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 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.
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]
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]
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]
Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely - completely - different question to whether a photo is itself inherently so historically important to make it fair use. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, this is the image the media is using the most (all show different variations of him raising his fist) and therefore it is most informative to readers and most identifiable if this image is used. This image should displayed in the infobox. Bill Williams00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again for the ambiguity. The main article. However, it is on the main page of every newspaper at this moment. I don't think it is going to go away. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If NFCC can be satisfied then of course it should be used, as it's the photo the world's entire media is using. Saying it shouldn't be used just because the GOP likes it, is absurd and partisan in itself. Fig (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image is being used all over the press reporting and is becoming the marquee image of the event. Many believe it is biased but it is becoming the representative image. The MSM has decided this. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am seeing a lot of MSM have stopped using this as their lead photo (you can still find that photo inside the article). It would be good to change it once there are more neutral photos available that pass NFCC. Frankserafini87 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not biased or inappropriate.* The image is of high concern in the media regarding the event.
I also think it's a cool photo. (Not a Trump supporter or anything, it's just kinda sick.)
How is it biased just because it’s being widely used to represent the event? That’s like saying that including the “Liberty Leading the People” painting in a French Revolution article is biased. LordOfWalruses (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Liberty Leading the People is an allegorical depiction of the July Revolution of 1830, not the French Revolution. So it would be incorrect to use that image for that article. I think the photo is fine in the "aftermath" section but as there are other photos/images that depict the attempt actually occurring those would be more representative of the event itself, rather than the minutes following the event. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Witness claiming police did nothing when the gunman was spotted
Trump rally: Witness says he saw gunman on roof (bbc.com)
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]
There seems to be a reference about a Secret Service sniper neutralizing the alleged attacker, but no location or position information is included in that material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is synthesis and hence I believe it is original research and should remain out of the article at this time. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing that image was released under BY-NC-ND, which it not compatible with the Wikipedia as it is too restrictive. That will be deleted shortly. Zaathras (talk) 12:25, 14 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]
Complete White House statement by Biden
Here is the complete statement from Biden, as released by the White House. Part of this is already in the article. I can't understand why the text below was deleted. I will put it here so that an administrator can add it, if possible:
"I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania.
I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information.
Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it."
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]
Can whoever's archiving stuff from this talk page please stop for a bit
I have been trying to close old requests and respond to questions on here and every time I click on a section-edit link I am ending up at wildly different sections. This has been going on for like five minutes straight. I've got blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my whatever. Some of these archivers are messing things up and putting sections on the wrong archive page! Can we just calm down for a minute. jp×g🗯️04:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One hour is an extremely short time for that sort of thing. It's about how the page will be structured broadly, and that will have impacts on the future of the page. I think it's probably better to have one thread where editors can discuss that for the long term rather than have a bunch that sporadically pop up. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the manual archiving. Close sections that need to be closed. But leave the archiving to the automatic archiver which is currently set to 1 day archiving. I tried to clean up a couple of messes in the 2 archives, but the sections were archived WAY too fast. Also, whoever is doing it, please stop with the unnecessary collapsing. I undid some occurrences of that. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here -- the page being really long isn't that big of an issue, but it is very annoying to deal with stuff randomly disappearing (or with issues ending up duplicated because somebody unilaterally decided it wasn't needed anymore, and then it was). jp×g🗯️05:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Location of the incident
I'm creating this section in response to the repeated changing of the location of this incident. The shooting happened at the Butler Farm Show fairground which is located in Butler County outside of Butler. However, the state of Pennsylvania, as pointed out to me earlier by @Dough4872 and @JWilz12345, is divided into townships. This fairground is located in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County just west of Meridian.
Therefore it seems inappropriate to refer to this as happening within the city of Butler, despite many sources saying it happened in Butler, which is simply because the fairground is located within the Butler metro. So, should we refer to it as have happened west of Meridian, in Connoquenessing Township, or perhaps even just in Butler County? I prefer something along the lines of "Connoquenessing Township west of Meridian" personally although that is a mouthful. Raskuly (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be mentioned but Butler because the media almost entirely only mentions Butler. I made it say "near Butler" in the opening sentence for clarity but that is the most that should be done because otherwise it is OR. Bill Williams05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out to me that the exact location on the fairground is actually within Meridian. My apologies for the mistake. Raskuly (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the fairground straddles the township line. The issue though is which part would it be in? Unless there's something solid, it may be best to defer to what the local newspapers say WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct location is "near Butler". Townships in Pennsylvania are mainly for administrative purposes and unless you're conducting a census or working for the post office, no one cares that much about them. Nosferattus (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Butler County school districts
Seriously? A township (Pennsylvania) is used for administrative purposes, to be sure, but it's far more significant than merely that. Your township determines your school district (districts being based on municipal borders; see map), your fire department, your roads, your local elected officials, and so much more. Pretty much all adults will know in which municipality they live; townships are vastly different from, say, counties in New England or magisterial districts in Virginia. Unless we can get a precise location, best to go with "near Butler", since we know it's not in the city, and the border makes it awkward. (Also, it's irrelevant for the post office. My relatives in Lawrence County have New Castle addresses, despite living multiple townships away from the city.) Plus, while Meridian has specific Census boundaries, it's not a municipality, so the Census boundaries don't always match popular perceptions of what is or isn't Meridian, and some people may disagree with "west of Meridian". I've been there — I took the image that illustrates the Meridian article. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 14 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]
"Effects on Trump's public image" section should be removed
The Effects on Trump's public image section is entirely about one photo and is UNDUE and COATRACK. The article is about the assassination attempt, not people's opinions of the photo. If the photo gets sustained attention, then it might warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir(talk)06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a more nuanced view. We are using a non free image and the relevant policy language about "Images with iconic status or historical importance" says Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. In this case, the image is from the Associated Press, and if we are going to use this image, the article needs to include sourced commentary from reliable sources making the case that it is iconic or historical. I believe that it is both. The passage of time will show that more clearly, but it is hard for me to visualize some future analysis by historians that concludes, "No, that is neither an iconic nor a historical photo of Trump". Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem; some people were saying the photo had to come out because there wasn't enough sourcing about that photo specifically to meet WP:NFCC, then somebody found a bunch of sources talking about the photo, then someone else was like "Why is there so much crap in the article about this one photo, this is WP:UNDUE" and removed them all. It has been oscillating between these two fairly regularly; I think both ends of the pendulum produce a noticeably worse article, so hopefully it will end up in some stable arrangement between them. jp×g🗯️09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone elsewhere on this talk page had the brilliant idea of putting the damn image somewhere else, further down the article, and by this part which is about it, which seems like a stupendous idea. jp×g🗯️10:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the section is regarding the Nucci photograph. Propose to rename to "Nucci photograph of injured Trump" or something similar and move to separate new section below everything else. User:WoodElf16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt suggestion: a new section called "In visual media" which discusses Evan Vucci's widely circulated photograph(s) and any other notable photo/video from the incident. User:WoodElf21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "he rose with blood on his ear and face and told Secret Service agents that he needed his shoes" and news reports say that he repeatedly asked for his shoes. Why would he not be wearing shoes? Does he take them off to speak or what? This seems to need explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can hear Trump say "let me get my shoes" in video recordings of the event, just as the secret service agents are telling him they need to move him. It's possible that they came off when he ducked to the ground, or when the secret service agents piled onto him, or when they lifted him back up. Joe (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most likely explanation is that his shoes got knocked off when multiple Secret Service agents leaped on him to protect him from more bullets, and he was just trying to recover them for the walk down the stairs to the armored limo. People in general (not just Trump) immediately after a trauma often fixate on something later seen as of little importance. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Was was taught in a safety course that if someone's badly injured in a work accident, you remove their neck tie, belt, and shoes to improve air and blood flow. I think it had something to do with reducing shock too. Not 100% as it was a while ago, but might help you all find a better source. Caesar35 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18:12:33: Trump: “Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes.”
18:12:35: Male agent 2: “I got you sir, I got you sir.”
18:12:36: Trump: “Let me get my shoes on.”
18:12:37: Another male agent: “hold on, your head is bloody.”
18:12:39: Male agent 2: “Sir we’ve got to move to the car sir.”
18:12:42: Trump: “Let me get my shoes.”
18:12:43: Female agent: “OK, [inaudible].”
18:12:47: Trump: “Wait, wait, wait” then fist pumps to crowd. He mouths “fight” three times – a move met with cheers by the crowd.
This confirms that the shoes were an issue but still doesn't explain why. My best guess is that he may have fancy dress shoes which are not comfortable for long periods of standing so maybe he slips into something more comfortable. As Trump is quite image-conscious, he may have wanted to change back before moving out. But this is all speculation. I'll be looking out for more sources which clarify this ...
There's a picture of one of the shoes here: "Trump’s shoe was left on the stage on the spot where it come off as his Secret Service detail rushed to cover him. He was taken to a local medical facility." -- Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post. This looks to be a black Oxford dress shoe and still seems to be laced up. I wouldn't have thought this would come off so easily but that's what they seem to be saying. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few things could be less relevant to a Wikipedia article. We can speculate all day. Maybe he took them off while speaking. Maybe they were knocked off. Maybe shoes was codeword for something. Irrelevant. His quotes are relevant. All the discussion is relevant. I'm guessing someone will ask him anyway, and then that could be put in. Californianin (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has "prompted plenty of commentary" and so seems quite relevant. Michael Goodwin has asked him now and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the candidates being so old now, it seems unwise to tackle them so hard. Is there an exact protocol for this, I wonder? The interview says Trump "marveled at how the agents came flying in like “linebackers” as soon as the shooting started, and he unbuttoned his long-sleeve white shirt to show a large bruise on his right forearm."
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.
USAToday
Reuters
CNN
CBS
Al Jazeera
Sky News
France24
Donald Trump
sources that don't:
NYT
WaPo
BBC
AP
NBC
CNBC
ABC
NPR
WSJ
Times of London
Financial Times
Guardian
Fox News
Time magazine
US News
The Hill
"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."[7]soibangla (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two existing discussions on this, including one you started by referencing an alternate theory from Newsmax. Did you find any other sources that contradict the multitude of RS reporting Trump was shot?
Anyway, you're not referencing WSJ accurately, they report: Authorities have faced challenges identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
Apparently you've decided to edit anyway and remove a Reuters source based on "preponderance of RS", with no links to the supposed RS that apparently back your claim. At least we have some standard now? Sources that mention Trump was shot in their own voice (with links, with quotes):
WSJ (you claimed they didn't), identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
BBC (you claimed they didn't), hours after a gunman shot Trump in the ear
ABC (you claimed they didn't), investigating how a gunman armed with an AR-style rifle was able to get close enough to shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
The Guardian (you claimed they didn't), fired off shots — one of which grazed Trump in the ear
CNBC (you claimed they didn't),Trump was shot in the ear during the rally in Pennsylvania
NPR (you claimed they didn't), shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
US News (you claimed they didn't), after he was hit in the ear with a bullet
The Independent, Donald Trump was shot in the ear at a rally
CNN, Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear
USA Today, after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Axios, after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Al Jazeera, Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear
Reuters, Donald Trump was shot in the ear in an attempted assassination
The Telegraph, A bullet appeared to have grazed his ear
Sky News, Donald Trump shot in ear at Pennsylvania rally
France24. The former US president, who was shot in the ear
good job. there remain several highly RS that do not report he was shot. we know for a fact he was injured, we do not know for a fact he was shot. we should err on the conservative for the time being. if it is determined he was in fact shot, I will come to your Talk and bow to you. soibangla (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is kind of obtuse. Are you saying that these dozen-some sources are lying? They're all too stupid to know what the definition of "shot" is? What possible reason could there be to suppose this, and not just that the other sources used slightly different language? There is not some kind of requirement that a specific term be used unanimously by every newspaper on the planet before we're allowed to mention it. Man point gun at other man, make gun go boom, other man hit face blood come out, what verb? Hint: "shoot". jp×g🗯️10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
of course I'm not saying they're lying
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.”[9]
So you’re doubting the reliability of all 16 very reliable sources above? It’s not really our problem if all of them made a journalistic error; we’re just supposed to report what they say. Also, WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. CFA💬15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not pretend these reliable sources actually investigated if a bullet hit his ear or a shard of glass (they did not, Al Jazeera does not have access to Trumps ears, so counting them is kinda nonsensical). Even RSes report something quickly, with the information available at the time, and later have to improve their article when more information emerges. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we only have dozens of journalists and citizen journalists monitoring the before, during, and after of the event, multiple HD perspectives of video and photos, HQ audio from a microphone positioned right in front of Trump, analysts available to these newsrooms to examine the entire incident, and common sense. It appears that was sufficient for multiple RS to state in their own words that Trump was shot after a sniper shot at him, a bullet wound subsequently appeared on Trump's ear, and Trump grimaced and reached for his ear, alongside a photo of a bullet passing by him right at the same time. What exactly is behind this glass theory that keeps cropping up? That a round hit a midair beer bottle thrown into the air, which somehow none of the countless witnesses and cameras captured, and then a superfast shard of glass sliced Trump's ear, that was also not witnessed by anyone? KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim was that it hit an autoprompter. Common sense says that we don't know what exactly happened yet, because we do not work for the agencies whose job it is to know. But they'll figure it out and then tell us. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were countless eyes and cameras trained on the stage with the teleprompters. If they got hit in that first shot, it would not be so hard to find a trace of that in RS reporting. Like I mentioned with the multiple perspectives above though, we do have such photos available and published. Here is a closeup of both teleprompters from the AP, showing they are clearly intact. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I am just going to wait until some 3 or 4 letter agency has completed their investigation because they (e.g. secret service) have access to resources we do not have access to. I was just trying to make the point that journalists, even those who work for reliable sources, are fallible humans who have not investigated Trumps ears. Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 14 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.
Act Blue donation appears to be misinformation
Yes, I'm aware that it is in multiple sources, but they all appear to be repeating misinformation from each other.
Either that or he moved. I suspect that we will know a lot more about it and be able to know for sure what the deal is a day from now. Until then, who knows. You might be right: it may be worth just taking out the bleeding-edge conjecture about political affiliation stuff entirely and revisiting it in a few hours. jp×g🗯️10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ActBlue donation has been shown to be another Thomas Crooks, aged 69. Same name, different birth years, different address. Ms.britt (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this IP and JMM12345 above – there appears to be a lot of amateur detective work going on here. We say what the sources say; we don't engage in WP:OR. — Czello(music)09:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Admins can we get the "disputed" tag removed from the $15 dono to Act Blue per the above the dispute is driven by WP:OR and is inconsistent with the diverse WP:RS covering this item. Thanks. 24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected: new users please try to behave and read the other sections before you open a new one
Okay, well: I have un-semiprotected this talk page (I don't see the original protection in the log, last entry is from 2020 so I suspect something weird happened during the move). Please, anons and friends, use this opportunity in a smart way. Hopefully a bunch of people do not immediately post a giant amount of stupid crap here and make me look like a moron for doing this, or else I will probably have to end this hobby of unprotecting controversial talk pages. jp×g🗯️11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first couple of hours after the event, both the article and the talk page were an unusable shithouse -- as in, you literally couldn't save an edit for tens of minutes at a time -- so I think some level of protection was warranted at least for the first little bit. After that, yeah, I think it was probably unnecessarily strict. jp×g🗯️00:00, 15 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]
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]
Reflist|20em is not (in your words) terrible. It, or something close to it, is necessary. There are already over 100 citations listed in the references section. Reflist|20em is not some strange, obscure, unused solution to the issue. It is quite common and can be found in many featured articles.
I am sure it was not your intent, but reverting my edit with the comment "no this is terrible" smacks of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Let's work together to solve the issue of compressing the lengthy and still growing reflist.
It was 15em (diff), not 20em, and looked terrible on my monitor, with way too much whitespace. 15em is good for shortened footnotes, but just isn't reasonable here. It makes the references take more vertical than horizontal space. They were much harder to read. 20em could be okay, I will implement that, if you haven't already. Sincerely —Alalch E.14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20em is a poor choice, which is generally used with short form references rather than the full cites used in this article. It's a poor choice as it displays poor formatting on some displays. 30em is the standard used for full cites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjectively, 20em feels okay to me, but yes, you are entirely correct. 30em is the standard for full cites. @Kingturtle: I think that you could be mixing up the width used for full citations and shortened footnotes. Also, narrowing the columns does not "compress" the reference section, it actually makes it take more space due to more unused space between the columns —Alalch E.14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for 20em here. Recommendations for column width can be found in the {{reflist}} documentation, and it says that 30em should be used when there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection. That's certainly the case here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it "colwidth=20em"? Does reflist really just parse our fine if you give the param as {{{1}}}? Have I been living a lie? Has the corporate liberal fake-news media and/or conspiratorial right-wing misinformation machine been suppressing the truth about reflist params from us true Wikipedian patriots? jp×g🗯️19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of places where multiple references are being used, removing redundant references and only including the strongest ones should help with this.
I think we should. The current citation only supports the part of the quote currently in the article. This MSNBC article has the whole post. CFA💬16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see where you're coming from, obviously his reaction is very important. But I think its better to take out the most important quotes and put those excerpts in the article. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be there. There are multiple reliable sources quoting Trump's statement. It is not a long statement. I think that it is giving it due weight to include it in full. JMM12345 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It's more relevant than reactions from basically anyone else — with the exception of Biden — and far more significant than talking about reactions from Anthony Albanese, Narendra Modi, or Cyril Ramaphosa. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insertion of possibly undue framing to the lead section
@KlayCax: inserted the phrasing to the lead: "Political scientists, historians, many Republican political figures, and some Democrats pointed the events as a sign of profound political polarization in the United States, and there was widespread criticism made against heated rhetoric that Trump was a potential dictator. The events led to widespread sympathy for Donald Trump on social media..."
The first time this was added and I removed it, I found that the given sources did not support this claim and in fact one (Axios) was a reused source having nothing to do with it, another (NBC) made clear this was a claim made solely by some Republican politicians, and a third (Scotsman) was an op/ed by a Liberal Democrat from Scotland. Maybe this claim is true but can we scrutinize this? I saw more sources were added to it. Is it due to be in the lead section if so? VintageVernacular (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the biggest problem I have here is probably the fact that the first (political polarization) and second ("heated rhetoric") parts are blended into one sentence which implies, and then even outright claims, the criticism of rhetoric is so "widespread" that it's more than just Republican politicians saying it according to the given sources, which as far as I saw isn't true at all. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these four points should be clearly communicated + can be found in 100+ sources:
World and domestic political figures (including from the left) overwhelmingly denounced the attack.
Trump was widely seen as a martyr among conservatives.
Historians and political scientists saw the events another example of polarization and the normalization of political violence in the United States. Heated, often hyperbolic rhetoric also contributing.
There were widespread calls, including from Congressmen, for increased security among the major presidential candidates.
I agree with you that the sentences should be split, @VintageVernacular:, however, for clarity reasons. I'll do that now. Ian Bremmer and other historians/political scientists have explicitly stated that we're in pretty unprecedented waters. At least since the 1960s. So I think the present, uniquely unstable domestic political situation within the United States (vs. other G7 countries) should undoubtedly be mentioned. KlayCax (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're talking about both domestic and international relations. I think a comment from a Liberal Democrat from Scotland is fine. KlayCax (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.
The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 8+ sources that state such. That's as near as close to a consensus among major news agencies that you'll fine. Has any disputed it or stated anything else that would put it in doubt, @Ms.britt:? KlayCax (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the 8 sources for review to keep this objective, or perhaps clarify that 'Conservative news agencies and opinion writers'. Most news sources have not claimed or adopted the martyr narrative. Ms.britt (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as his repeated call for his shoes. Let me get my shoes! Let me get my shoes! as it shoes how confusing the situation was. Worstbull (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"extended right arm from the shoulder into the air with a straightened hand"
There's a more concise way to describe this. Many people refer to it as "waving." At the risk of bringing in original research, I can report that I've even done this myself when encountering someone I know. I've also seen politicians direct such a "wave" at a crowd when they enter or leave a venue. I understand that it's a pleasant greeting of sorts. 2601:3CB:502:29E0:193A:C17A:84BF:9B28 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omit subjective sentence "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event"
This line is subjective: "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event ". It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.
The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s already a lot of hedging in that sentence, it’s hard to say it’s subjective (and certainly isn’t in Wikivoice). Still, you have concerns that the selected sources don’t represent all news agencies, which is a fair concern. This can be resolved with in-text attribution — naming the news agencies being sourced. The sentence could also be rewritten to be less clunky and remove the SCAREQUOTES, e.g. it could be "X and Y news agencies reported that many people considered Trump a martyr after the event." Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that opens the door for more opinion and subjective comments if we were to outline all the biased headlines on all sides of the aisle. Ms.britt (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's front-page news on The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Axios, and more. It's indisputably notable and should be in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't set a precedent for adding endless comments; standard of inclusion is still measured by in this case WP:DUE, regardless of how the content is written. If other views are not prevalent in sources, they're not given prominence. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the perpetrator possibly didn't make this supposed 15 dollar donation back in the day, but it was another Crooks https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897 I don't have enough activity to do any editing on the article, but I would suggest that people who can edit the article and are curious about this will look into it. --Carius (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the donation and the zip code matches with the street where his address was confirmed to be located on. All of the other people by the name of Thomas Crooks in Pittsburgh have different ZIP codes. CutlassCiera19:07, 14 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.
Section on the photo of Trump either needs to be seriously adjusted or removed entirely.
First off, the whole section feels extremely long winded and tangential, exasperated more so by the fact that this is still a developing article. Secondly, the opinion pieces are not only unnecessary but also heavily skewed in a left-wing point-of-view. What I suggest is either the removal of the opinion paragraph entirely, which would not only present a neutral view of the photo but also more than half the length of that section, or an attempt to politically balance said paragraph.
As of now, all five sources cited in this section are left to left-leaning and have a combined political bias of -14.40 to the left according to measurements done by the leading media bias focused website, AllSides. This is an unacceptable bias for a Wikipedia article. Either we need to remedy this by removing further leaning political pieces and adding more centrist takes or we need to balance the political leaning of the story by removing some of the left-leaning op-eds and adding some right-leaning pieces to the article. This much of a political bias appearing on the article of a tragic shooting in which one innocent civilian lost their life and two others are fighting for theirs is an oversight the lengths of which I seriously cannot comprehend.
We do not remove sources simply because they are biased, see WP:BIASED for more information on how we treat reliable sources when adding content. Whether the section is WP:DUE or not, is a different story. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the photo in particular, as well as the general optics of the event, have been the subject of significant coverage from a very wide range of reliable sources. Currently, I find the space devoted to the topic to be adequately proportional. Joe (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the reliability of the sources. Every source mentioned and cited from in the paragraph is extremely reliable. The problem is that all of these reliable sources are clearly touting a left-leaning bias which isn't present in much of if not the rest of the entire page. Firestorm0718 (talk) 21:49, 14 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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (3)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
@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]
We need some kind of picture
Currently the Vucci photo of Trump is under discussion regarding its inclusion and deletion, in the meantime, it would be great if we could get some kind of image to go in the infobox, like what we've got for the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan page. How would editors feel about including a low-res crop of one of the many news-feeds that captured the event? It wouldn't have the same commercial overlap concerns as the Vucci photo. Thoughts? Suggestions? Joe (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I see around the commercial issue is either extremely obscure but still quality photos or photos without Trump in them e.g. photos from after Trump left the rally or, better yet, potentially photos in which Trump is so obscured by the Secret Service whether head-on or side view that their is almost zero concern of any possible commercial use.
That's not how the usage of non-free content works. If you sub in another image with the same status as the other one, we're just in the same boat. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use copyrighted images (albums, novel covers, video game promotional material, etc.) under fair use, because they represent the thing and don't impinge on the commercial viability of the work. There's a debate as to whether our use of the Vucci photo may impinge on its commercial success, because it's becoming iconic, but that isn't true of every frame of every shot taken that day. We're dearly wanting for something to visually represent the event in the infobox. Joe (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring a fair-use picture of the event itself, our best options are a) a bird-eye svg diagram or b) a photograph of the premises. Bremps...01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked: the "raised fist" image is a better illustration of the article. As and when the image discussion is concluded, we may change to a different image - let's avoid the back and forth we have already seen. User:WoodElf01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I disagree with that assessment, but even if I agreed, that's a matter of personal preference i.e. not an objective article improvement, and is apparently getting pushback, viz BRD. In such cases, it is better to start a discussion over which image is more representative of the entire event. I have a feeling many would agree with you, but recommend discussing if there is the back and forth you said. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an attempted assassination. The "raised fist" image shows the immediate aftermath of said attempt. Therefore it is objectively a better illustration than the proposed alternative. Of course, the fair use of the image is currently under discussion, and if it is eventually removed, or it's use is restricted to the article about the photo itself, then the venue photo can be use as the alternative illustration lacking anything better (but suggest not before then). User:WoodElf02:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed elsewhere on the talkpage with a consensus not to use the image in the infobox, so I've removed it again. As and when the NFCC rational is altered to allow it to be used where the image isn't under discussion, I'm happy for it to go back into the lede. Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were thousands of people present, many of them with their phones taking pictures. Search the social media sites. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone willing to freely license their image. Having your image be the Wikipedia illustration is a big bragging point. Rmhermen (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can get us some kind of fair or free use alternative, just in case the Vucci photo gets deleted, it would be great to have that as a backup. Who knows, we might end up using it elsewhere in the article, or instead of the Vucci photo, if users preferred it to the Vucci photo for some reason. Joe (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Civil unrest?
The link "political violence in the United States" at the top of the infobox links to a list of instances of "civil unrest" in the US. I'm not sure what happened yesterday is exactly an instance of "civil unrest"; it seems to be an isolated act by an extremist individual. JDiala (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this the second "attempt at violence" at a DJT rally?
The source for this sentence doesn't say that: "This was the second attempt at violence during one of his rallies: the first was in 2016, when a man attempted to disarm a security officer at a rally in Las Vegas."
Is [better source needed] appropriate? Or delete?
I feel this statement is too broad. There's no way to know how many incidents of violence have occurred at Trump rallies, let alone attempts at violence. It depends on how you define violence. Seananony (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it could probably use some workshopping. Presumably, over hundreds of rallies in the last decade, there have been a few instances in which two guys in the back slapped each other around a bit, and other such things nobody cares about, so we might want to say something that excludes that. jp×g🗯️00:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was not the second attempt. Just a quick google pulls up more
International reactions to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump
The International leaders section only includes a list of countries. It seems like it would be better to create a separate article that covers different world leaders and politicians reaction to the attempted assassination. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either we specify what the actual reaction was, or we don't mention it at all. Simply saying "x number of countries condemned the shooting" without at all specifying what the reaction was (as the section is currently structured) is very suboptimal. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section originally spoke of foreign leaders expressing "solidarity" with Trump. I changed it to wording about condemning the attack. Even at that stage only on of the five sources said "solidarity". The word didn't belong. It's too political. ut right now, the section is useless. What does a giant list of countries tell anyone? The only notable thing would be if a leader said something unexpected, such as things I've seen on social media, like "Shame he missed". I would drop the section entirely. It serves no purpose. 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. The only thing notable about the reaction would either be if the reaction was something unexpected, or if the reaction included more detail than just saying "I condemn this." Gödel2200 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why we should remove it and leave a generic sentence in its place. The section is a tumour on the article that does nothing because we have difficulty accepting that everyone has a singular reaction to this event. Ornov GangulyTALK03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I totally agree with that too. I'd see some better reactions rather than the list of countries. I'd recommend finding some reliable sources that show some politicians' reactions rather than the whole list of countries. PEPSI697 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I сould dare to ask for adding the mention of the world-wide known photograph taken by Doug Mills with the bullet's path visible millimetres away from the Donald Trump's head. The articles fully dedicated to this photo were posted by Australian, British, American, German and Russian mass-media. (!!)
[13][14][15][16][17]
original 'The New York Times' article; also it was mentioned that the photo is 'a one in a million shot and nearly impossible to catch even if one knew the bullet was coming'.[18]
The image went viral as 'one of the craziest photos ever'
[19]
I think K. M. Skylark was requesting we add information about the picture to the article, not necessarily include the picture itself. A sentence could probably be added somewhere considering the media attention it has received. CFA💬22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently much debate going on about the fair use of copyrighted images of the event. Until such debates are resolved, and in case things are resolved in the 'we can't use images of the event' direction, it would be great if we could get some Wikipedian's artistic representation of the event, a la a courtroom sketch.
I'm afraid I don't have the talent for it myself. If some bold Wikipedian out there felt like making a realistic but artistic sketch of the event, using whatever angle he or she felt represented the thing best, and posted it to the Commons for free use, that would be immensely appreciated. Any Wikipedian out there who feels that he or she has the artistic chops for it, please give it a shot! Such a sketch will probably never be better than a photo, but if we end up unable to use photos, it might just be the next best thing. Joe (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That would rule. Plus it saves us the trouble of copyright. Undue weight however... Perhaps if they take the angle of him checking his ear? ~~~~ Ornov GangulyTALK03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Teyumbaita sulcognathus.jpgA Wikipedian's own artwork of Teyumbaita sulcognathus, an extinct animal, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for free use.
Such a sketch would not need to be notable in itself, just representative of the event. See, for example, this Wikipedian-generated image of Teyumbaita sulcognathus: the image is not notable in itself, but it is representative of the subject. I agree that such a sketch would not be perfectly ideal, but it would certainly be superior to nothing at all if the consensus ends up being that we can use no real images of the event whatsoever, as some users (much to my bizarre amazement) seem to be arguing.
We've had discussions in the past about hand-drawn images used to adorn BLPs, and the problem is that there are WP:OR issues. This is not a good idea. Zaathras (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be bogged down in 20,000 word discussions on whether Trump looks too ugly or handsome in the depiction. Best to leave Pandora's box sealed. Bremps...01:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) The RM that took place yesterday resulted in the current title. Start an RM if you want this article moved. Additionally, there's already a section about adding flags to the international responses section; please keep discussion on the topic in one place. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:21, 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.
If your suggestion is on the grammatical side, let's say "Assassination attempt of Donald Trump", this could be confusing, as the "of" could indicate that either Donald Trump was the target, or that he was the perpetrator. Even if the latter is an unlikely interpretation, I think the current page title is best, per WP:NATDIS.
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.
Clothing brand of perpetrator
Does the shirt brand of the perpetrator (in this case, a gun YouTuber) need to be specifically mentioned? Has any reliable source made a connection between the shirt and the act? Much is unclear about affiliations and this seem biased and could needlessly cause backlash against an unrelated third party. Joellaser (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely wait, @Joellaser:. Editors are right now adding any scraps and details that come out. Unless there's a link shown it should be left out. KlayCax (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joellaser: I'd say yes, we wait for little while to add the clothing brand of the perpetrator. I think you're referring to this diff here. Does anyone else have any thoughts or agree on this? PEPSI697 (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s it. There hasn’t been any new conversation about it. Last it was talked about, it was decided to, at least, leave the name out for now. Joellaser (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know. It's certainly an interesting factoid, but it might end up being relevant or it might not. As you say, in the meantime it has the potential to make the YouTube guy look like a giant asshole. I think that this stuff should probably be kept to a minimum until there's some more proper analysis. jp×g🗯️00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be mentioned per WP:RSBREAKING, which the NBC News source is - All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. And Sky News is just regurgitating what NBC reported. This is trivial information that has no encyclopedic value and should be removed.Isaidnoway(talk)00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more sources reporting on it now including Texan news outlets (where the channel is based). I added one to the article in response to your comment. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the encyclopedic value of including this? We have no idea why he is wearing the t-shirt in the first place. Not everything being reported is suitable for inclusion, especially when it is breaking news.Isaidnoway(talk)00:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the encyclopedic value of mentioning a fact that count hint that a shooter was possibly a gun enthusiast would be obvious. He was also in some gun club. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a gun enthusiast, if he even was, has no bearing on the act as a matter of fact. There is nothing liking this YouTube channel as a motive of an assassination. Same as mentioning his shoe brand and somehow linking it to this act. There is no information stating this. He could have just as easily picked this shirt off the ground. Unless you have sources conflating the two. Joellaser (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue a majority of that section lists facts about him that are irrefutable. Naming a YouTube channel, while a fact, implies something that is nothing more than conjecture and could cause irreparable harm to a third party that, more than most likely, has nothing to do with this in any capacity. If there are sources released about a connection, then that’s a different matter. Joellaser (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact brand was already removed, what was retained was a description of what the channel is about. It's intrinsically linked to this by the fact he was wearing it during. People can make their own judgments about it. The brand owner himself already seemed to draw the connection anyway (that is to say he recognized it was from his own merch). VintageVernacular (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He saw his merch being conflated in the news with no factual connection between him and an attempted assassination and his “drawing of a connection” was confusion and disbelief. I just don’t see the value added as not even the secret service have released a motive or mentioned it in any capacity. I’m for at least keeping it nameless, but leaning towards outright removal until any connections are confirmed. Joellaser (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because if no RS are making a direction connection between him wearing a particular brand of t-shirt and how it's related to the shooting, then it is just trivial. From what I've read in sources, they go into more detail about the YouTube channel and it's owner, rather than why this kid was wearing it.Isaidnoway(talk)01:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If RS give it weight, for now, it can be included, for now. Maybe in the future RS will not give it weight, at which point, it should be removed. A connection insofar as what RS explicitly say can be made. No connection should be SYNTH'd in. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the MSM want the reader to draw that conclusion in lieu of an official statement from the investigators. I believe it could be relevant, I don’t think someone would just throw on any shirt to commit an assassination knowing they are going to be publicized and three named in history books. He didn’t have an ID and had explosives in his car. This was not a spur of the moment decision to pick a random shirt. I'll hold off on speculating further. But until RS make that connection? It’s all conjecture. HoadRog (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Service identifying rooftop as vulnerability before rally
Omitted Context: The article does not mention recent calls for civil war from right-wing sources or their trending on social media, which is a significant aspect of the current political climate. [1][2]Ms.britt (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: It doesn't even make sense at all to me. According to reliable sources in this article, the perpetrator was killed by the FBI shortly after he opened fire at Trump and failed to assassinate him. PEPSI697 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Location of bystanders
So far I've seen news organizations list that the fireman who died took a bullet from the shooter; the other two critically injured are only ever noted as having been shot. Do we have a map showing the locations of the bystanders, and how many bullets were fired into the crowd? I heard quite a few on the video. We're going to get another magic bullet incident where people decide the SS shot the other two bystanders and somehow claim trained SS agents don't know how to handle guns or shoot at a roof. John Moser (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Not done - I'm not sure this is better than the current caption. "After escaping assassination" is a bit awkward, and stating that he was shot in the ear in the caption adds context for those who look at the image before reading the lede. - ZLEAT\C05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZLEA "After escaping assassination" is a concise and impactful phrase that immediately grabs the reader's attention and conveys the gravity of the situation. It foreshadows the danger the subject faced, creating intrigue and prompting the reader to delve further into the article. While it might be considered slightly dramatic, the phrase effectively sets the tone for the story and establishes a sense of urgency.
Additionally, including the detail about the ear injury in the caption serves a dual purpose. It not only provides context for those who view the image first, but it also adds a layer of visceral detail that enhances the narrative's impact. This detail reinforces the seriousness of the assassination attempt and helps the reader connect with the human element of the story.
While there might be alternative ways to phrase the lede or caption, the current choices are not inherently "awkward." They serve a specific purpose in engaging the reader and establishing the story's tone. ND61F (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Ducking isn't escaping"?. It can be instinctive to duck away from a gunshot in order to shield oneself from possible injury. The most common way to escape is to duck; other options include shielding, running, etc. Ducking is a crucial—and frequently the first—part of fleeing ND61F (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no source yet indicating that the bullets hit space he would've occupied had he not ducked, much less been fatal. So, no. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As MemeGod notes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't try to "immediately grab the reader's attention" with "impactful phrases". Also, if you need ChatGPT to tell you why your preferred wording is better, maybe you should reevaluate your stance. - ZLEAT\C08:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of all victims in first paragraph
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.[22]
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."[23]
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[24]
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]
I reverted this edit:[25] adding an editorial mentioning a poll indicating 10 percent of those surveyed said that the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”. Actually, I think it is an important point, albeit an editorial. But if added, it must be added in context and neutrally. See: [26][27][28][29][30]O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying that my edit was biased and presented the information out of context. Can you elaborate on why you think this? What would be an "in context and neutral" way of presenting the information, in your view? Zacwill (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been living for six years with a torrent of violent speech and some violent actions, including an insurrection resulting in 140 police injured. I'm afraid mentioning this one editorial alone, which suggests Democrats are violent, is not neutral. I'm not saying the poll is not useful, although it is one poll mentioned in an editorial. I am looking for input on an in context and neutral phrasing that encompasses the entirety of the atmosphere in which the US finds itself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not "suggest that Democrats are violent". It suggests that, based on polling, there is a small but significant segment of the US population that believes that the use of force against Trump is justified. Given that this is an article about the use of force against Trump, this is highly relevant background info. Zacwill (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what that one poll says. And if you read the articles I cited, you will see there is a significant segment of the US population that believes force to elect Trump is justified. Indeed, it has already occurred resulting in death and injuries to 140 police. But only one way is mentioned. This incident did not occur in a vacuum and we have yet to discover anything about the shooter's motivation. Just looking for some input from the community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea about the shooter's motivation or what drove him to this specific act on this day. Let us not add assumptions based on a poll. And let us remain neutral in presenting poll information. It's a quiet time of day in Wikipedia and I will wait for input from others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:47, 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.
Slatersteven is right: everything you've written above is WP:OR. If there's anything specific you want adding to the article, you're going to have to say plainly what it is and supply sources that back it up. — Czello(music)14:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barrel length does affect velocity, but will have diminishing returns and even start slowing down if it’s too long. The length of the bullet appears to be about a foot, not 2 feet. The exposure of the photograph is reported to be 1/8000 of a second. This obviously doesn’t add up, but I would assume the metadata would lean closer to 1/2500 or 1/4000 at most as that makes the most sense for what we are seeing and normal velocities. But we are getting into some serious napkin forensics here, and it probably isn’t that serious. The only thing this would prove is “this velocity is way too high” which doesn’t even make sense or matter. It’s probably a normal velocity and we aren’t getting the full story on exposures. If it’s an ar15, which I doubt there’s any reliable source even backing that up as everything is said to be an ar15 in these stories, I’d say it’s either 5.56/.223 or possibly .243 or .308 if it’s actually an ar10. Those are the most common I’d say. Joellaser (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I’ll state it here. That is not the bullet that hit Trumps ear. The photo is confirmed to be 1/8000 of a second. The photographer was within 15 feet of trump based on photos of where the photographer was. The only way any of this makes sense is if the bullet was between the photographer and trump. About half the distance. This would give the bullet an actual distance in the air of about 4 or 5 inches, which works out to the velocities you would expect to see. In fact, I’d say it entirely possible it’s a round from the Secret Sevice from the other roof. With that exposure time, that cannot be the bullet that hit trump in the ear. Joellaser (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chatgpt is not an RS, but it does nicely illustrate one of the issues, at what velocity was the bullet fired? 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't matter. The weapon can hit a target at that distance. The user got actually impressively close considering they had basically no experience. Anyone familiar should know that ~150m isn't that difficult if you have eight tries. GMGtalk16:52, 15 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.
The Secret Service is investigating how a man who shot and injured Trump was able to get so close
The Secret Service is investigating how a man who shot and injured Trump was able to get so close
A previous version of this page mentioned the attempted assassination of President Ronald Wilson Reagan (I don’t know if this is still on the page). In my opinion, a closer historical parallel whose inclusion would make more sense than Reagan’s is the attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt, as this event is more similar to that one than it is to the incident with Reagan. Both the Trump and Roosevelt assassination attempts targeted a former president who was shot during an event for their reelection campaign after about three-and-a-half years out of office. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:47, 15 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]
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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.
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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)
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.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
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]
Jurisdictional issues, Secret Service vs. Penn. State Police
This is a reddit post with a screenshot of a tweet from some guy, and does not give anything resembling a usable source for us to use. The personal character of the guy, or his importance, or legal licensure, or whether he digs Zeppelin or Floyd is not really relevant, contrary to some of the comments here; it is just not clear who he is supposed to be, or what the connection is to anything. jp×g🗯️08:34, 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.
The Agr building was not inside the secure area guarded by the Secret Service, which required members of the public to pass through a metal detector before entering. While Secret Service officers monitored the event inside the secure area, police officers from local township and county departments were assigned to secure the outer perimeter, The Post has reported. Officials said it was typical for the Secret Service to assign local police this responsibility, but that plans for securing the perimeter are structured and signed off by the Secret Service and are ultimately part of the overall Secret Service security plan for the event. [Over a dozen paragraphs later] An executive at Agr International, which manufactures quality control equipment for the bottle industry, told The Post that the company had worked with local police before the event on security matters. Police blocked off public access to the company’s parking lot and that space was available for law enforcement use, said William Bellis, the firm’s chief financial officer.
Seems like it was the police's jurisdiction, but that the Secret Service is ultimately responsible for how the security is handled through their security plans. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tweet from a disbarred felon with no connection O3000, Ret. (talk)
It doesn't, thanks for the note, I can write a more professional administrative note if you want: "literally who?" This is a screenshot of a tweet on reddit. jp×g🗯️02:27, 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.
British art critic Jonathan Jones from The Guardian's comments in the body
..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]
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.'[32]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]
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]
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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
Done In this revision – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 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)
.jpg)
![[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}
![[12]](https://images.indianexpress.com/2024/07/trump-shooting.jpg?w=1024){kind=link}
The redirect Donald Trump's ear has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Donald Trump's ear until a consensus is reached. Un assiolo (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: It doesn't even make sense at all to me. According to reliable sources in this article, the perpetrator was killed by the FBI shortly after he opened fire at Trump and failed to assassinate him. PEPSI697 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Safiel (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)