Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Transcript etc

Transcript of what was picked up on mic

Should we include a transcript of the shooting in the article? It was picked up by the microphones on the podium and I think it provides important information. We include cockpit voice recorders in many airline crashes and in the article for Reagan's attempt we include the full audio of secret service radio traffic. As we are unlikely to get that, this is the closest we have until then. Should we include it?

CNN and Florida Today provide slightly differing transcripts of what is said by Trump and the agents but I still think including parts of it helps the reader understand the immediate efforts made by the secret service to keep their protectee safe.

PaulRKil (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No it adds nothing to our understanding of the event. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it provides context to the efforts the secret service made to keep their protectee safe particularly when they will be put under a microscope and people will be coming to this article for information. PaulRKil (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is wp:or, we do not interperate wp:primary sources. Nor does it in fact say anything about any mistakes they may have made (or exonerate them). Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Other than it being slightly funny Trump was so concerned about his shoes, I don't think this really adds anything to the article. Scu ba (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not funny in my point of view but if it’s anything, I think it shows his refusal to listen to the demands of the people sworn to protect his life in these very circumstances. When the secret service will be examined for what they did and didn’t do, I think us including this in the article helps demystify what the SS was trying to do in that very moment. PaulRKil (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Lmao you actually think when the internal review of the Secret Service happens that director Kimberly Cheatle is going to read off the wikipedia page. This actually made my day, maybe the funniest thing I read all week. Scu ba (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I honestly think this is the fifth or sixth discussion that has involved the shoes. As suggested above, it was possibly trauma related. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect his concern was not for his shoes, per se, but for the fact he did not wish to walk unshod. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump was trained at a "military high-school campus" thingy.--Good for him for not wanting to walk around in America, hobo-style (or without shoes).--Politician's wearing shirt and shoes, is a good thing. 2001:2020:355:9EBD:A520:1AE7:A49C:5216 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Fight fight fight"

Did he actually shout the words "Fight fight fight", or did he just mouth them? Sources which aim to recount precisely what happened on stage say he only mouthed these words, for example: [1] and [2]. And if you listen to the video, you can hear voices on stage before and after he pumps his fist, and you can hear Trump himself say "wait, wait, wait" to his guards, but you certainly cannot hear him vocalise the words "fight fight fight". I feel the evidence is stronger that he mouthed them, but even when I change it to "mouthed or shouted" others are reverting it back to "shouted" - what do others think? Liguer (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

lets be real, he shouted it, crowd was loud, he was not next to the microphone, so it was not heard out loud on the speakers. Bohbye (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation in recollections about Crooks

Recollections about Crooks from peers relating to his high school persona, political views, and biographical information have varied considerably and are inconsistent with one another.[3]

That statement appears nowhere in the cited source, and not just that, the statement is completely and totally at odds with the cited source that says "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as ‘definitely conservative'". So no inconsistency at all. Please fix this nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That one (just one) classmate considers the shooter "conservative" is not grounds to stop the presses and issue an EXTRA! edition. Some people think Obama was conservative, for example. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are apparently not listening or reading for comprehension. Nothing in the cited source supports the text. I will now remove it. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit deleted a reference definition that was used elsewhere in the article, so I replaced it. I did not verify those usages of the reference -- maybe it was your intention to remove to other statements this reference supported, but maybe it wasn't. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed text is found below

• Recollections about Crooks from peers relating to his high school persona, political views, and biographical information have varied considerably and are inconsistent with one another.

References

• The cited source does not support this statement. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you. I had created a section above at [4] to raise the same issue. One other editor there (Kingsif) also questioned including this, another (IP) editor said "Perhaps best to remove that stuff," and no one has tried to defend using that source in that way, so I think there's a pretty clear consensus to remove this as that source was being used incorrectly. Elspea756 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Neighbor reports Trump signs outside Crooks home

Forbes writes that a neighbor witnessed pro-Trump signs appearing periodically outside of Crooks' home over the past several years. Unclear if from parents or him. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks like a good source for the article for that as well as other information. It contains a good summary of classmates' descriptions as well. Elspea756 (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A picture posted on the lawn, might have c. nothing to do with the shooter.--Leave it out of the article, unless things are very clear about how the shooter was involved. 2001:2020:337:9E1E:3940:1C6A:CE6E:B887 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Rename

Should be called something akin to "Butler Assassination Attempt" or "Butler Trump Rally Incident" as attempts on his life are not new. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is fairly standard Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and others. This is the only attempt that went that far. Bohbye (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both correct, but ManOfDirt has a point. See GTD:

06/18/2016: An assailant attempted to assassinate presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. The assailant was arrested as he tried to remove a gun from the holster of a police officer. Michael Steven Sandford claimed responsibility for the incident. Sandford stated that he targeted Trump because he believed "somebody had to stand up for America" and told the Secret Service that he had planned for over a year to assassinate Trump. [5]

09/19/2020: An assailant mailed a letter containing ricin addressed to President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, District of Columbia, United States. The letter, which also contained an explicit death threat against President Trump, was intercepted by security officials. Pascale Ferrier, a Canadian citizen, was arrested for sending the letter as she attempted to illegally cross into the United States from Canada with an automatic weapon. A Twitter account linked to Ferrier included similar language to the ricin letter, including calling the President “an ugly tyrant clown.” Ferrier has also been charged with sending a second ricin letter to a police station in Mission, Texas, United States out of personal enmity after being deported in 2019 for an expired visa and weapons charges.[6]

If there are quite a few entries, then yes, we should have a single, general page of some kind, perhaps pointing to this article. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Security incidents involving Donald Trump have a forklift for god's sake. They all got kinda close. Put simple, this isn't unqiue. Besides, "Assassination attempt on Donald Trump" is quite unoriginal. ManOfDirt (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A forklift? Wouldn’t that be kind of slow-moving? Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Most forklifts I've driven could outrun a guy if you really wanted to (although probably not an athlete). I would personally not pick one as a melee weapon, but I imagine it'd be pretty hard to stop, because even though they aren't that big, the counterweight is solid iron and they weigh like ten thousand pounds. jp×g🗯️ 03:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It definitely should not be called '"Butler assassination attempt'"; egads, that sounds like a bad mystery pulp. As with many things on Wikipedia, we can put a name on the most visible example even if there are things of similar names. This is rather more severe than "guy who doesn't have a gun and likely never used one tries to grab one" (the Vegas incident.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Current title seems fine to me. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I might be convinced to rename to something like Trump Rally Assassination Attempt or 2024 Trump Attempted Assassination Attempt; but given the prominence of this event and notability; that'd certainly be an interesting discussion. Absolutely opposed to something obscure like "Butler Assassination Attempt" or "Incident". Who/What/Where is Butler? What's an incident? Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it unlikely this title will be changed unless there's a different security issue later. I'm glad we have one page about all the various incidents. Gives us a place to redirect minor situations if they arise. BusterD (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Widow of killed bystander

Trump called her yesterday. Please mention in article. [7]. 152.130.15.107 (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we also mention Biden called her? Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And that she refused to take his call? Bohbye (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, lets have all the facts, if its relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Trivia. No. Zaathras (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Issue with "Recollections from classmates about Crooks's political views have varied considerably"

The article currently says "Recollections from classmates about Crooks's political views have varied considerably," sourced to The Guardian article "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as ‘definitely conservative’." The article describes three classmates's recollections 1) quoting a classmate saying "definitely conservative," 2) paraphrasing another classmate as saying "does not recall Crooks making political overtures," and 3) saying that another student "did not share any classes with Crooks" and making no description of political views, instead describing "hunting outfits ... bullied ... outcast." Based on this, I don't think "recollections [of] Crooks's political views varied considerably" is an accurate description here, since the recollections only vary from "definitely conservative" to "does not recall." Any thoughts on this? Is there another source that would support a "varied considerably" description? Or should this description be clarified to accurately describe the range of "varied" recollections? As written, it sounds like the source is reporting "some said he was conservative, others said he was progressive," when the source says "some said he was definitely conservative, others did not know." Elspea756 (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

From your assessment it sounds like "varied considerably" is referring to one classmate saying he was outwardly political and another classmate saying he seemed apolitical, but given the state of US politics, I agree the sentence in the article does make it seem like classmates placed him at different positions on the left-right political spectrum.

My bigger concern with it, however, is that we are using a sample size of two classmates. Even the layperson knows that's not useful data, and it's just being used by news media to paint a picture. So is it good for use on Wikipedia? And within the context of other sources using solid facts (not classmate recollections) to discuss his political attitudes, is it necessary? Because to be accurate we'd have to say "One classmate recalled him as "definitely conservative", while another felt he was not political", and does that add to a reader's understanding, within the whole section? Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the sample size isn't huge, but we should reflect what the source says. I agree that the phrasing here should be rewritten; the thrust of the Guardian article is that a classmate of Crooks remembers him as "definitely conservative" (it's literally the headline). It goes on to talk to another peer who remembers him as being apolitical and quiet, and then circles back to the first person who remembers a mock debate where Crooks had conservative beliefs. I don't believe that "contradictory" and "seemingly diverging" are an accurate reflection of what the Guardian is saying overall.

Maybe something like (in third paragraph under "Perpetrator"): "Public records have not given any clear indication of Crooks's views; there are no known posts on social media websites or writings indicating his ideology. Authorities have stated that it is unknown what his political views were, or whether the assassination attempt was related to them. He was a registered Republican; his voter registration had been active since September 2021, the month he turned 18. A former classmate remembers Crooks as "definitely conservative," though another remembers him not political. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 20, 2021, when he was 17, Crooks donated $15 to a voter turnout group, the Progressive Turnout Project, through a platform called ActBlue, which is used by Democrats and progressive organizations. On the day of the assassination attempt, Crooks was wearing a T-shirt from Demolition Ranch, a firearms YouTube channel. The FBI said that there had been "no indication of any mental health issues" regarding Crooks. Itsasatire (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's an improvement, but I'd be careful interpreting what the article says. The article ays "does not recall Crooks making political overtures" which is not the same as "recalls Crooks as apolitical." The article just says the former classmate doesn't recall any political conversations. It's possible they were in a class where personal political views didn't come up, particularly with a quiet student. I'd say instead of paraphrasing which may introduce interpretations, just quote the article: "A former classmate remembers Crooks as 'definitely conservative,' though another 'does not recall Crooks making political overtures.'" Elspea756 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, I agree direct quoting "does not recall..." is better. Itsasatire (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch!--Another thing: a classmate in the USA, can mean as little as being in the same classroom for c. 50 minutes every week.--For now it might seem that few fellow-students have given examples of his political views. In other words we know next to nothing about his political views.--I am guessing that some RS say "inconclusive for now" about his political views.--Perhaps best to remove that stuff from the article for now; justification: cherry-pick. 2001:2020:345:8F1C:A988:66D7:49F8:2A69 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump assassination attempt

English experts, how about this shorter title? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous. Makes it sound like Trump tried to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

HEY! IT SAYS ON WIKIPEDIA THAT TRUMP TRIED TO SHOOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did the Secret Service not have jurisdiction over areas within shooting distance?

Currently, the "Background" section states:

Four separate counter-sniper teams were assigned to the event, two from the Secret Service and two from local law enforcement. The Pennsylvania State Police, which serves as the law enforcement agency for Connoquenessing Township, were also involved in security matters.

Notwithstanding the lack of citations in that excerpt, is there a concrete reason that State (or local) Police were assigned to secure the areas within shooting distance of the stage, and not the Secret Service? The extent to which the former tolerate people walking around with rifles (they do) is quite different than that of the Secret Service (they do not.) 141.239.252.245 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Graphic should be changed to reflect Comperatore's death

this graphic Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#/media/File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg says "critically injured Comperatore". He has died. FergusArgyll (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree for a change.Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: BmboB has updated the image. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Location parameter

Whatever is going on in the Location parameter of the infobox, is it not excessive to list three lowest administrative units that are each unfamiliar to 99.9% of readers? Can't we just say "Butler Farm Show Grounds near Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S."? Why do we need to list three of these anyway? Super Ψ Dro 20:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a necessary level of detail, cities not being the lowest possible administrative unit. kencf0618 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

See #Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA for details. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

In the introduction, please change "counter sniper team" to "counter-sniper team". It's a compound modifier, not a sniper team that happens to be "counter". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Such information can be added if or when it becomes prominent in reliable sources. GMG^talk 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

It says: The shooter was obviously inexperienced and likely had a case of the shakes from nerves.. Yeh. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Do RS say if there is a likelihood that the shooter had a clear field of view (for the 150-yard headshot)? 2001:2020:301:AB5D:C5CF:90CE:AC93:6308 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they say he had a clear field of view, which they say would not happen if the Secret Service and police properly did their job. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the details: Special:Diff/1234938788. @Bohbye: Do you really object to these details? —Alalch E. 22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@Alalch E. however, listing the manufacturer in the infobox similar to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would make sense but not weih every single detail. Bohbye (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 Arms AR-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)

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)

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)

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)

Secret Service / Law Enforcement knew about Thomas for 30 minutes

https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/thomas-matthew-crooks-was-spotted-on-roof-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-attempted-trump-assassination-report/

Possibly important info 2603:6011:A600:84B1:8561:ABEC:E11:FF03 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/alleged-trump-shooter-spotted-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-shots-fired-sources-say/Q6GIK5RP6RBY5PHIMYBNXRTEBI/ 2603:6011:A600:84B1:8561:ABEC:E11:FF03 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the archived WPXI source - there doesn't seem to be evidence for or against WPXI being reliable, but it's WP-notable. Boud (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check tends to be considered OK and rates WPXI fairly well. Boud (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the appropriate link is WP:MBFC (although, of course, this is for articlespace citations only). jp×g🗯️ 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Adding "mass shooting" to attack type

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.

---

In this incident, the total amount of victims with gunshot wounds comes down to 4 in total (excluding the prep). If we look at what Wikipedia defines as mass shootings in America, (see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024) the consensus was at least four victims whether dead or alive. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Per #Mass shooting categories, a consensus was reached not to include mass shooting to parts of the article at this time. Editing the attack type would be editing the infobox, which is restricted in this situation. If you still wish to have the infobox adjusted, then please review the closing statement above. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

first fix the events sequence

... 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

There is already consensus to not add this tag #Mass shooting categories from a day or two ago. Refer to Super Goku's comment if you disagree with the consensus. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This troublesome lead

There are a couple things in the lead which seem a little silly. Here's one:

No specific political views are indicated in his social media posts or other writings, and authorities have stated that it is unknown whether the assassination attempt was related to any. Experts considered the shooting a sign of political polarization in the United States

First of all, experts of what? Second of all, the way this is written is self-satirical: there's a giant sentence which says very clearly that there's no evidence that he had strong political beliefs, there's no evidence they were a motivation or that this was a consequence of political polarization, et cetera -- then we have "experts" chiming in to randomly claim the exact opposite.

I don't know how it got this way (maybe someone was trying to prove a point, or the different parts got written at different times and then mashed together). Personally, I don't think it makes a difference which way it ends up: if the guy really did go out of his gourd over politics and the experts are right, then we can say that. If the guy had no discernable political motivations, then the experts are simply wrong. It would by no means be the first time immediately after some big occurrence, a bunch of pundits ran their mouths off about how this clearly shows blah blah blah, and a couple days later it turned out everybody was wrong about basic detail, meaning all the "expert analysis" was a bunch of hot air.

But either way, the lead should definitely not be saying both of these things at the same time. jp×g🗯️ 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I've removed the sentence fom the lead section describing about "experts" spoeculation[8] that was contradicted by the previous two sentences. Elspea756 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the speculation and fixing the dissonance! Uhoj (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service spotted Trump rally shooter on roof 20 minutes before gunfire erupted

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-assassination-attempt-investigation-continues-new-details/story?id=112020474

This is extremely important and notable information from a very highly reliable source. It should be included.

G928614bdpd45 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Had he broken any laws? Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The info in the timeline on events that are known to have happened from this source can be integrated into the #Shooting section, maybe even splitting into paragraphs or a list per individual minute, giving the sources such as <ref name="WPXI_alleged_Trump_shooter" /> (Alleged Trump shooter spotted by law enforcement nearly 30 minutes before shots fired, sources say (Q127502183)) and the ABC-US source here that make specific enough claims. Boud (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This was included in the #Shooting section roughly fifteen hours ago, but seems to have been removed shortly after by an edit conflict. I have readded the content. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your point would be valid if a majority of political articles on here didn't exclusively have far far far far far left sources. 2600:1700:ADA0:5670:6CD1:2506:E45:F00A (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

except there are also right wing ones as well. So there has been no shift from right to left. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

True, bad choice of words. I meant shift in popularity, or spread from right to left. CNC (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

From the content: much of the the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users" [9]. CNC (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Content should be amended if deemed not accurate. CNC (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"the word “staged” became the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump,” with over 228,000 posts on the platform using the word" [10]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Multiple sources described them as conspiracy theories per content. CNC (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the section above that's been aggregating this topic? Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Misinformation_and_conspiracy_theories_section Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it would definitely make more sense there, there but I am too lazy to do it myself. jp×g🗯️ 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're done with that topic and it's due for archiving, unless JPxg wants to keep it alive. CNC (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal: Conspiracy theories

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)

Let us also make a seperate article for the reactions to the assassination attempt for the same reason Trade (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, the broader #Reactions section (which includes the #Misinformation and conspiracy theories subsection) could be split. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I had simply been suggesting an alternative proposal. I think that splitting off the entire #Reactions section would make more sense than splitting off the smaller #Misinformation and conspiracy theories subsection, should a split occur at all, but I am not specifically supporting either action. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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! Johnson524 20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Johnson524 20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose split. Too soon. All information is relevant in context. Article is long but not excessive. Wait. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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:WoodElf 23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose split Way too soon.Bohbye (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

Yes, it should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Then remove the mention of Ronny Jackson's nephew being grazed. I was trying to fix an apparent error of omission. Raskuly (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that the definition of an injury is not clear enough? Raskuly (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

As explained on the discussion you opened on my Talk page; we shouldn't be WP:SYNTHing here; let's defer to reliable sources for counts. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe a person can be grazed without being injured. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"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.[11][12][13] Raskuly (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

It does seem to be the case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am unsure what you think is the issue is, as until he opened fired he was not a threat, is it illegal to be on roofs? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

👍“by means of” 2600:1005:B023:546F:288B:9C6F:AA39:EA34 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Definitely not of all time. jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely one of the worst of all time – not the worst. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Was it illegal for him to have a rifle at that location? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

But was he inside the Showground, I do not believe he was [[14]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN also shows as outside the grounds. Images: This first image shows the Butler Farm Show Grounds with the buildings to the North not part of it, this second image shows the shooter was on the buildings to the North, this third image shows the same area from a drone. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

See image of ladder

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/07/15/16/87356625-13635887-Chillingly_some_images_show_a_ladder_hidden_by_dense_shrubbery_p-a-23_1721057746495.jpg

at the bottom of

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13635887/trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks-images-roof.html

Quote from https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/us/thomas-crooks-trump-rally-shooting-invs/index.html

"investigators believe, he used his newly-bought ladder to scale a nearby building,"

Uwappa (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Butler County PD

[15] Saw this tweet from BCPD that might be of some use for this article, either directly or to aid researching a better source. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but Wikipedia doesn't consider social media posts as reliable sources in articles about living people. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Bullseye comments

So tired of citing shooting metaphors.

The current article lede states:

Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".

This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes Political speech § Shooting metaphors to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks. Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the sources specifically connect the phrase to the incident, then it should be included. If they don't, then including it violates our policies on original research and neutral point of view. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.

Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

No all journalists are reliable. Just look at the comments here about Fox. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

... not to mention The Guardian 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6DF4:BA83:E068:136C (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

OK, but half of my complaint is this is (was, it's gone now) in the lede of the article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am still waiting on evidence Crooks even head or read the "bullseye" quote. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Can one give an example of this "long-standing" metaphor being used? Please enlighten my ignorance. Ronan.Iroha (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Correct. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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_shooting Californianin (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Idk it's kinda corny we should probably take that stuff out DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"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).

Bullseye comment picked up by AP & others

https://apnews.com/article/biden-statement-trump-shooting-political-violence-6822e3147ffc68781ab3e60d62836cd9 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/ I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw0y9xljv2yo

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/biden-say-trump-shooting-bullseye/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/ duplicate

https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-shooting-election-2024-704592d02c3421a767112f0bf6d25eb9

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

It can go in the conspiracy theory and misinformation section, if justified at all. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

it would be interesting to see what happens to anyone who tries. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Which of those RS raises the "conspiracy" aspect? Please show us. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because as of right now this info is being viewed as conspiratorial. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Which RS says it's a conspiracy? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please respond @Sir MemeGod @Zaathras @Caesar35. I'm not understanding how you substantiate "conspiracy". You dont seem to object to it going in the article. I'm debating where it goes and adding under "conspiracy" is not supported by RS. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I haven’t seen any objections to my proposal but i'll tag the following before suggesting we include it. @Caesar35@Daddyelectrolux@Sir MemeGod@Zaathras Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There is still no RS to merit inclusion here in “conspiracy” these were Biden’s words and no RS dispute that. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw0y9xljv2yo

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/biden-say-trump-shooting-bullseye/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-rally-incident/card/biden-s-rhetoric-grew-heated-in-recent-days-6TJnS6JhvZnJ6uYwK6bH Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If any mention of this is warranted, it can be put into the section on conspiracy theories. Zaathras (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

That's the angle I see it from. Caesar35 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

we're an encyclopedia, not news outlets/tabloids trying to get clicks. The link between that quote and the shooting are speculative at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

this isn't an encyclopedia, it's a far left propaganda site 2600:1700:ADA0:5670:6CD1:2506:E45:F00A (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

Source on Biden's apology: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/15/biden-mistake-trump-bullseye Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Bullseye section needs Biden's later response

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-interview-nbc-lester-holt-trump-assassination-attempt-debate-jd-vance/ I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

wow you seem really upset. maybe you should calm down. :^) Daddyelectrolux (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if on ly a few days, it was not a reaction to the shooting, it therefore has no place in an article about the shooting. Per wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we add what Trump said at the RNC today to a quotebox or something like it regarding the assassination attempt?

He said it will be the last he will speak on the attempt on his life. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Source? ?

HiLo48 here https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/g-s1-12143/trump-assassination-attempt-speech-rnc Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

It is rather long so I dont know about including the whole thing. Babanaeb (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)

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. 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. German Media than criticized elon musk for Cancel Culture and double standards. The Austrian newspaper der Standart reported on the incidents and emphasized that elon musk probably did not understand the concept of public broadcasters. Aberlin2 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Obscure comedian. Not needed even if he was more high profile. Safiel (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

References

John Hinckley Jr.

"John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, said "violence is not the way to go" Why is this here? WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bohbye (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotta balloon up the size of the section so we can justify making a seperate article dedicated to reactions Trade (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I have added the word "upper" for clarification. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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 limits Marcus Markup (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

So, should mention of the attempted assassination of Trump be mentioned in all of these articles? Raskuly (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That complex of questions, does not seem to belong on this talk-page (and anyone can write on those other pages, as they see fit, within Wikipedia's guidelines). 2001:2020:337:C10F:2C35:78DC:6289:B6FA (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Honestly it makes no sense to list the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump at most locations you mentioned besides the actual site. Why stop there? why not at the state level? country lavel? a good example is is the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, is it listed on the page of Washington, D.C.? no, it is listed at the actual site Washington Hilton. Bohbye (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Small correction: the assassination attempts that are mentioned also wounded the targeted President. Raskuly (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

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.

G928614bdpd45 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

•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)

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.

This was what I was folding in:

https://www.wdsu.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-timeline/61592902

Good luck.

kencf0618 (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Additionally, I should mention that CBS News has a detailed timeline as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Kee-rap. The article was published! I'd had no idea... What is going on with Wikipedia? kencf0618 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that your progress had not been lost after all. This issue has affected many people (including myself) over the past few days. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

aftermath section

Wouldn't it be better if we add Trump's photo with ear bandage to aftermath section? Asigooo (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, but the copyright status of such an image would be in question. If taken from the media, it almost certainly wouldn't qualify for Fair Use or anything like that. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)