Jump to content

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fences and windows (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 13 July 2024 (→‎Requested move 13 July 2024: no). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Was he shot?

I've seen conflicting reports as to whether he was actually shot. Benpiano800 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News claims there was blood coming out of his ear, which would imply the bullet hit him. Luunarr (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be injury from the Secret Service agents jumping on top of him. Mårtensås (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He reached for his ear right after you here the first shot and before the secret service run to him 129.13.192.39 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far none of the sources seem to clearly say that he was shot. Will become clearer once we know more. Gust Justice (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cnn reported he was injured
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/trump-injured-pennsylvania-rally/index.html CViB (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because they saw him bleeding. if that was from the shot or something else is unknown. the SS hasn't confirmed anything besides the fact that he's safe Problem$0lved (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News speculates that it came from the shot, hope information comes out soon. Breadstocks (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that he was shot: https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1812263916497506711 NorthropChicken (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "grazed by gunfire" doesn't necessarily mean actually hit with a bullet. Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theguardian is saying he possibly got his by glass... presumably from the teleprompter Tdwizew (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title

"Shooting" might be taken to imply that the attack was fatal. I propose moving to "2024 Donald Trump assassination attempt". Mårtensås (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But we do not know yet if it was an actuall assasination attempt? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If/when it comes out that it was an assassination attempt (i doubt it wont), we should just call it Donald Trump assassination attempt. In the meantime, we should call it smthn like "Donald Trump PA rally incident/shooting"Nojus R (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i agree. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I am not even sure "shooting" is appropriate at this point: none of the reliable sources state that unequivocally. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle but the current title "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" is a bit awkward. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I surely agree, maybe "incident" would be more appropriate Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast until we have more information about the plot behind Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the indefinite article I was talking about Pickle Mon (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean getting shot at is by definition an "Assassination's attempt" especially when you're a high stake politician
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/trump-injured-pennsylvania-rally/index.html CViB (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the alledged assassin's intentions, and therefore cannot yet rule it to be an assassination attempt. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the page title should stay as is, but I agree that the name could be changed to something more informational. Silaaaaaa (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Shooting" could also imply that it was a mass shooting so I think your title is better, though I do also think we should wait before moving in case it's labeled something else. Articles about mass shootings simply say "shooting" in their title. As it stands I believe both CNN and Fox report that there were multiple shots fired but only Donald Trump and one bystander are confirmed to be struck but both still alive and receiving urgent care. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last statement is wrong. Donald Trump and one bystander are hurt but in care; a second bystander was killed, as of right now. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds more professional; current title sounds awkward Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mårtensås I'm not sure how "shooting" implies it was fatal. Shots were fired; it is a shooting. "Shooting of Donald Trump" would be the best title in my opinion as the media is most commonly referring to this as a shooting. Cobblebricks (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I think Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would be a better title, per example of Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. There's no reason why 2024 should be specified in this specific situation since it was the first to happen. Luunarr (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the sources tell us it was unequivocally an assassination attempt, I agree. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unkown at this time if it was an attemted assasination. Give it a bit CitrusHemlock 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given reporting on his injury, as well as precedent for former presidents where an attempt was made made(See: Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt), the move to attempted assassination is appropriate. Foreheadman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 2605:8D80:5C0:E1D2:63CD:9DDB:B0CC:6683 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed SpringField23402 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. We do not yet know if this was an assassination attempt, much less if Trump was the actual target. It certainly seems likely, but the shooter may have, for example, been trying to kill someone else. Or he may have been trying to just wound Trump, rather than kill him. Stick with reliable information for now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Absolutely agree. Keep to congressional leadership, world leaders, and Shapiro (and white house assuming they respond). Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I came here to say the same thing. This happens all the time with shooting articles. They get bloated with reactions from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Isaidnoway (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]
Business people and fan/supporter reactions are not needed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's bar new additions besides Joe Biden, Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro. We can discuss other people here. I am removing Elon Musk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 23:08, 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]
Musk is the world’s wealthiest man; hardly random. Mårtensås (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a matter of if he does anything with his wealth or power. Does his one sentence tweet of support matter? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:26, 13 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]
Musk is undue. "Space man said something on Twitter" isn't worth being in the article about an assassination attempt. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:45, 13 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]
Amending this with a recommendation to hold off on adding new reactions for another week. The Notre-Dame fire had an impossibly large reaction page for a long time. Save us all the effort. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:46, 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]

Requested move 13 July 2024

2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally → 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump – High usage of the term attempted assassination. Prior to administrator protection, this was the article title and an administrator, without discussion, moved it to the current name. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go with any "wait" ideas, given an administrator moved it away from that title with 0 discussion. It was the title prior to administrator protection, and a single person determined the current name. Nah, a discussion needs to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SimplyLouis27: WP:VNT. Do you have proof/sources that it was not confirmed or is not the common term? I listed 8 sources above using it. Sorry, but SNOWCLOSE isn't a valid thing for this, with a "not confirmed" reasoning because Wikipedia doesn't care about what is or isn't confirmed. Only what is verifiable, which "attempted assassination" is as presented above. If you wish to oppose, you can, but please provide a valid oppose reasoning via Wikipedia's policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, let's wait until there is a general consensus in reliable sources. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait, we still do not know the motive of the perpetrator(s), It's possible it was not the goal to harm Trump but simply shoot at the rally. There is more information we should wait for. I believe we can move when it is confirmed an assassination was the goal. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Pennsylvania, and WikiProject United States History have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would in that case be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump based on the Ronald Reagan article (and many, many other articles). LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I meant to say. Year won't be relevant to the article's title unless something changes in the near future. 49p (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's NORUSH. You are still making assumptions. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the infobox on this article lists "assassination attempt" under "Attack Type" LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note AP is now reporting that the Secret Service is investigating this as an attempted assassination (source). Unless there's a good reason not to, I'm going to unilaterally implement this move in about 10 minutes (since that seems to have rough consensus and be supported by RSes). Please let me know below if there is a good reason not to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do anything unilaterally is my advice. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support that move IDKUggaBanga (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I see no reason not to implement it if it's exactly what it is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the current title was unilaterally moved away from "2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump". Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Investigating as an assassination attempt" is a far cry from "deciding it was an assassination attempt." Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
web link here [11] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't Ganesha811. Out of process moves often end up at ANI. Fences&Windows 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims

Currently there's no source on the number of victims (other than Donald Trump), despite it saying that there are two victims (one of which being Donald) and one death PikaCookies (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is reporting that the would-be assassin and an attendee at the rally are dead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they is also talk another attendee is severely wounded Tdwizew (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Change {{Short description|Non-fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} to {{Short description|Fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} RidgelantRL (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS for this? Donald Trump is confirmed as being safe [12]. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am hearing on CNN now that AP reported one attendee is dead Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording implies that trump was the one who was fatally shot. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From media reports, it appears the dead attendee is the shooter. The shooter shot at Trump, law enforcement returned fire and killed the shooter. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be left as "shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump." Cwater1 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to include 'former US president', Donald Trump is not going to be confused with anyone else, and a short description is supposed to be short. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wording implies that Trump was killed. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate RidgelantRL (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

If the sources specifically connect the phrase to the incident, then it should be included. If they don't, then including it violates our policies on original research and neutral point of view. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 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.
Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
No all journalists are reliable. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single source: "Shooter and one audience member reportedly dead"

AP and Washington Post are reporting this, though it's from only one local DA, and not from the Secret Service or any federal government spokesperson. Take with a grain of salt:

If added, I would suggest it needs this context, and not simply be stated as a fact as of now. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/trump-biden-rnc-election-live-updates-rcna161404 NBC as well Gosh dern (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado AP News is a reliable source. Wikipedia is meant to mirror the facts of reliable sources. There is no reason to "take this as a grain of salt" Cobblebricks (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three dead

Fox News has indicated that three, including the shooter and two others, are as of now dead. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Fox isn't reliable for politics on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something to keep an eye on, as Fox News is not a perennial reliable source. See what other news orgs report. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Just something to keep an eye on. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was only hit by a teleprompter shrapnel

NO SOURCE
No source, new editor. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:58, 13 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.


i just saw this at Newsmax and he was not shot directly it was only from the shrapnel from the teleprompter Jatanea (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use Newsmax here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh im sorry. I did not know Jatanea (talk) 23:55, 13 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.

Attendance size

A better source that the Republican County Chairman is needed for the figure on the number of attendees. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=1234364546"