do when sources are wrong or make unusual claims. We are not stenographers, and we do have the ability to pick and choose sources and modify the narrative so that it aligns with what we know to be true. Just because a source says the sky is green when it is clearly blue, doesn't mean we have to print the sky is green. We have choices, leeway, and agency over how we write articles. But let's cut to the chase: was Donald Trump shot? Do most sources agree on this point? What do they base this claim on? Is it just Trump and his people saying he was shot, or do we have good evidence? (Someone said there's actually a photo of the bullet in the page history of the iconic photo upload; no idea if that is fake, but it's there, I looked). What do the medical records say? Have they been released? These are perfectly normal and legitimate questions for us to ask and to answer here. This is entirely within our remit. With that said, given the authenticity of this photo, from where I stand, this is open and shut. It does appear that Trump was hit by something, and it's safe to conclude it was likely a bullet or fragment of something the bullet hit based on what we know. I think it's perfectly reasonable to go into this kind of detail in the article, explaining that we have photos of the bullet, for example. That way the narrative isn't based solely on what Trump is saying, but is constructed by a multiplicity of converging data points. That's my position, at least. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the Secret Service not have jurisdiction over areas within shooting distance?
Currently, the "Background" section states:
Four separate counter-sniper teams were assigned to the event, two from the Secret Service and two from local law enforcement. The Pennsylvania State Police, which serves as the law enforcement agency for Connoquenessing Township, were also involved in security matters.
Notwithstanding the lack of citations in that excerpt, is there a concrete reason that State (or local) Police were assigned to secure the areas within shooting distance of the stage, and not the Secret Service? The extent to which the former tolerate people walking around with rifles (they do) is quite different than that of the Secret Service (they do not.) 141.239.252.245 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
In the introduction, please change "counter sniper team" to "counter-sniper team". It's a compound modifier, not a sniper team that happens to be "counter". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... he crawled into a firing position due to the slant (too sloped for SS[1]) of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[59] <but two nothern snipers on video[2], at least 40s, pointing guns in his direction while Trump was talking, and openning fire, withouth rescaning for target or reaiming, not before but only after Trump was hit [ALD 0]. (some report for 10 min but I didnt foud video)
...
Which refs[[0-9] are new and nedded for the content?
1 youtu.be/IN6OUBDfIzI?t=92
Partly resolved The 'living martyr' sentence has been removed from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This whole section has been removed and the suggested changes clearly aren't non-controversial. Jamedeus (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Safiel (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[4]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[5]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[6]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
