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.
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
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]
Palin didn't say anything. A chart was published by her campaign using crosshair icons to designate political targets. In 20-20 hindsight not a good idea. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources covering the incident that also mention the fuller quote, such as the AP:So, we’re done talking about the debate. It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye. He’s gotten away with doing nothing for the last 10 days except ride around in his golf cart, bragging about scores he didn’t score. … Anyway I won’t get into his golf game. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well some guy took that literally it seems. Reliable sources are important here but we have to find a good balance being Wikipedia and all... Woobab (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement made from the Joe Biden Twitter account. July 8th 2024 "It's time to put a Bullseye on Trump" Referencing a call to action for continued Political Violence. Bullseye is referenced in Webster Dicitionary as the center of a target for archery, shooting, and darts. 75.112.4.134 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No serious person thinks that Crooks saw that tweet and thought "yes sir Mr President" come on. The issue is the relentless demonization of Trump "He's a threat to democracy" "he's a threat to your rights" "he'll be a dictator" "he'll destroy the planet by ignoring climate change" and on and on and on and we're papering over that as "polarization". --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea for a new article might be good, but it highlights the issue with the rest of your position. Even if such an article were created, it wouldn't change the public's use of rhetoric, which can be controversial and be the very reason they end up in articles.This site is more about recording what happened, not injecting a desired redirect or correction, no matter how logical or well intended. We can say Biden's use of "bullseye" is normal political discource but then Palin's name appears 9 times in the Tucson article, entirely because her website had a bullseye. I wish I could point out what might be a majority of political discource is people intentionally or unintentionally misconstruing what other people say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shootingCalifornianin (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I largely agree. As I wrote, on reflection what really bothered me was the weight of this statement given by placing it in the article lede. It was a subject for a later section, not the lede. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any evidence yet that Crooks 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]
"putting in the crosshairs", "putting your sights on" and "putting a bullseye on" are like "putting on a hot seat". Metamorphical or idiomatic use. Not meant by the user to be taken literally literally. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
i am unable to add it due to the protection level and also because last time i tried, i got a nastygram from an administrator claiming i am an vandal, and a different admin claiming i am on thin ice so i will leave it to others to determine whether to add this material. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really does seem conspiratorial at this stage.
As well as the bullseye comment, Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. I've yet to see any news site mention that in relation to this shooting, but it's something that was said and is arguably as related as the bullseye comment, in that it's pure conjecture and likely had no bearing on the shooter's motive. Just throwing it out there. Caesar35 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesar35:Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. [...] it's something that was said Can you provide a reliable source and direct quote for this claim you just made up? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should assume good faith before accusing someone of making something up. In this case, here is a source. When asked by Sotomayor "The president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?", Trump's attorney John Sauer responded "It would depend on the hypothetical. We could see that could well be an official act." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bidemade this comment, some republicans have highlighted it and it's well covered by the above reliable sources. That's it, what are you opining about "conjecture" and bringing up the Supreme Court? That is a distraction. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's conspiracy to link it directly to the shooter's actions. There's no evidence he even heard of it - I didn't before - or that it in any way influenced him to carry it out. In short, it's conjecture to say Biden's bullseye comment and the shooting were directly related. The reason I threw the Supreme Court arguments in was to prove that point. Theres just as much evidence he could've been influenced by that than Biden's comment, in that there's no evidence for it.
Keep the quote for all I care. The amount of buzz it's received is probably relevant. But make sure to word it so it doesn't imply that's what tipped the shooter over into actually committing the attack.
My suggestion would be to have it under the Conspiracies section, in that some believe Biden's words were a call to literally shoot Trump, rather than a figure of speech, as they almost certainly were. Caesar35 (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed this in a different thread. Basic and stick to the facts.
"On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion in a previous thread was having it in the conspiracy section, something to the effect of "During a call with donors on [whatever date], Biden said he wanted "Trump in a bullseye". In the aftermath of the assassination attempt, some members of the Republican party took this as a literal call for Trump to be harmed, with some blaming Biden directly for the attempt".
I don't know if it'd really fit in anywhere else. It's only really relevant in that people took Biden as literally saying he wanted Trump killed, which is almost certainly not the case and this speculation/a "conspiracy theory". Hmm, maybe under Republicans' reactions, in that Biden's words were later criticised/considered inflammatory? Or around the part talking about heightened political tension?
As I said, it's not that Biden said it in the first pace that's up for debate; my issue was with it implying that what he said directly contributed to the shooting. Unless it's proven that the shooter heard what Biden said, and that's what prompted him to commit the attack, such phrasing would be thus speculative. Caesar35 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what source calls this a conspiracy? That is your judgement. I believe putting in conspiracy section is biased by wanting to de-legitimize what is reported by many RS. The two sentences I proposed are very clear. Shall we get an unbiased admin in here? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What section would you like to put it in?
Again, it's conspiracy/misinformation/whatever you want to call it to say Biden ordered the attack by using those words. That's my issue with how it was originally worded in the article. None of those sources above mention it in such a way; merely that various Republicans claim it was. It doesn't matter if a politician says so or thinks it's true, it's still not fact.
Johnson even says in the CNN article above: “President Biden himself said in recent days, ‘It’s time to put a bullseye on Trump.’ I know he didn’t mean what is being implied there, but that kind of language on either side should be called out,”
It seems he also doesn't believe Biden was actually, literally, calling for Trump to be shot by using a fairly common turn of phrase.
Like I said, put it under either Conspiracy Theories (which is no longer there, thankfully. The internet could do with less of that) or under Republicans' reactions. If you're so Hell bent on getting it in the article, then by all means I think an admin's opinion would be best. Caesar35 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put under “reactions, domestic” in fact there is now a part noting that republicans accused Biden of inciting. Can just add the first sentence I had with the “bullseye” quote. That's all that is incremental, not that the article has evolved. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden statements before shooting belong in background
Reliable sources attributing the following statement to Biden on July 8th and associating his rhetoric with the shooting. This belongs in the article.
Biden statement:
"It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye"
The background should have a couple sentences like this:
"On a call with donors on July 8th, Presoent Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting."
you seem very intent on relegating this information to the conspiracy theories section. do you have a reliable source that paints it as such? Daddyelectrolux (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden said those words, but it's a conspiracy theory to say the shooter acted on those words, because there's no evidence they had any bearing on his actions.
is there a reliable source that calls it a conspiracy theory? The reliable sources are attributing the quote to Biden. The reaction to the quote is also reported by reliable sources, It’s quite simple. The background section is for events proceeding. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to see more RS covering this or is the list of CNN, USA today, BBC and WSJ not enough? This legitimate reporting on a relevant fact that they have all covered in their articles. The link you dismissed is covered in the RS. Is it your opinion that the link is "speculative"? I don't see the RS uaing that language. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't even able to properly interpret the sources you're mentioning. The sources aren't reporting that "Biden is responsible," they are reporting that "Republicans ACCUSE Biden for being responsible." You're trying to pass off the latter (an opinion) as the former (a factual claim). Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read my proposed language here and tell me what is not accurate as reported in RS. I slight revised what I put above. Not interpreting anything, just summarizing numerous RS. I haven't proposed language that "Biden is responsible". Please read and be objective.
"On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs in official reactions, I don't see why it would be in conspiracy section; AFAIK nobody is claiming Biden ordered a hit. There's already crazier content there about Republican U.S. representative Mike Collins of Georgia called for a Republican prosecutor to charge Biden for inciting an assassination and very parallel content about Senators Vance and Scott + Leader Scalise generally criticizing rhetoric.
It's probably better to have an actual statement to link back to that's consistently covered in RS rather than vague "X accuses Y of supposedly infallamatory content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little late to the conversation, but agreed that this belongs in the official reactions - as well as the fact that Biden later apologized for the remark, saying that it was "a mistake" to make the comment. That being said, I believe that Republican criticism of the remark is incredibly disingenuous, and that the odds that the shooter acted on Biden's remark was slim-to-none at best, but putting that in the article would be needlessly pontificating.
It needs reduction as the original comment was made before the attack, and all we need is "republicans blamed the attack on a comment made by Biden months before the attack, a claim disputed by both the Bien campaign and others", this is all it deserves, its a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was not "months", it was a few days, and Biden conceded it was a mistake to use the term. this concession should be included in the article, in my humble opinion. "It was a mistake to use the word," the president conceded, but added, "I meant focus on him. Focus on what he's doing." is the full quote from the link from I.am.a.qwerty above. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no? It's nonsense intended to distract from years of incendiary, violent rhetoric from Republicans calling for the deaths of their opponents. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the Democrats or Biden. Trump was shot by a fellow Republican with a gun the Democrats have been trying to ban for years. Of the 350 violent political attacks over the last several years, only three or so were made by leftists. This is a phenomenon of right-wing extremism, and there's no debate over it, the facts speak for themselves. Full stop, end of discussion. Enough with the distractions, the red herrings, the misdirections, and the lies. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm
I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a topic for an article about Elon Musk's political donations as it stands. Besides that, we need to wait for someone to say that Musk is doing his usual nonsense. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning)00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 193 countries on earth, each with many leaders. Javier Milei and Benjamin Netanyahu saying they offer condolences do not have lasting impact on politics. Unless the media hyperfixates on any specific leader's comments, they are trivia or clutter. We have set a very low bar to entry by allowing one line responses from even previous world leaders. When we mention Biden's responses, that is because it is an extension of the US government's attitude and because it will be highly covered. The same will likely not be true of Kier Starmer. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are politicians mouthing platitudes. That is the job of politicians, and deserves no more mention than any other non-encyclopedic topic. Abductive (reasoning)01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of a single realistic scenario where this would be necessary. The point remains that we need to prune this section down to three or four sentences max. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions of world leaders are relevant. The reactions of former world leaders (e.g. Liz Truss, who was in the office for less than two months), and Opposition Leaders (e.g. Pierre Poilievre) isn't. Luminism (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you on that last part. Hopefully we can get more support so this doesn't turn into WP:WAR. I beg to differ on the first part, and I suppose we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. Again, my reasoning is that their thoughts do not impact politics in either country. This is a national event, and unless/until other countries take it as a cue to update policies or treat the US a different way, this is politically irrelevant. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responses section is the largest section in this article at 12,983 bytes. It is continuing to grow because we are allowing additions too liberally. Please use this area as a discussion section for this topic. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few edits trimming down this section. It appears to be a bunch of copy paste tweets and other irrelevant information. The primary topic of the article is the shooting not the reactions. SKAG123 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this. RFK needs to be the subject of like two NYT op-eds about this specifically (even one) for this to be notable. It will take months. Same for Elon. Right now they're just some schmucks. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But have they actually lent that heavy influence? Musk can say that he likes an anime today. If we don't see a spike in people watching it and talking about it crediting him, he has no connection. His PAC donations are an interesting lead, but they precede the shooting. Only if he donates more now will it be notable. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions. Right now, it is at what I hope is the peak size. 17k bytes is excessive when nobody is doing anything more substantial than saying "sending love and prayers xoxo such tough times" Ornov GangulyTALK16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a reactions section, I see a responses section. And the responses by politicians is quickly bordering on lunatic fringe. Seriously, claiming the radical left and the corporate media is working together? And claiming Biden should be held responsible? Just total lunatic fringe nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lunatic fringe is what has more longevity here. People are talking about them disproportionately. We're keeping RFK off unless he suggests that the CIA tried to kill Trump. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a separate page called "Responses to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" which would have all the responses collected on it. This page would be reserved for the "big ones." BootsED (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in anyway astonishing or even notable that politicians are chiming in to say that they are against people shooting at politicians? Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Hardly any reactions besides those of Biden, Harris, Shapiro, and maybe Trump's core team are notable on their own. They set precedents for political relations and local rule. If we make another article just for this, it would be pointless and begin a debate there about how much is too much in an already unnoteworthy article. Ornov GangulyTALK17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did previously endorsed democrats. But he never was a democrat politician. He just was an investor trying to get political support for his investments.
It is only in the past few years that he began to make statements about politics on a very regular basis, even more since he bought Twitter. And during all this time, journalists always described nearly all of those statements as leaning towards Trump. Dumbleporte (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add comments from Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver
Comments from the Oliver should probably be added to the Responses category.
Might read something like "Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver extended well wishes to the former president, saying 'Political violence is never the answer, no matter how divided we may be.'" Abbyfluoroethane (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a WP thing about how it's easier to keep adding to an article than to trim it. There's no discussion with them often because they don't go to the talk page, but if we remove it, it'll become a huge thing. Ornov GangulyTALK17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the reactions section is a long paragraph. I suggest we make it a table and then if I understand correctly a map can then be autogenerated of the nations with responses. ItzSwirlz (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a very effortful workaround to a problem that exists only because we are ignoring the discussions here to keep adding international reactions. This should be two sentences maximum until and unless a foreign leader makes a substantive change to their own security as a result. Georgia is possibly the only exception to this rule because they are making huge political claims. Ornov GangulyTALK17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way, way too long, and efforts to discuss it are being ignored
The reactions/responses section continues to grow rapidly. Since yesterday, I would argue that progress has been made. The intro paragraph is good, Trump and U.S. Officials' reactions give due weight and are relevant, but the International leaders and Others sections are a bit wanton. Why do we care about Broglio? Evidence of people listening to these influential people or them making substantial contributions to Trump's campaign are the only things that would validate mentioning them.
43,717 bytes. 19k of which are just the international reaction. This is absurd.
Elon donated money to Trump before the shooting, but right now he is offering platitudes. Endorsement here is not meaningful because he has already endorsed Trump on Twitter. Why does Bezos even matter? They need to do more than speak. The President earns a mention because his words set a precedent for the country, and because he is caught up in the accusations of conspiracy.
International leaders are not doing anything about the shooting, nor are they offering anything but words to Trump. Irakli Kobakhidze is the exception, undue weight be damned, because it is part of his conspiratorial politics. Who cares what Finland thinks? Israel is not changing their policies based on this. People can find this information any way they want. We have set a horrible standard in allowing everything in. This section should simply be "Many heads of state condemned the shooting. K-I-S-S.
Much of this section will undoubtedly be merged into the Conspiracy theories section once time passes. Let's set standards now because editors are avoiding the talk page and just putting more information in. Ornov GangulyTALK20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. The reactions and conspiracy sections, especially the international reactions section is entirely too long for the article. Should we move them both to the same article or to separate articles?
If it's notable that "Trump was seen by many Americans as a living martyr after the event", it is also notable that many Americans expressed regrets that he survived the attempt. Is there any particular reason for which we are limiting information about the public reaction to views that are considered savory in mainstream politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.89.202 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, the only people saying anything publicly along the lines of "I regret the shooter missed" are either 1) retracting it quickly after due to blowback, or 2) not exactly notable people that Wikipedia should cover? I also haven't seen any credible sources saying that it's a widespread view.
I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say I don't know know anyone who is happy the shooter missed. Granted, I mostly know queer people who are staring down having all of their rights being stripped in away in the next four years because this guy couldn't aim slightly to the left, and for whom this all feels a bit 1933. I think it makes sense that it's hard to find news sources reporting on this, but it's not hard to, e.g., browse through the latest posts with the #KillTrump hashtag on X and find this sentiment being expressed, despite censorship and fear of recriminations. Somewhat more difficult is finding the same sentiment being expressed more covertly, because obviously it's hard to search for it by design, but there's a good deal more of that. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are deviating widely of what is expected of wikipedia and its editors.
I understand that. It is a frustrating restriction, though. It means that I read this article and am presented with the impression that America unanimously and vociferously celebrated the moment when the fate of me and everyone I love was set in stone; that no one was afraid for us; that we ourselves cheered on as the man empowering the people who want us dead escaped the consequences of his actions unharmed. I thought that this country would always be a safe place for me to live. It is becoming clear that in fact, it would throw me and everyone I care about under the bus to avoid discomfort. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article serves as one, though, because it reads like a press release from the Trump campaign. It may as well begin, "Everyone on Earth adores Donald Trump and fully supports everything he does. Here are a hundred or more pieces of evidence to that effect." 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reframe this issue in a way that might be more helpful. Considering the second pillar, how does Wikipedia deal with the issue of the available sources not affording a neutral point of view? If it is the case that "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority" but it is not "easy to name prominent adherents" - as in this case, where the possibility of naming prominent adherents is less viable for fairly obvious reasons - how does Wikipedia handle that? 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in my last comment below, if RS comment on it we can, if RS do not we can't so find some RS comments on this, or get the policy changed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where has Trump said he wants you do die?
I'm talking an original quote. Considering how mainstream media even on both sides distorts pretty much everything, an original quote with day, time and location where he said it would be good.
Also, as a general rule, I never wish anyone dead. Even people who outright hate me. I very much hope every one finds the true source of Joy. Nickalh (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a "not nice" reaction that has RS, we can consider adding it. It likely wouldn't be unless the person is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue for us to include it, it would have to be sourced to RS saying it, thus they have noticed it, thus we should, if it can't be sourced to RS this is just soapboxing and needs hatting. So it is down to those who want to include something about this to find RS backing up their edits, or dropping the stick. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the photo keeps disappearing from the infobox -- there are some technical issues with edits getting messed up and repeatedly colliding with each other and destroying changes, but I feel like this picture has vanished like five or six times already. It is true that it's a fair-use image, and there is a FfD open for it due to copyright issues, but the procedure for ongoing FfDs is emphatically not "go through and rip images out of articles with a steak knife". Please do not remove the photo unless it is actually deleted at the FfD. jp×g🗯️05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that, besides the FfD, there is also the issue of this specific picture being non-neutral for the article's infobox, as it depicts Trump striking a pose in the aftermath of the shooting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As numerous editors have mentioned that is not how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't a non-neutral photo, it's respecting notability and showing what the vast majority of the media is covering. It is just like Battle of Iwo Jima showing a "non-neutral" pose, among plenty of other examples. Should we change Wikipedia precedent just for Trump? Bill Williams06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear to God I didn't see your comment when I was typing out mine. I am kind of embarrassed that we used the same photo as an example, it feels like showing up to a party with the exact same costume as somebody else 😅 jp×g🗯️06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not really our fault if the photo incidentally makes him look cool. It may be worthwhile to compare File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg, a different historic photo of an assassination attempt, which happens to make the Otoya Yamaguchi look really cool (even if he was a deranged piece of shit, as can be seen by the fact that the photo depicts him in the middle of murdering a guy). File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg which makes the United States military look unbelievably cool -- so much so that they've used it in recruitment materials for a bajillion years afterwards -- but I don't think that using it at Battle of Iwo Jima is propaganda, it's just the most recognizable image that came from that battle (indeed, per ja:硫黄島の戦い, both sides agree that it's a dope photo).
Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not generally in the business of formally endorsing governments or militaries or politicians. But I think that, in the business of documenting history and the world we live in, it's appropriate to use the most iconic images, which are the most widely understood and associated with the stuff we're writing about. jp×g🗯️06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely iconic, just like the one where he took the chiefs of staff for a walk to the church across from the White House and waved a Bible around. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that situation (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church), we use a public domain White House photo, Creative Commons licensed images (Ashburton House fire), and a public domain video report from Voice of America, among other later images. People discussed his actions that day, not the individual photos. Fast-forward ten years, are people going to be discussing the photo itself, or Trump's fist pumping? -- Zanimum (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I question the use of this image as fair use, and also it being "the image". We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here. I'm also not seeing this photo very consistently - a lot of news sources are using other images, such as [3], [4], [5], and [6], all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here." Any images taken from the event would be valuable. Why would anyone give it up for free? Trade (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG the article describes how the image is used by his allies, and influencing his public image. The image is appropriate to use in the public image section. As the lead image of the article I would say it is breaching NPOV. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion here and over on the FFD, I've been bold and moved the image to the point in the article where the image is being specifically discussed, in line with the NFCC and fair use, and the emerging consensus on the FFD discussion. Likely to be the less of the evils here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest something along these lines: it seems like the main issue comes from it being in the infobox specifically, but there is no real reason that it needs to be in the infobox specifically. I think it is better to have it down further. jp×g🗯️10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcoolbro I think the consensus here is clear that the usage in the infobox isn't supported, and I don't see what an RfC will add given the mess the FFD discussion has become with people who aren't used to working with copyright. I can go through the article history later to ping those restoring it to get them to contribute, but I can't really work this out on mobile! Mdann52 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a stable image on the page? Maybe through an RfC? The image has been replaced again, this time with an obvious copyright violation that is just going to be deleted on Commons. CFA💬19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please count me as being extremely strongly in favor of any image arrangement whatsoever -- I do not care even slightly -- so long as people quit slapboxing each other moving the pictures around constantly, and the pictures quit getting randomly removed over and over. jp×g🗯️07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA.Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA. I've found some footage which is probably more illustrative of the assassination. It shows Trump being escorted to his car by the secret service right after the assassination attempt. The footage was provided by VOA (I found it on the Albanian channel so thats why the text is in Albanian) and was not attributed to an external source, so as far as I am aware it is the most illustrative free content recording of the event. Perhaps it should be placed at the top of the article instead?
Anybody is free to edit it and remove the watermark. But even with the watermark, it's still highly relevant to the article and should be included. ―Howard • 🌽3313:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The clip was used in the video without attribution in the form of a watermark, whereas every other clip in the video was attributed to the respective providers (AFP, Reuters, etc.), so I assumed it was created by VOA themselves. I will try and see if any original of this video can be found. ―Howard • 🌽3313:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can restore it no problem. The YT video is under a CC license, but it also includes a boat load of obviously fair use content. The VOA thing only covers content that is the original creation of VOA. GMGtalk13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: Yeah, you gotta be careful with YouTube. A lot of the stuff is just uploaded by some intern or something who doesn't necessarily take into account things like fair use or derivative works. GMGtalk14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing raised-fist photo
Per WP:NFC#UUI number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). Ergo, we should remove the image of Trump pumping his fist from this article right? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussions here about the use of the image seem to have stalled for over a day (not long in the general Wikipedia case, but long on this high-attention page), and the point you raise is valid. Yes we should remove the image from here so long as the image has its own article. This is a copyright concerned, and ought not be overruled by people's liking of it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't there just need to be a second NFCC template at the image's information page? Fair-use images can be used in more than one page, can they not? jp×g🗯️06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp -- it looks like there IS a second NFCC, so I don't think there's a fair use basis to remove it from here. I am not familiar with the proper channel for disputing an improper NFCC rationale so I cannot give any guidance on that (I mean, maybe it is talk page consensus, who knows). jp×g🗯️06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that the image is used in another article, it's that it violates WP:NFC#UUI number six in the most straightforward and plainest of words possible. [Using a fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).TheWikiToby (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
..through a magical cocktail of chance and Vucci’s excellent eye, this scene with the close-knit human group under the stars and stripes echoes Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph of US Marines Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima in 1945. Both pictures portray an embattled collectivity with the stars and stripes triumphant above them. A similar scene was invented by Emanuel Leutze in his 1851 painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. This photograph joins those timeless patriotic images. It would not be the same without Old Glory. The American flag is the best-designed in the world, its abstract beauty striking and poignant in any setting. Here it is surrounded by violence and fear, as in the US national anthem: Trump makes his defiant call to fight on with the star-spangled banner perfectly situated parallel to his fist.
Presently, we don't explain why the images were praised, and a short explanation for why seems entirely WP: DUE for the article.
There should be some explanation for why the images were classified among the greatest works of political photography ever. Vox, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other news organizations have gone and made similar statements. Would you be okay with wording that gives an alternative description of the ideas portrayed in the paragraph? This is obviously a concept that deserves at least a brief mention and I'm open to suggestions. KlayCax (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an overreliance on quotes and I see you've done the same (and had it objected to) on Vance's bio. Not to mention this is the article on the assassination attempt, not the article on the photograph. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Just for the record, someone inserted another sentence into the info sourced to WPXI, so I fixed the sourcing to be clear about what is sourced to WPXI. The fix seems to have been accidentally unfixed, and I fixed it again. WPXI also partly supports the CNN "Multiple sources..." sentence. Boud (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Ronny Jackson's nephew be included in the injury count?
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.
Let me begin by stating that a "graze" is a much less severe injury than that of Comperatore, Dutch, and Copenhaver–but it is roughly equivalent to the injury Trump received in the attack. However, as has been noted in the article and under the victims section, Rep. Ronny Jackson's nephew had his neck grazed by a bullet when Crooks opened fire, so shouldn't the Jackson's nephew also be included in the total injury count? There is a possibility of course that Jackson could be lying, but unless that is proven I feel that the injury count should be adjusted accordingly. Raskuly (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have RS to support the updated injury counts? I don’t understand what’s so difficult with the policy concerning WP:OR. Wikipedia editors aren’t here to speculate or do our own WP:OR. If WP:RS are updating casualty / injury counts then we can update ours based on those reliable sources as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kcmastrpc, I don't understand why you always bring up RS when there are RS, because the source mentioned in the article already that mentions the injury to Jackson's nephew (that I referenced) has been there for a long period of time. Raskuly (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump, which does not seem like a thing we can have certain knowledge of by reading a bunch of random stuff online that mentions it tangentially. If there was someone who actually knew what the hell they were talking about and said for sure that they were the same amount of injured, then yeah, it would be worth including; otherwise it would not.
It is not really an arithmetic issue: we do not need reliable sources to give us permission to add together numbers that total less than five. But the decision to call one thing an injury and some other thing an injury, I feel like involves more detailed knowledge than we can bring to bear from a Wikipedia talk page. jp×g🗯️07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump" Trump was grazed and so was he. Why is one graze an injury and the other not? Raskuly (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason you stated, the decision to call one thing an injury… is precisely why we can’t just add up numbers here; imho we should depend on reliable sources to give us total injuries related to this event to use them in infoboxes/leads. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, if it was unbelievably obvious it would be one thing, but this is not; it's a weird socially-constructed edge case where the intended victim of the attack suffered unusually minor injuries, but extremely visible ones. Any reasonably consistent application of principles ought to make this a lower bound on severity, rather than a stupidly disjunct carveout for the one guy. So, okay, how bad was the other guy grazed? But if we really follow the logic to this point, we are so far up the colon of poorly-defined and arbitrary distinctions, there is no reason to not just (at least for now) accept what the sources say. jp×g🗯️11:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"grazed without being injured" doesn't make any sense. It is part of the definition of the word "graze" that it is a very minor injury that causes an abrasion of the skin and also consider that Trump was also grazed, this is not a good argument because if you want to include Trump and not Jackson's nephew by saying a graze can be considered not an injury then one can argue that Trump wasn't injured. According to Jackson there was blood associated with his nephew's "non-injury", if you are curious.[7][8][9]Raskuly (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several days have gone by and there is still no corroboration of Jackson's claim that his nephew was grazed. Surely, in such a momentous issue, there would be some kind of medical, legal, media or political corroboration that the injury was a consequence of the shooting. It remains the case that Jackson is the sole purveyor of this assertion. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be the best argument against the inclusion imo, as I said when I opened the discussion people can lie. So, should the total injury count be reduced or should we wait until there is pushback from reliable sources about Jackson's claim or if he retracts it? Raskuly (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Details on the AR-15 ?
When it becomes available details on the configuration of the murder weapon should be added, especially whether the shooter was aiming over iron sights or if he was using a scope, and if so what kind. This is notable because it influences what kind of accuracy is attainable. Lklundin (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is one of such sources. Probably the most important detail is that "It’s unclear if he used any optics to magnify his perspective." According to other sources, he actually did NOT use any optics. That was the reason he missed, along with being a relatively poor/inexperienced shooter. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without an optic, with this weapon, a 150-yard headshot is not something for which it can simply be said that an experienced shooter could do it, unqualifiedly. Not at all. You'll see that the quoted SEAL sniper presupposes that it wasn't iron sights. —Alalch E.18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone posted a video yesterday that reconstructs the shooting, alleging that the bullet would have unalived Trump if he had not turned his head. People here are saying the shooter missed because he was inexperienced, but from the reconstructed video I saw, the bullet was on target, but Trump turned at the last moment, which seems incredible the more you think about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. Honestly i fail to see why we need all the following details "He was carrying a DPMS Panther Arms-produced AR-15–style rifle with a 16" barrel (32" total length), chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO, described as an average rifle of its type and effective at the range intended by Crooks". This is not a shooters fan base forum where all those details matter. Are we going to list also what brand ammo was used? ammo grains and velocity? magazine manufacturer? where does it become fan material? Bohbye (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes sense in the infobox, it makes sense in the prose. I understand that this can be perceived as gun cruft, but I don't approach this from that angle, as I am not a gun enthusiast at all. This is a type of a "conventional fact", that is simply normal and expected by readers in an article with this subject matter. The information comes from reliable sources. I find it more encylopedic to say what something is exactly than to say that it's just a type of something and leave it at that. The Kennedy assassination rifle has an entire article at John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. AR-15 style rifles are often all described as average, popular, and standard, but they do have certain varieties. For example, they can be shorter than 32 inches and have a shorter barrel than 16 inches. They can also have different cartridges. I agree that technical detail such as ammo velocity would not belong in the article. —Alalch E.22:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its still gun cruft. ARs are like lego for gun enthusiast, and i know plenty about it, its endless when it comes to details what to list. Next will be irons, optics, grips, handles, flash hiders, stock, magazines, magazine capacity, ammo brand, ammo velocity, ammo grains, bullet type, store ammo vs remanufactured ammo, gun belt, and what not. DPMS Panther ArmsAR-15–style rifle in the infobox is more than enough detail. Given that you added it back, i would ask other editors to add their opinion as i do not plan on edit wars. Bohbye (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want any more detail about the gun and will be in total solidarity with you if someone adds more. So don't worry that this is some kind of trend. The detail I added is deliberately the exact detail about the gun that I think merits inclusion, but I'll oppose any extra detail as gun cruft just as you would. I find the model, the make, the length, the chamber as exactly the right information for this article. I'm also interested in what other editors have to say. Cheers. —Alalch E.23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we institute one standard, and keep to it consistently across all guns that have spilled Presidential blood. Then, anybody who wants to add an additional technical spec to this guy's gun is required to first go buff up Burr–Hamilton duel#Pistols. jp×g🗯️03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Optics, should probably be mentioned.--Irons, probably mention if they were ready-for-use in the way the weapon was configured at the time of the attack.--Some (other) details should maybe be (in the infobox), under some "Expand" thingy. 2001:2020:337:9E1E:3940:1C6A:CE6E:B887 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undue emphasis on "left-wing conspiracy theories"
An entire paragraph and a half at the beginning of the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" emphasizes that most of it "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views", but without backing the claim up with anything specific. All the notable examples of misinformation and conspiracy theories come from the usual suspects in the far right. the claim that "the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right" is not supported by any of the evidence presented. Everything that follows shows that it is indeed very much the people on right who are responsible for the "communal warping of reality". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to go take that up with the editorial board of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It is arguably true that our sourcing policies are overly deferential to the aesthetic and cultural mores of upper-class prestige media, but it seems to be somewhat like democracy, in that it is the worst system except for all the other ones which have been tried. jp×g🗯️11:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in that section is properly attributed and reliably sourced; with examples of the conspiracy theories from left-leaning sources and personalities. If you feel like WP and NYT are no longer reliable sources, consider bringing that up at RSN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the relevant examples in the article itself come from far right sources, whereas the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory. That's natural skepticism based on first impressions of the suspiciously good campaign photo that came out of it, and lasted for a day or two. On the flipside, insane QAnon level speculations about an assassination ordered by Biden or orchestrated by "the Deep State" fit the definition of a "conspiracy theory", and also make up the overwhelming majority of the examples in the article. It's one thing to have all claims be attributed.
It's a whole other matter to cite NYT and WaPo on the claim that the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, only to completely contradict that when the time comes to present the actual examples. Wikipedia doesn't have to reference everything. If a single claim made by two outlets is contradicted by a wast amount of more detailed information, including concrete examples, it should be okay to simply leave that claim out. It wouldn't be the end of the world. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I first saw the section focus initially/primarily on the left-wing conspiracy theories, but it does appear entirely due. It's not just a few outliers like the NYT or WaPo claiming this, but multiple sources including the BBC, Telegraph, even the left-leaning Guardian has acknowledged this. That's probably what makes the analysis in the first paragraph due also, as it documents the shift in the conspiracy landscape from right-wing to left-wing, that hasn't been documented before that I'm aware of. CNC (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neitehr of which is (also) true, right-wing conspiracies about this are also popular. It's just that now the left has something they can make a conspiracy out of as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the section covers right-wing theories and topics as well, but I believe what CNC was referring to is the landscape shift being so well covered by sources that have, historically speaking, been accused of being partisan by those who don't always agree with what they say. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an accurate quote "Lots of the most viral posts, including this, came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views. ". Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNC referenced the source that quote came from; so I'm genuinely confused as to what remedy you're proposing here, be WP:BOLD if you think there should be a change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Slater, but I recommend that the section focuses on actual tangible conspiracy theories and misinformation, and just skip the imprecise and subjective speculations about alleged shifts in the conspiracy theory landscape. As well as to avoid giving undue weight to certain "left wing conspiracy theories" that went viral once when the story first broke, and died down a few hours afterwards, and only focus on actual conspiracy theories that are properly covered and prominently and enduringly promulgated by individuals who are influential voices within their own political circles. If by any chance this will eliminate all of the so called "left wing conspiracy theories", that just means that the claims about landscape-shifts were poorly informed. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the Lorenz piece (subhed is Researchers who track online conspiracies say liberals are increasingly vulnerable to — and generating — QAnon-like bursts of misinformation) we have a bunch of stuff like:
As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of BlueAnon conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is spreading well beyond the right.
I do agree that there are some systemic issues at play here, where our sourcing guidelines are prone to uncritically representing opinion as fact purely because it were said in a newspaper, but inasmuch as this is the general consensus-supported practice on Wikipedia, it does seem like this is what the article says. jp×g🗯️13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should urge caution when it comes to any use of the term "BlueAnon". The word describes a thing that doesn't actually, and originates from self proclaimed centrists (which I can only assume cefers to the center between Far Right and Liberal Right) engaging in what's called "bothsidesism". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a great point, I heard that after this article Taylor Lorenz was given an offer to go be executive editor at Breitbart, and she's taking it, and Ezra Klein will be anchoring for Newsmax, and Nancy Pelosi is switching her party affiliation to Alternative für Deutschland. Come on. jp×g🗯️16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not true. Sources that claim the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, cannot present any examples besides famous left-leaning people being slightly skeptical in the first few hours following the event. To take that claim and assert that the left now became the side of conspiracy theorists is not only dishonest, it's straight up false. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the word “staged” became the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump,” with over 228,000 posts on the platform using the word"[11]. I've added that to the article as it was missing. It clearly documents that the "stages" conspiracy theories were overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) from the left. It's presented as is, it's not intended to suggest "the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left", only that in aftermath the most popular conspiracies were. The right have been more "creative" with their theories from antifa, secret service, to joe biden, and assume the majority. I don't think anyone is questioning that. CNC (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "staged" trended for about all of a few hours. Because of the microphone readjusting to avoid the loud sound of the gunshots from clipping/peaking the microphone, people initially suspected it to be a BB gun. The word "staged" quickly fell off trending once it was confirmed an audience member and the shooter died at the time. Namealreadytak (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the theory that left-wing conspiracies trended "first" with most popularly, followed by right-wing conspiracies (in fact it's entirely what appears to be the case). However from all the RS I read on this I couldn't find any context to support this, even if ideally the section would clarify something along these lines. I just had another search based on the "top conspiracies", but even these fail to document any chronological ordering or relevance. CNC (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So because a bunch of people on social media were initially skeptical about the official presentation of the event, we're just going to take that as evidence that the so called "left" is now just as big on conspiracy theories as the right is? That is preposterous. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what reliable sources say. You're comment above "...the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory." shows that you're not willing to accept the interpretation from RS, that spreading misinformation about the event being staged is a conspiracy theory, it's not merely "speculation" and "skeptisim". CNC (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not accepting the interpretation by RS? That comment is based entirely on what's written in the article itself. This is what's evident from the reliable sources.
The claim that the event was staged was speculation based on incomplete information, and died down completely in a few hours after more information was made public. Just because one journalist decides to label that a conspiracy theory, doesn't make it one, especially when the facts she herself presents don't support the use of the label.
Taylor Lorenz's theory about alleged left wing "conspiracy theories" that went around for a few hours, should not take precedence over the very real and much more widely covered right wing conspiracy theories that are being spread by prominent right wing figures even in this very moment, reliable sources or otherwise. WP:UNDUE is still a consideration. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recollections about Crooks political views etc (thread-start: July 17)
Can one "sew" together, or write, a paragraph based on speculation by 5 or 50 'nobodies' or classmates? Difficult, but nothing is impossible, one might say.--How many students would be necessary to indicate that he took on a role in history class debates (at community college), and the role was regarded as conservative in (some) debates about pro-life and/or gun-control and/or ... ?--For now I am against stuff about he had conservative friends and some of those had 'Trump hats' [a type of hat that has c. no meaning to people who do not live in America].--There actually is no hurry, in that we are not required to be able to lable his political views - this week, or any time soon!--If RS do not give specific cases about his political views, then i think that wikipedia probably should not say that he was conservative, even if RS says so. Thoughts (about all of this thread)? 2001:2020:315:BF09:7004:6012:67CC:9A8D (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. He was a registered republican. That's a matter of public record widely reported on, and the only piece of information that ultimately matters. And considering how much misinformation is being circulated by the right about his possible motives, I say this detail is important enough to be included in the lede. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a registered Republican, but as I predicted, it was up to the foreign, in this case the British news media, to break the story that the shooter’s family had been in a Republican database since 2016 as targeted GOP voters. The US media once again drops the ball when it comes to reporting about the GOP on their home turf. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to discuss the US media's persistent failure to properly report on the GOP, as big a problem as that is (and far right conspiracy theorists say there's a "left wing media bias", lol). I was proposing a specific change to the article, namely to change "The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old man from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania" in the lede to "The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old registered republican from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania" for the sake of clarity and accuracy. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooter Access of Roof
Current article
says he accessed roof “through” air conditioning unit. No cite at end of this sentence. All news sources and video state/show he climbed “on” to an air conditioning unit on ground then hoisted himself up onto a lower section of the roof before again hoisting himself onto the top of roof. This distinction is not insignificant as “through” gives the impression the shooter was concealed from view while accessing the roof, when he was in fact visible. Tek619 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that the article says he went through an air conditioning unit, which he did not. That's all the issue it takes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes ref says he went through an air conditioning unit. I've changed the article to say "by means of" which covers both possibilities (through or climbing onto). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
until he opened fired he was not a threat, is it illegal to be on roofs?
That's a pretty silly statement. The shooter was visible to the public and to police and security for several minutes as a threat while holding a rifle aimed at the stage before he opened fire. There is public video from the scene before the shooting that was released yesterday that shows the public warning people about the shooter and trying to get the attention of the police many minutes before he took the shots. It's frankly unbelievable that the the shooter wasn't immediately taken out by the snipers, so this might be one of the greatest security failures of all time. There's really no other way to explain it. Some critics have described it as security theater run by a platoon of Barney Fifes. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is 100% silly navelgazing, but the Praetorian Guard ganked thirteen emperors; while this is obviously a gigantic screwup, I would consider it a substantial improvement on the historical status quo. Most assassination attempts since the invention of decent guns seem to have consisted of a guy carrying one directly up to the target and not being stopped or questioned or anything until he's already gotten halfway through a mag dump. In America alone, Hamilton was literally in a prearranged duel where he and Aaron Burr shot at each other; Jackson got shot at by some random guy who ran up to him outside the Capitol with two pistols, and even after the guy attempted to fire twice, Jackson had to personally beat the snot out of the guy with his cane; Lincoln was watching a play in a theater where they let some random dude walk in with a loaded gun and saunter all the way up to the President's box seat; et cetera. jp×g🗯️06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its an open carry state, may be in any other nation this would be true, this is the USA where you are allowed to carry guns into shops and the street. Slatersteven (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not making any sense, friend. The shooter was visibly laying on the roof aiming a rifle at Trump, and if you watch the video that was released yesterday, something like four minutes passed with neither the police nor the snipers doing anything, while the public on the ground was repeatedly telling them there was a guy on the roof with a gun. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This occurred at the Butler Farm Show Grounds. The TOS on their web page for their "Farm Show" prohibits firearms, which would make anyone carrying one on their property a trespasser and subject to arrest. I am sure there were similar limitations for the Trump event being held there. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple things in the lead which seem a little silly. Here's one:
No specific political views are indicated in his social media posts or other writings, and authorities have stated that it is unknown whether the assassination attempt was related to any. Experts considered the shooting a sign of political polarization in the United States
First of all, experts of what? Second of all, the way this is written is self-satirical: there's a giant sentence which says very clearly that there's no evidence that he had strong political beliefs, there's no evidence they were a motivation or that this was a consequence of political polarization, et cetera -- then we have "experts" chiming in to randomly claim the exact opposite.
I don't know how it got this way (maybe someone was trying to prove a point, or the different parts got written at different times and then mashed together). Personally, I don't think it makes a difference which way it ends up: if the guy really did go out of his gourd over politics and the experts are right, then we can say that. If the guy had no discernable political motivations, then the experts are simply wrong. It would by no means be the first time immediately after some big occurrence, a bunch of pundits ran their mouths off about how this clearly shows blah blah blah, and a couple days later it turned out everybody was wrong about basic detail, meaning all the "expert analysis" was a bunch of hot air.
Yes, I agree this is contradictory. The "experts" statement needs some qualifiers. Suggestions: 1) Don't call them "experts," clarify who they are, at least generally, and make clear it not all "experts," as the current version implies. Some political science professors? Some politicians? Some political pundits? 2) Clarify the time frame, as speculation shortly afterward, when there is no information on a possible political motive. 3) Remove this from the lead since these opinions are unsupported by facts and make these clarifications in the body of the article, in the reactions section. Elspea756 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the sentence fom the lead section describing about "experts" spoeculation[13] that was contradicted by the previous two sentences. Elspea756 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, to my understanding, there is still zero evidence that a bullet ever touched Trump. Now, I'm not saying I believe that, and there's a really convincing video that was uploaded the other day that shows how Trump's ear was hit by a bullet, but other than Trump saying "I was injured by a bullet", there's no evidence, and the article should mention that. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If news sources are wrong due to lack of evidence, it's still not the editors' job to comment on that lack of evidence. I will add that wikipedia is not a race toward some imaginary finish line. Certain facts can take a while to emerge and getting ahead of ourselves is just bad practice. Ultimately, whether he was hit by a bullet or a piece of glass is a barely important fact compared to basically everything else in this event. Yvan Part (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. The pattern goes like this: Event happens; sources are published; many sources disagree; sources eventually converge over a period of time to a single, unified narrative, although this can take longer than usual. Within that unified narrative, there are subnarratives indicating how each narrative came to be. The notion of a paper trail, which includes medical records and professional opinions about Trump's injury are part of this narrative. We've discussed many times over the last several decades what to do when sources are wrong or make unusual claims. We are not stenographers, and we do have the ability to pick and choose sources and modify the narrative so that it aligns with what we know to be true. Just because a source says the sky is green when it is clearly blue, doesn't mean we have to print the sky is green. We have choices, leeway, and agency over how we write articles. But let's cut to the chase: was Donald Trump shot? Do most sources agree on this point? What do they base this claim on? Is it just Trump and his people saying he was shot, or do we have good evidence? (Someone said there's actually a photo of the bullet in the page history of the iconic photo upload; no idea if that is fake, but it's there, I looked). What do the medical records say? Have they been released? These are perfectly normal and legitimate questions for us to ask and to answer here. This is entirely within our remit. With that said, given the authenticity of this photo, from where I stand, this is open and shut. It does appear that Trump was hit by something, and it's safe to conclude it was likely a bullet or fragment of something the bullet hit based on what we know. I think it's perfectly reasonable to go into this kind of detail in the article, explaining that we have photos of the bullet, for example. That way the narrative isn't based solely on what Trump is saying, but is constructed by a multiplicity of converging data points. That's my position, at least. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not proof that Trump was shot with this projectile or any other. This photo shows a projectile in flight, nothing more!! And if you look, you will see that the projectile would hit below the ear, but Trump was wounded above the ear. Then there's the perspective. The projectile can fly one meter behind Trump in the photo. You can't see that in the photo (2D). If you were to compare the video of the assassination and look for the spot where Trump has exactly the same posture as in the photo, you would have proof of which shot (first, second, etc.) this photo was taken. As far as I know, Trump's ear injury was caused by the first shot. And since there is a piece of glass in Trump's ear, I would say that the assassin hit the TV screen with the first shot. According to the media, the assassin was a bad shot, so it is quite possible that he missed Trump by half a meter at 130m and hit the TV screen. Luckily, he was a very bad shot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.197.71 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done: It's been in the article for the better part of two days now—to support the statement that the glass theory is false. —Alalch E.16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, fact check, who wrote it, the guy who stitched up Trump's ear in the hospital? This doctor or the doctor's report is currently the only real fact check. The article claims that small pieces of glass were shot. But there are witness statements that say something different!! And we have this picture with a high pixel shot of Trump's ear directly after the assassination. And there is something in the ear and it looks like a piece of glass. And since this photo exists in high image quality, the question remains: is there a piece of glass in Trump's ear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.206.35 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the introduction, please change "counter sniper team" to "counter-sniper team". It's a compound modifier, not a sniper team that happens to be "counter". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
... he crawled into a firing position due to the slant (too sloped for SS[1]) of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[59] <but two nothern snipers on video[2], at least 40s, pointing guns in his direction while Trump was talking, and openning fire, withouth rescaning for target or reaiming, not before but only after Trump was hit [ALD 0]. (some report for 10 min but I didnt foud video)
...
Which refs[[0-9] are new and nedded for the content?
1 youtu.be/IN6OUBDfIzI?t=92
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.
Spelling needs improvement
In the section called "Aftermath", under the heading "Investigation", the word "etail" appears. This seems to be a mistake for "entail". Hm56fg78sd (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several days have passed since the Trump shooting. No-one other than Ronny Jackson has asserted that Crooks shot a fifth person, namely, the grazing of Jackson's nephew's neck by a bullet fired by Crooks. This assertion has been widely published in reliable sources, but the only source is Jackson. There is no independent confirmation by law enforcement, government, doctors or journalists. Even the nephew and his parents have remained silent. The four named shooting victims (Trump, Comperatore, Copenhaver and Dutch) have been confirmed extensively by independent sources. I am concerned that the nephew is being included as a victim on the slimmest of evidence. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (should not be counted among the wounded) and omit entirely from the article. The sourcing isn't there. The best we can say is: "According to Jackson, x maybe happened", because he himself says merely that "something" grazed his nephew's neck (a bullet or a fragment of a bullet or something grazed his neck ... very minor injury not a big deal), and that's not a noteworthy fact. Probably many people were injured in some way in the commotion. Someone maybe trip and fell and hurt their wrist, etc. These things are not worth mentioning irrespective of how certain and verifiable they are. —Alalch E.12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. At best, we see Ronny as a self-published source, not usable for BLP information of other folks (such as his nephew); no one else has put it in their voice that I have seen. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those articles say that Jackson said his nephew was grazed by a bullet. They do not explicitly say that he was. That is the best we can say; anything else is speculation and certainly not appropriate in a WP:BLP context.. News articles are repeating what Jackson published himself. It is just a self-published source. CFA💬14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This has bothered me since its insertion. It's an unproven assertion from an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it's removal but I'm just curious what you mean by "an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor". Is Jackson the operative and Trump his benefactor? Raskuly (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I added this originally in the early "fog of war" and it has not been corroborated outside of claims by Jackson, even if the claim was published in respectable sources. Should the claim be included in the article as potentially have happened, yes in my opinion, but it should no longer be included in the total injury total for instance. Raskuly (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sloped roof comment by Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle
"That building in particular has a sloped roof, at its highest point. And so, there's a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof."
Many media sources have asked why there wasn't a Secret Service person on the roof of a building that was so close to Trump and had a direct line of sight to Trump. This reliable source verifies that this is the explanation that was given by the head of the Secret Service. This does not prove that the statement itself is reliable, but it does prove that she said it. Therefore, her statement should be included.
This is important and should be added to the article. Currently the article incorrectly states that no agents were on the roof because of manpower shortages. When in fact, the absence of rooftop agents was a deliberate decision. Jozsefs (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is clear information on why no Secret Service agent was up on that particular roof, so close to the stage. ABC News is clearly a reliable source, and the rationale for no SS agent up there was provided by the agency head, so it should clearly be included. N2e (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include this in the article, and also include the statement about manpower shortage, if it has a reliable source. If different people said different things, we can report who said what. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of this article says "none of them were positioned on the rooftop due to manpower shortages," but I think sources indicate that this decision had been made mainly because the roof was sloped, and thus dangerous. Why hasn't this article been updated with this information? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course it should be included. That quote will go down in history as one of the all-time biggest bone-headed blunders ever given by a person of authority in an interview in American history. Sorry for editorializing, but the fact that there is any question about its includability is ridiculous. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Support.I mean, of course it has to be included. We'll receive more information come Monday when she testifies to the House Oversight Committee, but regardless what she says, it definitely still needs to be included. Hella say hella (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Service spotted Trump rally shooter on roof 20 minutes before gunfire erupted
I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires municipal infractions being observed before we can document what RS are reporting. This material certainly seems WP:DUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is what could they have done, as he had broken no laws, and so they could not search him, or size his weapons or arrest him (per numerous laws and constitutional amendments). So I fail to see what just saying they did nothing adds, as we would also need analysis as to what they could have done. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, we obviously can't make any of our own conclusions on what should have happened, but reporting what actually happened seems appropriate here. My 2c (and editors, feel free to reign me in here if we're wandering into NOTFORUM) this is only going to develop further because while it's not illegal to possess and carry a long gun in most US jurisdictions; it's another matter entirely to take up a position with a rifle in a place that is supposed to be "cleared of all threats" where it's obvious that life and limb is being threatened. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already mentioned this " Crooks was photographed twice by security officers prior to the shooting. Prior to 5:45 p.m. EDT, a police officer saw Crooks on the ground and reported him, with a photograph, as a suspicious person. An officer searched for Crooks but did not find him" "At 5:45 p.m., a member of the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit tactical team saw Crooks on a roof, notified other security services, and photographed Crooks". Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
add the following section to the international reactions or online reactions Part:
German comedian El Hotzo loses job over Trump joke and Elon Musk
The Comedian El Hotzo lost his Job as host of a radio show for the public broadcaster RBB because he posted a joke on the attempted assassination and also made a post which stated, "absolutely fantastic when fascists die" which led to a shitstorm by German right-wing activists and Elon Musk.
Elon Musk contacted the German Chancellor asking for a clarification if German state media is supporting people who want Trump to die.[1] The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not react to Musks Post. In the Bundespressekonferenz, Stateofficals stated that the chancellor will not reply because fighting disinformation is not the job of the governance but of the media.[2] German Media than criticized elon musk for Cancel Culture and double standards.[3] The Austrian newspaper der Standart reported on the incidents and emphasized that elon musk probably did not understand the concept of public broadcasters. [4]Aberlin2 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it is fine to mention the incident; the incident is not obscure. Getting fired (instead of re-assigned) from a state-financed radio, adds something to the incident (however i am not sure if it makes this barely wiki-notable incident, more notable). 2001:2020:30D:DE09:50DB:9B92:C4D7:AC3 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It should be fine to mention this. Let's remember that this kind of cancel culture was invented by Republicans, who have tried to make it seem like it was a liberal idea against all evidence. The Phil Donahue Show was canceled after criticizing the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. Bill Maher was cancelled by ABC due to his comments about 9/11. NBC attempted to cancel Keith Olbermann after he apologized to viewers for the Republican Party's 9/11 "snuff film" which they used to try to sway voters against Obama. The Dixie Chicks were cancelled by country radio after criticizing George Bush. There is a huge list of people who Republicans cancelled, beginning in the early 20th century. It is also said that Ronald Reagan helped institutionalize cancel culture by surreptitiously working as an informant for the FBI in 1940s Hollywood, helping to destroy the careers of anyone perceived as a "leftist". Before that, the FBI went after jazz musicians like Billie Holiday and was notorious for targeting civil rights agitators. Cancel culture is deeply embedded in conservative history, yet they would have people believe otherwise. Don't believe what they say, watch what they do. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas maybe as a compromise the mention of this incident could be shortened to 3 sentences and then Link on a fitting section of the article about the comedian. how about this? Aberlin2 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might work. Now, as far as "posted a joke on the attempted assassination and also made a post ...".--If possible, the wiki-article should eventually say that the post was on SoMe (or whatever the case).--Also, eventually the wiki-article should maybe say if the post was on a private account of his (or on his employer's account). 2001:2020:337:C10F:912B:CB07:1793:70D2 (talk) 18:33, 19 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.
With constant discussions and theories on the left and right, plus with how this could be a significant moment in American history, it needs its own article. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest that we add public and celebrity reactions to every major event/disaster? This will all blow over soon. Plenty of other assassination attempts have occurred and been forgotten about. I’m not denying that this could become a major event in American history, but see no point in splitting it just yet Catriona Moore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have no informational value and shouldn't even be acknowledged. "Random people on social media believe a thing," do we need to state this after every major event? Give it some time. Swinub (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean to Wait I agree with @Swinub on this one, I think we should give it a little more time before making a separate article for the Misinformation and conspiracy theories seeing as its unclear if these theories will last any span of time yet. I wouldn't be opposed to, however, and could see the use for splitting the Reactions section into its own article as there's plenty of them, and that time won't make them more notable as like the former. Cheers! Johnson52420:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or I should say IF there are enough of them, if there isn't an abundance of reliably sourced and notable reactions yet there's no use to split those either. Johnson52420:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split. Article size is 32 kB, neither the whole article or the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" is too large nor is the material inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope. The material is better treated in-context. This WP:SPINOFF idea concerns a subtopic which is given enough focus in this article and does not need to receive more detailed coverage at this time, and even if it would benefit from some more detail, this article can still accommodate that additional detail. Some time in the future when it might seem that too much detail is given to the conspiracy theories in this article, but the information is due and needs to be included in the encyclopedia, a spinoff will become a good idea. To stress: I oppose removing any significant amount of information from this article in its current shape. (Splitting means removing most of the detail and leaving a summary, and I oppose that; I like the article the way it is now.)—Alalch E.20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split. The main article should not focus too much on these theories, another page can take care of this. At any rate, it should not trigger a split of the main article per se. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split. Based on WP:SIZERULE and current article size of 5,080 words: "Length alone does not justify division or trimming." I don't doubt the section is notable enough in itself, with over 20 sources and SIGCOV, but for now there is no need for a split. Given time, and reaching 9,000 words, I'd agree that it's a section that would be betters split off. CNC (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split The current section already covers all the notable conspiracy theories and it's is not large enough to warrant a split. Some1 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split Frankly, quite a bit of the content in the reactions section, especially the "conspiracy theories" section seems non-notable / recency bias / non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. User:WoodElf23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for just conspiracy crap, I think it could potentially be justified for all of the reactions and discourse coverage together, but it is currently too early to say either way. jp×g🗯️01:29, 19 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.
Aborted Timeline
I've just lost three hours of work on a stand-alone timeline of this event. Never saw the error message before, either:
MediaWiki internal error.
Original exception: [e56b2026-d920-46dc-a5e2-08d08125ebaf] 2024-07-19 00:13:12: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBUnexpectedError"
Exception caught inside exception handler.
Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.
If you refresh the page and resend the data, it should work with that error (probably not possible now sadly). I have gotten it a few times randomly on Wikipedia the last couple days, it is a very new and bizarre type. jp×g🗯️01:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That always hurts. Best thing I can suggest is to type it up in a text editor like Word or Notepad, which can sometimes restore the text when something goes wrong. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guy. Having undergone the grieving process, I've realized that I'd made too much work for myself. Best to work with timelines and not from the article, now that things have settled. kencf0618 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Figured as much. As for the timeline itself, the various investigations shall have events pinpointed to the second, and in case of the high-speed photo showing the displacement of the air, millisecond. The chronological narrative here on the main article I'm leaving alone.kencf0618 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add what Trump said at the RNC today to a quotebox or something like it regarding the assassination attempt?
Politico has a great transcription: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/19/trump-speech-shooting-transcript-00169706. I would say its a definitive yes on including it as he says something to the effect of "its to painful to talk about it and I wont mention it again." He gives a very detailed description of his reaction that I think would be important to have on the record.
A lot of people were arguing that the photo had to go because it was propaganda, which I didn't really buy, because it wasn't meant to be campaign material, it just happened to be a good photo (e.g. the Associated Press isn't run by the GOP). But I think an actual speech by Trump given at the RNC pretty clearly is, so if we excerpt from it we should do so carefully and minimally, and definitely try to avoid any kind of big ol blockquote. jp×g🗯️08:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A picture cannot be, in and of itself, "propaganda". It is how a picture is used which would make it, or make it not, "propaganda". Using a thing strictly for encyclopedic purposes of course is not "propaganda" and there's a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT sentiment here masquerading as "it's propaganda and it's got to go!" Marcus Markup (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be one thing if it were a staged photo, but this was an improvised photo in the moment. The fact that Evan Vucci's photo has "propaganda" vibes to me just shows how good of a photographer he is (imo). Will this photo likely be used to further Trump? Probably and while I'm not entirely sure how to source this, I think it already has. Raskuly (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong choice of words: "wounded Trump in his right ear"
Wrong choice of words: "wounded Trump in his right ear".
This statement could mean that the bullet entered the ear canal as some point.
The right way to say it would be: "wounded Trump on his right ear lobe or pavilion." 205.193.170.4 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'in' has so many different uses besides being a synonym for 'inside'... I encourage you to have a look: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in. In this case (no pun inteded) the most pertinant definition would be the very first: used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limitsMarcus Markup (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles with mention of the attack
I'm posting this here to draw editor's attention towards the issue. These articles Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, Connoquenessing Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, Meridian, Pennsylvania, and Butler, Pennsylvania mention the assassination attempt in the article. The first three are the location of the property in which the attack took place in. The property intersects Butler Township, Connoquenessing Township, and Meridian, however shots were fired from inside Meridian/Butler Township at Trump who was inside Meridian/Butler Township. While the attack did not take place inside the city of Butler sources reported it as having taken place there even though that is not technically correct.
There is nothing inherently wrong with adding the mention of the attempt on those articles as things can be added with good intention and understandable reasoning and then later removed with good intention and understandable reasoning. The purpose of this topic was just to draw attention to these articles that now have relation to this article and whether the mention is appropriate. In my opinion, the least justifiable one is the article on the city of Butler. Raskuly (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you bring up the much longer and much more expansive Washington D.C. article it is mentioned in the Timeline of Washington, D.C.. The capital was also the location of the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield. For such a major site such as the capital it makes sense, but the location of the incident, Butler Farm Show fairgrounds, does not have an article.
Other assassinations of presidents, such as John F. Kennedy and William McKinley, are featured in the associated "History of" articles, while Kennedy's assassination is actually mentioned on the Dallas, Texas article itself. The only attempted or successful assassination of a President that was not mentioned in an article like that was of James A. Garfield, and I just added it to the Timeline of Washington, D.C. article since Lincoln and Reagan's assassination incidents were both mentioned.
No other assassination or attempted assassination has happened in such a small place, whether that be Meridian or Butler Township, so I think it would deserve a mention in at least the Meridian article. Raskuly (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WPXI (11 News) in Pittsburgh reported at 4:50 p.m. on July 14, 2024 that "four Pittsburgh police officers assigned to the former president’s motorcade yesterday suffered minor injuries during the shooting." The piece adds:
"The four motorcycle officers were part of Donald Trump’s escort to and from the rally in Butler.
Sources tell Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets.
Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.
They were treated at the scene. They were okay to escort Trump back to the airport in Pittsburgh last night after he was treated at Butler Memorial Hospital."
I don't know if the source is considered reliable enough, or if the injuries would be considered severe enough, to mention, but I'm sure wiser and more experienced contributors here can decide that.
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.
True, but a slight cut is not quite the same as being dead, so whist this can (maybe) be mentioned, I think losing them as victims along with fatalities or serious injuries is a bit much. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we mention the drone Crooks flew over the rally site hours prior to the rally (which was reported on July 19, 2024)? It was also reported that a drone and drone-related equipment was found in Crooks's vehicle. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per additional source: "The aerial surveillance appears to be another in a series of security failures that allowed the gunman to nearly kill the former president.
It’s common for the Secret Service to ban drones over areas they are securing, although it’s unclear if that happened with the Butler rally."
Or maybe wait for additional information to come out, possibly post House Oversight Committee hearing with the Secret Service Director on Monday. If it is important, it's likely to be mentioned then. Hella say hella (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better post current results of congress special team assebled with best investigators from states. Homeland Security rather can not investigate itself. 173.26.112.39 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfgyrus i reverted your changes because of the following reasons:
removing emphasis on Crook in opening statement.
Title of the article is attempted assassination. No need to repeat itself in opening statement.
Where trump is wounded needs to be clear in opening statement - plz do no bury it down the lead.
Please see [[15]] - other attempted assassination is also written in similar fashion Astropulse (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's an article about an attempted assassination—not an article about someone getting his ear hurt. Your edits entirely erase that reality. Nowhere in the lead is the phrase "assassination attempt" now used, which deliberately trivializes and downplays the incident, presumably for ideological reasons, because otherwise it might evoke sympathy or support for the target. The reality is that Crooks' goal was to murder a former president and current presidential candidate—but those who are repeatedly removing "attempted assassination" or "assassination attempt" from the lead wish to downplay that and make it about an injury to an ear. Selfgyrus (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about emphasizing the gravity of the situation, but the lead should balance clarity and conciseness. The title already states “attempted assassination,” and repeating it in the lead may not be necessary. Instead, detailing the nature of the injuries and the context of the attempt can highlight the seriousness without redundancy. Our goal should be to present a clear and factual account without losing focus on the event’s significance.
My intention is not to downplay the event. It is important to mention that Trump was shot and wounded, and it is crucial to specify where he was wounded. Please refer to the articles on the attempted assassinations of Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt for similar writing styles. As stated, the title of the article is “Attempted Assassination,” so there is no need to repeat it. Our focus should be on providing clarity, not glamorizing the incident. Astropulse (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This invocation of WP:NOTFORUM is stupid and wrong. A source is expressly being discussed. That said, I would agree that while it may somewhat mix the motive of the shooter, it still describes an assassination attempt. I don't see why a crime couldn't be both a spree killing and an assassination attempt. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what, it was just a coincidence that he happened to fire every shot specifically aimed at the one guy? I mean -- there is a reason linked article doesn't go so far as to say it, because it would be gobsmackingly stupid for them to do so, even in an article that's already making absurd bent-over-backwards contortions to find some reason to mention the Oxford guy. jp×g🗯️16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Partly resolved The 'living martyr' sentence has been removed from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[4]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[5]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[6]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
Not done Obscure comedian. Not needed even if he was more high profile. Safiel (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)