:Barring a fair-use picture of the event itself, our best options are a) a bird-eye svg diagram or b) a photograph of the premises. [[User:Bremps|'''<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:2px;">Bremps</span>''']][[User talk:Bremps|'''<span style="color:grey;">...</span>''']] 01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:Barring a fair-use picture of the event itself, our best options are a) a bird-eye svg diagram or b) a photograph of the premises. [[User:Bremps|'''<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:2px;">Bremps</span>''']][[User talk:Bremps|'''<span style="color:grey;">...</span>''']] 01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::We have a Commons aerial photo of the event itself, in the article, that should probably be moved to the infobox. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::We have a Commons aerial photo of the event itself, in the article, that should probably be moved to the infobox. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:There were thousands of people present, many of them with their phones taking pictures. Search the social media sites. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone willing to freely license their image. Having your image be the Wikipedia illustration is a big bragging point. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at the Reference desk.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 July 2024.
Wikipedia
So tired of citing shooting metaphors.
The current article lede states:
Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".
This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes Political speech § Shooting metaphors to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks.
Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.
Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well some guy took that literally it seems. Reliable sources are important here but we have to find a good balance being Wikipedia and all... Woobab (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement made from the Joe Biden Twitter account. July 8th 2024 "It's time to put a Bullseye on Trump" Referencing a call to action for continued Political Violence. Bullseye is referenced in Webster Dicitionary as the center of a target for archery, shooting, and darts. 75.112.4.134 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No serious person thinks that Crooks saw that tweet and thought "yes sir Mr President" come on. The issue is the relentless demonization of Trump "He's a threat to democracy" "he's a threat to your rights" "he'll be a dictator" "he'll destroy the planet by ignoring climate change" and on and on and on and we're papering over that as "polarization". --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA
Pennsylvania does not have unincorporated areas. If it’s outside the city limits of Butler it’s likely part of a township. Dough487200:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled. Butler County, PennsylvaniaRaskuly (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raskuly there are no unincorporated places per se in Pennsylvania as per @Dough4872. Boyers is just a community within the incorporatedMarion Township. Townships are incorporated; better cite sources that actually specify Connoquenessing Township instead of "just outside Meridian, Pennsylvania". JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I am not familiar with how Pennsylvania divides itself. My stance then is that this incident should be referred to as being within Connoquenessing Township or near Meridian. Raskuly (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map of that has been added to the article clearly shows that the incident happened on the Butler Township side of the Connequenessing/Butler Township line – therefore it happened in Meridian. Trorov (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trorov: Found the section! Is this based upon the dot on where the stage/specific event happened? One issue is that the local newspapers say it is in Connequenessing Township. If the assertion that it took place in Butler Township (as in the specific site) is to be added, one would need to find a newspaper article saying specifically it took place in Butler Township (otherwise people would have a lot of difficulty analyzing the specific lines and trying to see if the specific site is on one side or the other, and this is why people defer to WP:OR) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bill Williams: Hello! Postal address city names often do not match actual locations, and in my view the readers need to be taught this.
We have local newspapers giving the exact location here (similarly, St. Louis County, Missouri, does not coincide at all with St. Louis City but has places with St. Louis postal addresses, but the local newspapers clarify this).
Readers read Wikipedia to gain a comprehensive knowledge and attention to detail, and in my opinion readers should understand that this did not take place in Butler, full stop.
I wrote in the background that it is between the township and Meridian, but the infobox is listing a specific location and its address is Butler. The lead is stating what is notable which is that it is near Butler, as the vast majority of media outlets report it is there. Bill Williams05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I put "between Connoquenessing Township and Meridian near Butler, Pennsylvania" which is technically true because it is between the two, and Butler is separate from Butler Township. Bill Williams05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While technically you are correct, no one who lives there would refer to it as Connoquenessing or Meridian. They would call it Butler. Trump's campaign also called it Butler: "President Donald J. Trump to Deliver Remarks in the Splendid City of Butler, Pennsylvania". So "near Butler" is probably the best description of the location. Nosferattus (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "near Butler" is best for what is in the lead, while the specifics may be buried deep in the article. The local newspapers had more specific descriptions of the location, and so people living there talking to each other would be more specific. However, if they are talking to people from elsewhere, they may feel it's not necessary to use specifics and just call the area "Butler" based off of what the postal address says. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Postal addresses are garbage (GIGO). Will any reader of the article be putting pen to paper and writing a letter, sealing it in an envelope, affixing a stamp, and addressing it to the Butler Farm Show? Trorov (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current infobox image is biased and inappropriate
Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely - completely - different question to whether a photo is itself inherently so historically important to make it fair use. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, this is the image the media is using the most (all show different variations of him raising his fist) and therefore it is most informative to readers and most identifiable if this image is used. This image should displayed in the infobox. Bill Williams00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again for the ambiguity. The main article. However, it is on the main page of every newspaper at this moment. I don't think it is going to go away. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If NFCC can be satisfied then of course it should be used, as it's the photo the world's entire media is using. Saying it shouldn't be used just because the GOP likes it, is absurd and partisan in itself. Fig (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image is being used all over the press reporting and is becoming the marquee image of the event. Many believe it is biased but it is becoming the representative image. The MSM has decided this. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am seeing a lot of MSM have stopped using this as their lead photo (you can still find that photo inside the article). It would be good to change it once there are more neutral photos available that pass NFCC. Frankserafini87 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not biased or inappropriate.* The image is of high concern in the media regarding the event.
I also think it's a cool photo. (Not a Trump supporter or anything, it's just kinda sick.)
*However, it doesn't seem to abide by Wikipedia's policies.
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So definitely a slow reaction from security as a whole, which was poor (to say the least) in the lead-up to the assassination attempt. Once the assassination started they did as good as possible though. You can see the surprise of the Secret Service agent who first spotted assassin a split-second before the ear-shot, and then engaged the assassin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c0AEGIMo8 he probably caused the following shots from the assassin to be less accurate. However for the first shot, the only thing that saved the President's life was that he happened to turn his head. If he had not turned his head, the fact that the security didn't take the most basic security precaution of securing the roof, and also knew about the threat a few minutes before... forget worrying about conspiracy theories, I honestly think today's events could have easily spiraled into a cycle of long-term violence. Ikmxx (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up. Business Insider says a police officer climbed onto the roof, saw the gunman, and retreated down a ladder back to the ground shortly before the first gun shots rang out. Ikmxx (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category “Mass shootings involving AR-15–style rifles” should be added.
Reverted. Disputed and not supported by RS. mass shootings in the US typically involve more than 4 victims AND assassination attempts are typically not categorized as such. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed by the Secret Service. A mass shooting is a shooting where there are multiple victims. Your number of 4 is completely arbitrary. CFA💬02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade Apologies if it isn't an acceptable source, but I've found that the FBI defines a mass shooting as one involving three fatalities (excluding the perpetrator):
It's not a mass shooting. It's not being reported as a mass shooting. It doesn't meet any common definition of a mass shooting. Amthisguy (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the definition set by the Mass Shooting Tracker organisation, Stanford University MSA Data Project and the Gun Violence Archive, all of which are accepted as definitions on the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 article. In fairness, no reliable source has explicitly called this incident a mass shooting, even if it may meet some of these criteria, so I can understand this exclusion. Macxcxz (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Objective3000. Plus, when the term "mass shooting" is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people? We know so little about the shooter's intentions now, and while his death makes it impossible to know all his thoughts, investigators may be able to learn a good deal more. If this man's intention were only to shoot Trump, and the other victims were shot accidentally (e.g. he mis-aimed, or the bullet that hit Trump continued on and hit someone behind him), it really shouldn't be categorised as a mass shooting even if there were four victims. If Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these sources are reliable. Twitter is not a reliable source. WP:NEWSMAX is also a deprecated source. If you can provide a reliable source for this information, please let me know and I'll add it. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using twitter as an article source, but it is valid for discussions
To be fair - the article never states that Trump was hit by a bullet, only that he was injured. If more information comes out stating he was hit by glass, then we can add it; right now, I think the best course of action is to just leave it. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article never states that Trump was hit by a bullet, only that he was injured
Should be noted that Juliegrace is a reporter for Axios, so not just some tabloid rag. Still, it's probably best to wait for further reporting for confirmation. FallingGravity05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are changes being made based on twitter posts from Newsmax reporters, citing reporting from Newsmax? Unreliable sourcing nested within unreliable sourcing.
I'm inclined to go with the mainstream sourcing here and ignore the Tweets by a WP:NEWSMAX reporter. It's possible that it was shrapnel, but WSJ, CNN, etc. seem to be putting that Trump was shot in their own voice. It seems reasonable for the article to do so, rather than use the awkward "was injured during a shooting" construction. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article only quotes Trump on Truth social stating so. Separate from the speaker and site's credibility overall, in all cases I wouldn't necessarily take such a statement as definitively credible compared to a scenario I've seen (no better sourced) reported that he was hit by glass shrapnel from a shot teleprompter screen
the time before now that I checked AP was maintaining language that it was unclear if Trump had been injured by a bullet or in the response
now AP and BBC both seem to be preferring "Trump says he was shot" over separately affirming that as a fact
it states it as a fact in the headline but provides no support in the body beyond quoting Trump saying so on Truth social
while admittedly, I would think doctors at hospital would have clarified the matter to him, it is far from impossible that he could be genuinely convinced he was injured directly by a bullet and also be wrong about that fact (e.g. having been hit by glass shrapnel or having heard a bullet and then sustained injury during his and SS response in quick succession)
the source of his injuries presumably _will_ be established on public record sooner or later, but has not been to several major media outlets' satisfaction
(and while I am by no means an expert, photos I have seen do not seem clearly consistent with a bullet wound, with his auricle seeming intact and source of bleeding unclear) Donald Guy (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the body, first line: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, streaking the Republican presidential candidate's blood across his face and prompting his security agents to swarm him, before he emerged and pumped his fist in the air, appearing to mouth the words" --TocMan (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the link I provided: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." Emphasis mine. It can certainly be debated, but IMHO that first line is serving as the subheading overview and once the actual article content gets round to the shooting, it's "Trump said". Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't precede the article. It IS the article. It's after the byline. Do you have a policy you can point to that backs you up on this? --TocMan (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of steelman-ing myself, I did also overlook til now that BBC published a liveblog entry as:
> Donald Trump has left a local hospital after being shot in the ear, two sources have told the BBC's US news partner CBS News.
a while back.
that could be imprecise quoting or imprecise speaking and its extremely anonymous sourcing, but in terms of any corroboration, its something Donald Guy (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_that_ said, CBS News's article is the first credible outlet I have seen running the Doug Mills bullet-near-head photo (which I had seen going around social media earlier but after some effort had failed to find published by the NYTimes who employs him or otherwise managed to authenticate before losing interest) Donald Guy (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the reddit post that purports to be that and Mills' next 2 exposures* apparently shows blood on his hand after touching his ear prior to ducking:
(*which may be present on NYTimes.com as well, I do not currently have an active subscription to check behind paywall)
if that sequence is published by NYT (with captions that corroborate as such), that is probably an adequately primary source to satisfy my skepticism in the absence of more definitive statements from elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first paragraph reads: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally." CFA💬03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the claim now appears in the lede of some versions of the Reuters story. It is still not a claim supported elsewhere in the article.
It seems to me a majority of sources (AP, BBC, CNN, NYT, Fox News) are proactively avoiding making the claim (vs only Infowars and Breitbart seen by me making it outside of this retuters lede)
I think that photos (which could definitely be misleading, e.g. injury obscured by blood) seem to potentially refute the claim and thats not an absurd thing to consider
It seems odd that there is not e.g. a law enforcement source that I've seen independently affirm it - but it might just be "active investigation", etc. thing
I sort of think it doesn't matter because that he was per se shot is likely to be the popular impression regardless of if it is exactly true, but also … I kind of think it matters specifically because it may end up being a common misconception Donald Guy (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a dr who has dealt with many wounds, I can assure you the wound is consistent with a graze from a bullet. Probably just above the Right ear. The colour of the blood looked arterial to me, so in upshot I believe the bullet nicked a tiny artery just above the right ear. No evidence for glass. Conclusion made in concert with known history of shooter armed with rifle and several persons injured or dead. Pravda. Koryushka (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty other RS making this statement in their own words
Adding to Reuters: Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a campaign rally
CNN: Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening
USA Today: after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
All of these statements are based on Trumps, because there is no actual evidence as of now. They just started shortening "Trump says he was shot in the ear" to "Trump was shot in the ear". None of the articles have any kind of evidence other than that. Axios, Newsmax and TMZ got sources claiming it was glass (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-was-hit-by-glass-fragments-not-a-bullet-report/, https://twitter.com/jeffgoldesq/status/1812272053040615873), though the Axios reporter later deleted their tweet. (Also both teleprompters appear to be intact, but the glass could be from elsewhere) The New York Times had an expert comment on the image showing a possible bullet flying towards Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html?), but there is no definitive evidence confirming it was a bullet, until Trump, law enforcement or his doctors release an official statement. There are guidelines regarding citogenesis, are we really incapable of handling a bunch of generally reliable sources running wild with the same piece of evidence trying to outdo each others headlines and not doing the best possible wording during breaking news?
The lead should state is as a statement from Trump, the section in the article should include the NYT piece and say it was likely a bullet, but we can't take the other news pieces at face value when they aren't citing any new sources. — jonas (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's job is to follow independent, reliable sources. There are clearly very many trusted sources reporting he was "shot in the ear." Whether or not it has been confirmed by the FBI doesn't really matter to us. Your comment above is mostly synthesis based on things you've seen. Until reliable sources reasonably start contesting the fact that he was shot, we have to follow what they are saying. CFA💬20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raised his fist - mentioned five times in the article?
The article mentions Trump raising his fist after the shooting five times, which may unintentionally emphasize it as a patriotic gesture. This repetition not only skews the neutrality of the article but also assigns undue significance to a single action. For a balanced and objective portrayal, it would be prudent to either reduce the frequency of this mention or remove it altogether if it does not add significant information to the narrative. Instead, a more comprehensive view of his actions, including the repeated insistence on picking up his shoes, should be presented. Such adjustments would ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines by avoiding the overemphasis of specific gestures that might be interpreted as patriotically charged. Worstbull (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous news outlets and the most prominent photographs talk about him raising his fist and nothing about pumping his shoes. The article simply says he pumped his fist for multiple seconds, which is exactly what he did and what news outlets (like Reuters cited) say. Bill Williams02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, buried in the articles and not featured prominently in a single news story. The fist pumping is, however, and is shown in all major news outlet photos. You're adding some patriotic angle when it's basic facts and notability. Bill Williams03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, but these were just the very first four examples I found with a really quick Google search, to make a point. Not as a suggestion to add specifically those. There are more. Worstbull (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "let me get my shoes" trump results in 70 articles from the past hour, mentioning that. Examples are listed above. Worstbull (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some whataboutism doesnt change that publications like Reuters highlight in the first few sentences that he pumped a fist, while zero highlight anything about his shoes in the first few paragraphs. Bill Williams03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, there is no justification for mentioning this four times in the article. That's clearly biased, adding undue significance to a single action. And needs to be cleaned up. Worstbull (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Someone who might be experiencing some level of shock and is not a medical expert and moreover cannot see the site of the injury is not an authority on its cause
While he likely has been apprised of the cause, either confirming or refuting bullet damage by qualified experts, he did not make any such sourced claim and has publicly been a less-than-reputable interlocutor in the past
If it is a fact, other USSS/FBI/etc officials will state it. And despite it being privileged information in principal under HIPAA, one imagines leaks from medical sources will also find their way to press
AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News are all running with Trump injured and trump says he was shot. None affirm it. I have only seen the claim of him having been shot repeated explicitly by that one Reuters headline (without more support in body), InfoWars, and Breitbart Donald Guy (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported in the body. It reads: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, streaking the Republican presidential candidate's blood across his face and prompting his security agents to swarm him." CFA💬03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean he is not currently the president and he was notably not substantially injured, but the paths of all bullets involved in e.g. the JFK assassination as well as the attempted assassination on Reagan are both things which are extensively documented
insofar as a congressional investigation is being promised by GOP members and a Secret Service / FBI investigation is confirmed underway...
I'd think that you might be wrong (outside of your qualification of "on Trump's ear" making your statement potentially nonsensical) Donald Guy (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if this photo sequence was in fact published in full by NYTimes (I don't currently have an active subscription to dig through; have only seen the first one republished by CBS News):
and shows like this reddit post version blood on Trump's hand in the instant before ducking, that is a pretty good direct proof of cause of injury Donald Guy (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Guy this can all be summarized as saying nothing short of signed statements by a doctor is sufficient to prove a bullet caused harm, even in the precense of shoots fired, photos of the bullets passing by, photos of the damage, and the lack of any competing explanation for any of this. Bjngobkngo (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to write that "while Trump has stated he was shot in his right ear, no law enforcement agencies have confirmed where Trump was shot"? Or something to that effect. That's what I noticed in this New York Times page. Soupcube (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a reference about a Secret Service sniper neutralizing the alleged attacker, but no location or position information is included in that material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This is synthesis and hence I believe it is original research and should remain out of the article at this time. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing that image was released under BY-NC-ND, which it not compatible with the Wikipedia as it is too restrictive. That will be deleted shortly. Zaathras (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, an edit was made that added list-defined references, which broke much of the referencing on the page. I oppose converting this to LDR for this reason and, per MOS:CITEVAR, we should continue using the inline template references. I will work to try to restore the content added between the LDR-inserting edit and the reverting edit. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten more edit conflicts in the last two hours than in the last two months and I'm not even trying to do any politics stuff I'm just fixing the formatting 😔
@Red-tailed hawk: The reference formatting script has an option to remove LDR, if it is that big of a deal as to warrant a gigantic revert, but I don't know why it would be helpful to put them all inline -- the source code for this page with all the refs inlined was completely unreadable. jp×g🗯️03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were all bare URLs or light citation templates it'd be one thing, but with the archive URLs (which is the only way for people to verify the (subscription required)s) it's a total disaster. Like, this is the source for a three-sentence passage:
According to Butler County district attorney Richard Goldinger, an alleged perpetrator and an audience member were killed.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said two people are dead, including an apparent shooter. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713232323/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> At least one other person is in critical condition.<ref name="casualties">{{Cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Chris |last2=Lawther |first2=Fran |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Donald Trump is 'fine' after being rushed off stage at rally amid possible gunshots – latest updates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |access-date=July 13, 2024 |work=the Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=July 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714015033/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PowellShelton>{{Cite web|last1=Powell|first1=Tori B.|last2=Shelton|first2=Shania|last3=Meyer|first3=Matt|last4=D'Antonio|first4=Isabelle|last5=Tucker|first5=Emma|last6=Yeung|first6=Jessie|date=July 13, 2024|title=Live updates: Trump injured in shooting at Pennsylvania rally that left at least 1 dead {{!}} CNN Politics|url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|access-date=July 13, 2024|website=CNN|language=en|archive-date=July 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713222828/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Rep. [[Ronny Jackson]] (R-Texas) told Fox News that his nephew was shot in the neck.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
I mean, there's probably a solid month of edit wars already booked for this article, so I don't know if there is space here for a reference format argument. I guess my screed here is that it's extremely stupid that we have to deal with unreadable shit like this when there's a perfectly-functional alternative because nobody can be arsed to fix basic functionality in VE. It's especially dumb because it's not like LDR is some newfangled thing -- it was already four years old when VisualEditor was introduced, and VisualEditor itself is now eleven years old. jp×g🗯️03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No -- it had nothing to do with that. The byte difference was because the templates were vertically spaced, e.g. instead of
<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
they were formatted like
<ref>{{Cite web
|last = McGraw
|first = Meridith
|last2 = Allison
|first2 = Natalie
|date = July 13, 2024
|title = Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting
|url = https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
|url-status = live
|access-date = July 13, 2024
|website = Politico
|archive-date = July 13, 2024
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
}}</ref>
. So that the vertical space increase didn't make the source code even more impossible to read or modify, I reformatted it to use WP:LDR, so that all the references would be moved to the bottom of the article instead of being plopped directly between the sentences of prose text. The reason this doesn't work in Visual Editor is because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided it doesn't matter if the default editor on Wikipedia can work without breaking when used to edit Wikipedia articles. jp×g🗯️03:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just switched only one section to list-defined (international reactions), which section was literally impossible to edit and the highlighter was broken. @Red-tailed hawkWP:CITEVAR does not apply to selectively switching some of the references to list-defined. CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored. List-defined is commonly done for tables, infoboxes etc. —Alalch E.14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEVAR, under the "To be avoided" subheader, does include changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. As such, I don't think that CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored holds here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Yeah, alright. I will move them back, which should be fine now because of the particular cosmetic formatting I've added to that section in the meantime making it easier to see what's going on. —Alalch E.14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I have to note here that that part of CITEVAR is not good. It indirectly means that list-defined references should never be used, because articles are basically always created not using them, and suggests completely unnecessary uniformity (either all are defined in the body or in the reflist -- bit of a dichotomous thinking moment). It is not consistent with how, sometimes, very justifiably, ibx, table and list cites are list-defined to make the content more humanly editable (while the prose cites are left alone). The result for the reader is the same, so this is just about making our lives easier. —Alalch E.15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s
I added this template at the bottom of the article because it qualifies as such according to several sources, yet it has been removed twice. To me it seems like an appropriate thing to add as it has been so far reported that there were at least five casualties. One attendee was killed, two attendees were injured, Donald Trump was injured, and the perpetrator was killed. Excluding the perpetrator that means there were four victims of this attack which meets the criteria of the definition of a "mass shooting" as described by sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, and Stanford University.
It's not really a "mass" shooting if the guy is literally trying to aim at one person and missed; I believe the technical term for this phenomenon is something closer to "skill issue". jp×g🗯️04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this reply is meant to be humorous, but even if this attack was not intentionally a mass shooting, it seems like this is what happened irregardless. Raskuly (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there are a lot of definitions, but they are all pretty unambiguous that they involve multiple people being targeted -- it seems quite obvious that this was a single person being targeted, based on every single available source, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The link you give to the 2011 Tucson shooting says that 18 people were shot, because the guy shot the congresswoman... then afterwards turned around and started shooting random other people in the crowd. I do not know of anything described by sources as a "mass shooting" where one guy shot one other guy and incidentally missed a couple times. jp×g🗯️05:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting victims being the target of a shooting or not should not affect whether something is classified as a mass shooting. See the 2024 Kansas City parade shooting article as an example of what I mean. Besides, it is not yet clear whether or not the shooter also purposely shot at attendees. Raskuly (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think intent matters. You just need 4+ people hit by gunfire in a single event for it qualify as a mass shooting. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does as long as the injury was caused by gunfire as you describe. I'm not sure whether or not the cause of Trump's injury has yet been clarified as being caused directly or indirectly by a gunshot yet. Raskuly (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have linked to an article with a gigantic number of people who were deliberately targeted ("One person was killed and 22 others were shot, including 11 children.") It is kind of hard to tell what was going on there, but this article suggests they were attacking a group of people, i.e. attempting to shoot them. This feels like one of those joke posts where somebody tries to argue that a bowl of cereal is technically soup... because gazpacho is served cold, Estonian milk soup uses milk as a broth, and sopa de ajo has croutons/grains in it. If you can find sources seriously describing this as a "mass shooting", then sure, but I do not see this anywhere. jp×g🗯️05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I am completely serious. Most of the people hurt in this incident I used as an example were not targets. The number of people that were actually targeted in it that were struck by gunfire appears to have been two. There may be a few sources which refer to the attack as a "mass shooting", but most sources are understandably focusing on the fact that Donald Trump was injured, but as I said before this incident appears to meet the definition of a mass shooting. Raskuly (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't doubt that you are serious, I just don't think this is an appropriate addition to the article. jp×g🗯️06:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? These templates are located at the bottom of the article and if it meets the definition I see no harm in adding it. It will be collapsed. Raskuly (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed the references as it’s not supported by RS and is blatant NPOV. Multiple editors have disagreed so I recommend finding WP:ONUS before reintroducing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no way of knowing the shooter’s intentions this early. The shooter was killed fairly quickly after opening fire. He may have intended to continue shooting at other people for all we know, had he not been killed. To assume this was solely targeting Trump is based on no evidence whatsoever at this point, even if it is very likely Trump was the main target. Macxcxz (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the train of thought that the shooter had to intentionally fire upon other people other than Trump for this to qualify as a mass shooting. Raskuly (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for "sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, and Stanford University" or other sources to report it as a mass shooting. Your original research doesn't belong on wikipedia Amthisguy (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying my comment from above. When the term "mass shooting" is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people? We know so little about the shooter's intentions now, and while his death makes it impossible to know all his thoughts, investigators may be able to learn a good deal more. If this man's intention were only to shoot Trump, and the other victims were shot accidentally (e.g. he mis-aimed, or the bullet that hit Trump continued on and hit someone behind him), it really shouldn't be categorised as a mass shooting even if there were four victims. If Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"When the term 'mass shooting' is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people" No, it indicates that a high enough number of people were shot. "f Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby." Why not? Raskuly (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National File publishes photo of alleged assassin on Twitter (NSFW)
I've seen that photo elsewhere. I'd want a bit more certainty that it's a Federal official who took that photo, since state and local police were also involved in the response. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the complete statement from Biden, as released by the White House. Part of this is already in the article. I can't understand why the text below was deleted. I will put it here so that an administrator can add it, if possible:
"I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania.
I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information.
Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it."
How is there ANY Wikipedia article on this topic considering, at this early point (less than 6 hours), there isn't any reliable reporting of facts from investigative sources. Editing of this article should be locked for at least a few days until the real facts are reported. For cryin' out loud… This is a very good example why educational institutions do not allow student researchers use Wikipedia as a citable source for their class papers. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows what is "wrong" with the article for the same reason that no one knows what is "right" with it. Can't you see the obviousness of that as evidenced by all the differing opinions shared already on this talk page? — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as you state, there are certain lines that this article has already passed. For instance, we can be sure that some shooting event did occur today, and that it was at a Trump rally, based off the reliable sources cited. As such, we ought to cover it, since it meets notability. Editing of this article is already locked to extended-protected reviewers due to fear of vandalism. Finally, I don't see how your point about class papers is relevant to meaningful critique of the content in the article. It may be true, but we are Wikipedia, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that Wikipedia isn't used as a citable source for class papers. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being argumentative, but based on what you just stated, at this point this article should only contain 2 sentences… It happened, and where. Absolutely nothing else is reliable information and therefore doesn't belong yet — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just giving an example there. The information that is in the article is ideally backed up by reliable sources, like any article on Wikipedia. If it's not backed up, it should be removed. I don't see why this should be disregarded simply because the article is recent. After all, it can always be changed as more information is relayed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest it "should be disregarded simply because the" event "is recent". I am convinced that there is no reliable reporting from any source at this point. We should not think a source is reliable just because they published an article themselves about it. The information reported is aggressively changing moment-by-moment. Based on Wikipedia policy, swiftly changing reports should not be considered "reliable". All I'm suggesting is a day or two before rushing to publish what is not even close to factual yet. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The article is properly tagged with "This article documents a current event" just for that reason. That's the guideline here. That doesn't change just because it's contentious.
2) "Reliable reporting" is not analogous with "correct reporting". "Reliable reporting" would be giving the proper hedging and disclaimers with information being provided with the understanding that some of it is probably going to turn out to be incorrect. If there's a particular source where reporting is being made on something without providing such proper context, then specify the source and request it be removed and/or replaced by a better source. Per WP:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time."
I mean, like, we have high-resolution photos and statements from everybody involved detailing the whole timeline of the event. Is there any actual specific claim about this that's in doubt? The identity of the dude may not be known, but I feel like the basic bones of it are pretty obvious: the time, the place, the dude's ear getting blown off, et cetera. It's not like in two weeks we're going to suddenly decide that this isn't noteworthy. jp×g🗯️04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you contending, then, that we have no reliable reporting that 3 people in the crowd were shot and 1 is dead? That witnesses and law enforcement did not identify the weapon as an AK-style assault rifle? That it is not being investigated as an attempted assassination? That Trump didn't post to social media that he was shot in the ear? That various other political figures in the US and globally didn't post their own responses on social media?
I agree that there is going to be a lot of things written in this article that will later be altered in one way or another and there will potentially be bad actors in spite of the raised article protection it would be absurd to completely lock an article from editing when undoubtedly there are many people across the world visiting it right now. Raskuly (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article will be chaotic for awhile but efforts are being made by a multitude of Wikipedians to work towards this being as accurate as possible and weed out inaccuracies. If we refused to write about any current or trending event we'd have to wait up to potentially weeks before we were able to begin. Raskuly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what, there's no way to know what happened? There were like eight bazillion people there including news reporters who were taking high-resolution photos the entire time; it's far and away the biggest story of the day, the week, who knows maybe of the year. What aspect of this is in doubt?? jp×g🗯️04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions
Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm
I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a topic for an article about Elon Musk's political donations as it stands. Besides that, we need to wait for someone to say that Musk is doing his usual nonsense. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning)00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 193 countries on earth, each with many leaders. Javier Milei and Benjamin Netanyahu saying they offer condolences do not have lasting impact on politics. Unless the media hyperfixates on any specific leader's comments, they are trivia or clutter. We have set a very low bar to entry by allowing one line responses from even previous world leaders. When we mention Biden's responses, that is because it is an extension of the US government's attitude and because it will be highly covered. The same will likely not be true of Kier Starmer. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are politicians mouthing platitudes. That is the job of politicians, and deserves no more mention than any other non-encyclopedic topic. Abductive (reasoning)01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of a single realistic scenario where this would be necessary. The point remains that we need to prune this section down to three or four sentences max. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions of world leaders are relevant. The reactions of former world leaders (e.g. Liz Truss, who was in the office for less than two months), and Opposition Leaders (e.g. Pierre Poilievre) isn't. Luminism (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you on that last part. Hopefully we can get more support so this doesn't turn into WP:WAR. I beg to differ on the first part, and I suppose we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. Again, my reasoning is that their thoughts do not impact politics in either country. This is a national event, and unless/until other countries take it as a cue to update policies or treat the US a different way, this is politically irrelevant. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responses section is the largest section in this article at 12,983 bytes. It is continuing to grow because we are allowing additions too liberally. Please use this area as a discussion section for this topic. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few edits trimming down this section. It appears to be a bunch of copy paste tweets and other irrelevant information. The primary topic of the article is the shooting not the reactions. SKAG123 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this. RFK needs to be the subject of like two NYT op-eds about this specifically (even one) for this to be notable. It will take months. Same for Elon. Right now they're just some schmucks. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But have they actually lent that heavy influence? Musk can say that he likes an anime today. If we don't see a spike in people watching it and talking about it crediting him, he has no connection. His PAC donations are an interesting lead, but they precede the shooting. Only if he donates more now will it be notable. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions. Right now, it is at what I hope is the peak size. 17k bytes is excessive when nobody is doing anything more substantial than saying "sending love and prayers xoxo such tough times" Ornov GangulyTALK16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a reactions section, I see a responses section. And the responses by politicians is quickly bordering on lunatic fringe. Seriously, claiming the radical left and the corporate media is working together? And claiming Biden should be held responsible? Just total lunatic fringe nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lunatic fringe is what has more longevity here. People are talking about them disproportionately. We're keeping RFK off unless he suggests that the CIA tried to kill Trump. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a separate page called "Responses to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" which would have all the responses collected on it. This page would be reserved for the "big ones." BootsED (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in anyway astonishing or even notable that politicians are chiming in to say that they are against people shooting at politicians? Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Hardly any reactions besides those of Biden, Harris, Shapiro, and maybe Trump's core team are notable on their own. They set precedents for political relations and local rule. If we make another article just for this, it would be pointless and begin a debate there about how much is too much in an already unnoteworthy article. Ornov GangulyTALK17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add comments from Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver
Comments from the Oliver should probably be added to the Responses category.
Might read something like "Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver extended well wishes to the former president, saying 'Political violence is never the answer, no matter how divided we may be.'" Abbyfluoroethane (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a WP thing about how it's easier to keep adding to an article than to trim it. There's no discussion with them often because they don't go to the talk page, but if we remove it, it'll become a huge thing. Ornov GangulyTALK17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the reactions section is a long paragraph. I suggest we make it a table and then if I understand correctly a map can then be autogenerated of the nations with responses. ItzSwirlz (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a very effortful workaround to a problem that exists only because we are ignoring the discussions here to keep adding international reactions. This should be two sentences maximum until and unless a foreign leader makes a substantive change to their own security as a result. Georgia is possibly the only exception to this rule because they are making huge political claims. Ornov GangulyTALK17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way, way too long, and efforts to discuss it are being ignored
The reactions/responses section continues to grow rapidly. Since yesterday, I would argue that progress has been made. The intro paragraph is good, Trump and U.S. Officials' reactions give due weight and are relevant, but the International leaders and Others sections are a bit wanton. Why do we care about Broglio? Evidence of people listening to these influential people or them making substantial contributions to Trump's campaign are the only things that would validate mentioning them.
43,717 bytes. 19k of which are just the international reaction. This is absurd.
Elon donated money to Trump before the shooting, but right now he is offering platitudes. Endorsement here is not meaningful because he has already endorsed Trump on Twitter. Why does Bezos even matter? They need to do more than speak. The President earns a mention because his words set a precedent for the country, and because he is caught up in the accusations of conspiracy.
International leaders are not doing anything about the shooting, nor are they offering anything but words to Trump. Irakli Kobakhidze is the exception, undue weight be damned, because it is part of his conspiratorial politics. Who cares what Finland thinks? Israel is not changing their policies based on this. People can find this information any way they want. We have set a horrible standard in allowing everything in. This section should simply be "Many heads of state condemned the shooting. K-I-S-S.
Much of this section will undoubtedly be merged into the Conspiracy theories section once time passes. Let's set standards now because editors are avoiding the talk page and just putting more information in. Ornov GangulyTALK20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was what I was getting at. On the other hand, law-enforcement investigations, international reactions, etc. are also standard for events of this magnitude and should obviously be included, so upon further reflection I'm on the fence. Bremps...04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a good fit for the tone of an encyclopedia article. We state facts, rather than trying to influence folks to do something. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And there'll be lots to add from the federal investigations eventually, not least because this is the smartphone era. kencf0618 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can whoever's archiving stuff from this talk page please stop for a bit
I have been trying to close old requests and respond to questions on here and every time I click on a section-edit link I am ending up at wildly different sections. This has been going on for like five minutes straight. I've got blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my whatever. Some of these archivers are messing things up and putting sections on the wrong archive page! Can we just calm down for a minute. jp×g🗯️04:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One hour is an extremely short time for that sort of thing. It's about how the page will be structured broadly, and that will have impacts on the future of the page. I think it's probably better to have one thread where editors can discuss that for the long term rather than have a bunch that sporadically pop up. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm creating this section in response to the repeated changing of the location of this incident. The shooting happened at the Butler Farm Show fairground which is located in Butler County outside of Butler. However, the state of Pennsylvania, as pointed out to me earlier by @Dough4872 and @JWilz12345, is divided into townships. This fairground is located in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County just west of Meridian.
Therefore it seems inappropriate to refer to this as happening within the city of Butler, despite many sources saying it happened in Butler, which is simply because the fairground is located within the Butler metro. So, should we refer to it as have happened west of Meridian, in Connoquenessing Township, or perhaps even just in Butler County? I prefer something along the lines of "Connoquenessing Township west of Meridian" personally although that is a mouthful. Raskuly (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be mentioned but Butler because the media almost entirely only mentions Butler. I made it say "near Butler" in the opening sentence for clarity but that is the most that should be done because otherwise it is OR. Bill Williams05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out to me that the exact location on the fairground is actually within Meridian. My apologies for the mistake. Raskuly (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the fairground straddles the township line. The issue though is which part would it be in? Unless there's something solid, it may be best to defer to what the local newspapers say WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct location is "near Butler". Townships in Pennsylvania are mainly for administrative purposes and unless you're conducting a census or working for the post office, no one cares that much about them. Nosferattus (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Butler County school districts
Seriously? A township (Pennsylvania) is used for administrative purposes, to be sure, but it's far more significant than merely that. Your township determines your school district (districts being based on municipal borders; see map), your fire department, your roads, your local elected officials, and so much more. Pretty much all adults will know in which municipality they live; townships are vastly different from, say, counties in New England or magisterial districts in Virginia. Unless we can get a precise location, best to go with "near Butler", since we know it's not in the city, and the border makes it awkward. (Also, it's irrelevant for the post office. My relatives in Lawrence County have New Castle addresses, despite living multiple townships away from the city.) Plus, while Meridian has specific Census boundaries, it's not a municipality, so the Census boundaries don't always match popular perceptions of what is or isn't Meridian, and some people may disagree with "west of Meridian". I've been there — I took the image that illustrates the Meridian article. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
refine Washington Post cite giving age
currently is numbered as citation 30
More specific link to post rather than whole liveblog is available and should perhaps be preferred ?
I don't know why the photo keeps disappearing from the infobox -- there are some technical issues with edits getting messed up and repeatedly colliding with each other and destroying changes, but I feel like this picture has vanished like five or six times already. It is true that it's a fair-use image, and there is a FfD open for it due to copyright issues, but the procedure for ongoing FfDs is emphatically not "go through and rip images out of articles with a steak knife". Please do not remove the photo unless it is actually deleted at the FfD. jp×g🗯️05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that, besides the FfD, there is also the issue of this specific picture being non-neutral for the article's infobox, as it depicts Trump striking a pose in the aftermath of the shooting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As numerous editors have mentioned that is not how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't a non-neutral photo, it's respecting notability and showing what the vast majority of the media is covering. It is just like Battle of Iwo Jima showing a "non-neutral" pose, among plenty of other examples. Should we change Wikipedia precedent just for Trump? Bill Williams06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear to God I didn't see your comment when I was typing out mine. I am kind of embarrassed that we used the same photo as an example, it feels like showing up to a party with the exact same costume as somebody else 😅 jp×g🗯️06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's not really our fault if the photo incidentally makes him look cool. It may be worthwhile to compare File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg, a different historic photo of an assassination attempt, which happens to make the Otoya Yamaguchi look really cool (even if he was a deranged piece of shit, as can be seen by the fact that the photo depicts him in the middle of murdering a guy). File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg which makes the United States military look unbelievably cool -- so much so that they've used it in recruitment materials for a bajillion years afterwards -- but I don't think that using it at Battle of Iwo Jima is propaganda, it's just the most recognizable image that came from that battle (indeed, per ja:硫黄島の戦い, both sides agree that it's a dope photo).
Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not generally in the business of formally endorsing governments or militaries or politicians. But I think that, in the business of documenting history and the world we live in, it's appropriate to use the most iconic images, which are the most widely understood and associated with the stuff we're writing about. jp×g🗯️06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely iconic, just like the one where he took the chiefs of staff for a walk to the church across from the White House and waved a Bible around. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that situation (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church), we use a public domain White House photo, Creative Commons licensed images (Ashburton House fire), and a public domain video report from Voice of America, among other later images. People discussed his actions that day, not the individual photos. Fast-forward ten years, are people going to be discussing the photo itself, or Trump's fist pumping? -- Zanimum (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I question the use of this image as fair use, and also it being "the image". We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here. I'm also not seeing this photo very consistently - a lot of news sources are using other images, such as [3], [4], [5], and [6], all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here." Any images taken from the event would be valuable. Why would anyone give it up for free? Trade (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG the article describes how the image is used by his allies, and influencing his public image. The image is appropriate to use in the public image section. As the lead image of the article I would say it is breaching NPOV. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion here and over on the FFD, I've been bold and moved the image to the point in the article where the image is being specifically discussed, in line with the NFCC and fair use, and the emerging consensus on the FFD discussion. Likely to be the less of the evils here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest something along these lines: it seems like the main issue comes from it being in the infobox specifically, but there is no real reason that it needs to be in the infobox specifically. I think it is better to have it down further. jp×g🗯️10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be just fine being contained here. Similar to how the "photo op" in front of the Church is an article about the photo, not necessarily about the hundreds of people who got teargassed. CNC33 (. . .talk)06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm betting it will win a Pulitzer, but it can get its own article when that happens. It also needs to be expanded on in Evan's article. Otherwise it can be highlighted here. Bill Williams06:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your statement on the incredible significance of the image. However, I think it is too early to give it an article. It might be WP:TOOSOON. A draft article, however, could be created for the time being if anyone is up for it. (Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!) 06:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, Red-tailed sock, and Susmuffin: Does anyone know what is up with the archive links for the refs? All three of us have done them for this page, but they seem to keep disappearing. How is this happening? Is this some kind of arseways VE bug? What's going on? jp×g🗯️06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is writing something. They see an edit conflict. They think "screw it", and just copy-paste their version into the page, ignoring the edit conflict, and deleting any edits that they conflicted with. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I really recommend that you do not archive any of the live links. It's completely misleading because the life information is frequently updating, so much of the archived information is outdated. Bill Williams06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of archiving the live links is so that one can see exactly what one cited at a particular time (ideally, very close to when that link is added to the article). Isn't that something we would want archived? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The counter arguement is that by archiving pages that are still live, we're just bulking up the article. IA will archive them anyway if they are added to the article, if I've understood their methods correctly. Mdann52 (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Effects on Trump's public image" section should be removed
The Effects on Trump's public image section is entirely about one photo and is UNDUE and COATRACK. The article is about the assassination attempt, not people's opinions of the photo. If the photo gets sustained attention, then it might warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir(talk)06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a more nuanced view. We are using a non free image and the relevant policy language about "Images with iconic status or historical importance" says Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. In this case, the image is from the Associated Press, and if we are going to use this image, the article needs to include sourced commentary from reliable sources making the case that it is iconic or historical. I believe that it is both. The passage of time will show that more clearly, but it is hard for me to visualize some future analysis by historians that concludes, "No, that is neither an iconic nor a historical photo of Trump". Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem; some people were saying the photo had to come out because there wasn't enough sourcing about that photo specifically to meet WP:NFCC, then somebody found a bunch of sources talking about the photo, then someone else was like "Why is there so much crap in the article about this one photo, this is WP:UNDUE" and removed them all. It has been oscillating between these two fairly regularly; I think both ends of the pendulum produce a noticeably worse article, so hopefully it will end up in some stable arrangement between them. jp×g🗯️09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone elsewhere on this talk page had the brilliant idea of putting the damn image somewhere else, further down the article, and by this part which is about it, which seems like a stupendous idea. jp×g🗯️10:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the section is regarding the Nucci photograph. Propose to rename to "Nucci photograph of injured Trump" or something similar and move to separate new section below everything else. User:WoodElf16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt suggestion: a new section called "In visual media" which discusses Evan Vucci's widely circulated photograph(s) and any other notable photo/video from the incident. User:WoodElf21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shoes
The article says "he rose with blood on his ear and face and told Secret Service agents that he needed his shoes" and news reports say that he repeatedly asked for his shoes. Why would he not be wearing shoes? Does he take them off to speak or what? This seems to need explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can hear Trump say "let me get my shoes" in video recordings of the event, just as the secret service agents are telling him they need to move him. It's possible that they came off when he ducked to the ground, or when the secret service agents piled onto him, or when they lifted him back up. Joe (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most likely explanation is that his shoes got knocked off when multiple Secret Service agents leaped on him to protect him from more bullets, and he was just trying to recover them for the walk down the stairs to the armored limo. People in general (not just Trump) immediately after a trauma often fixate on something later seen as of little importance. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Was was taught in a safety course that if someone's badly injured in a work accident, you remove their neck tie, belt, and shoes to improve air and blood flow. I think it had something to do with reducing shock too. Not 100% as it was a while ago, but might help you all find a better source. Caesar35 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18:12:33: Trump: “Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes.”
18:12:35: Male agent 2: “I got you sir, I got you sir.”
18:12:36: Trump: “Let me get my shoes on.”
18:12:37: Another male agent: “hold on, your head is bloody.”
18:12:39: Male agent 2: “Sir we’ve got to move to the car sir.”
18:12:42: Trump: “Let me get my shoes.”
18:12:43: Female agent: “OK, [inaudible].”
18:12:47: Trump: “Wait, wait, wait” then fist pumps to crowd. He mouths “fight” three times – a move met with cheers by the crowd.
This confirms that the shoes were an issue but still doesn't explain why. My best guess is that he may have fancy dress shoes which are not comfortable for long periods of standing so maybe he slips into something more comfortable. As Trump is quite image-conscious, he may have wanted to change back before moving out. But this is all speculation. I'll be looking out for more sources which clarify this ...
There's a picture of one of the shoes here: "Trump’s shoe was left on the stage on the spot where it come off as his Secret Service detail rushed to cover him. He was taken to a local medical facility." -- Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post. This looks to be a black Oxford dress shoe and still seems to be laced up. I wouldn't have thought this would come off so easily but that's what they seem to be saying. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass Shooting categories
This isn’t supported by RS or the article, which should be enough for editors to stop doing it. This category is wildly inappropriate as for the above reasons alone, and the general consensus is that a mass shooting involves 3 or more fatalities (not including the victim) according to the FBI (and many other sources as cited in Mass Shooting). Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shooter doesn’t count, and it’s unclear if the injuries besides Trump were firearms related. Additionally, not a single mention of “mass shooting” is made in the article. Clearly WP:UNDUE to include these categories. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree that this is WP:UNDUE and instead just categorization and as you said, there is no mention of "mass shooting" in the article but that is because of the focus on Trump. Categories "are intended to group together pages on similar subjects" and since respectable sources such as GVA and MST classify it as such it would make sense to include it. Raskuly (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."[7]soibangla (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two existing discussions on this, including one you started by referencing an alternate theory from Newsmax. Did you find any other sources that contradict the multitude of RS reporting Trump was shot?
Anyway, you're not referencing WSJ accurately, they report: Authorities have faced challenges identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
Apparently you've decided to edit anyway and remove a Reuters source based on "preponderance of RS", with no links to the supposed RS that apparently back your claim. At least we have some standard now? Sources that mention Trump was shot in their own voice (with links, with quotes):
WSJ (you claimed they didn't), identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
BBC (you claimed they didn't), hours after a gunman shot Trump in the ear
ABC (you claimed they didn't), investigating how a gunman armed with an AR-style rifle was able to get close enough to shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
The Guardian (you claimed they didn't), fired off shots — one of which grazed Trump in the ear
CNBC (you claimed they didn't),Trump was shot in the ear during the rally in Pennsylvania
NPR (you claimed they didn't), shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
US News (you claimed they didn't), after he was hit in the ear with a bullet
The Independent, Donald Trump was shot in the ear at a rally
CNN, Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear
USA Today, after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Axios, after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Al Jazeera, Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear
Reuters, Donald Trump was shot in the ear in an attempted assassination
The Telegraph, A bullet appeared to have grazed his ear
Sky News, Donald Trump shot in ear at Pennsylvania rally
France24. The former US president, who was shot in the ear
good job. there remain several highly RS that do not report he was shot. we know for a fact he was injured, we do not know for a fact he was shot. we should err on the conservative for the time being. if it is determined he was in fact shot, I will come to your Talk and bow to you. soibangla (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is kind of obtuse. Are you saying that these dozen-some sources are lying? They're all too stupid to know what the definition of "shot" is? What possible reason could there be to suppose this, and not just that the other sources used slightly different language? There is not some kind of requirement that a specific term be used unanimously by every newspaper on the planet before we're allowed to mention it. Man point gun at other man, make gun go boom, other man hit face blood come out, what verb? Hint: "shoot". jp×g🗯️10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
of course I'm not saying they're lying
The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”[9]
So you’re doubting the reliability of all 16 very reliable sources above? It’s not really our problem if all of them made a journalistic error; we’re just supposed to report what they say. Also, WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. CFA💬15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not pretend these reliable sources actually investigated if a bullet hit his ear or a shard of glass (they did not, Al Jazeera does not have access to Trumps ears, so counting them is kinda nonsensical). Even RSes report something quickly, with the information available at the time, and later have to improve their article when more information emerges. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we only have dozens of journalists and citizen journalists monitoring the before, during, and after of the event, multiple HD perspectives of video and photos, HQ audio from a microphone positioned right in front of Trump, analysts available to these newsrooms to examine the entire incident, and common sense. It appears that was sufficient for multiple RS to state in their own words that Trump was shot after a sniper shot at him, a bullet wound subsequently appeared on Trump's ear, and Trump grimaced and reached for his ear, alongside a photo of a bullet passing by him right at the same time. What exactly is behind this glass theory that keeps cropping up? That a round hit a midair beer bottle thrown into the air, which somehow none of the countless witnesses and cameras captured, and then a superfast shard of glass sliced Trump's ear, that was also not witnessed by anyone? KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim was that it hit an autoprompter. Common sense says that we don't know what exactly happened yet, because we do not work for the agencies whose job it is to know. But they'll figure it out and then tell us. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were countless eyes and cameras trained on the stage with the teleprompters. If they got hit in that first shot, it would not be so hard to find a trace of that in RS reporting. Like I mentioned with the multiple perspectives above though, we do have such photos available and published. Here is a closeup of both teleprompters from the AP, showing they are clearly intact. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I am just going to wait until some 3 or 4 letter agency has completed their investigation because they (e.g. secret service) have access to resources we do not have access to. I was just trying to make the point that journalists, even those who work for reliable sources, are fallible humans who have not investigated Trumps ears. Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Your graphic is missing the OpenStreetMap Attrinution. Your map shows an exact copy of the features that are found on OSM. OSM requires you display copyright banner/attribution on the graphic. Please fix!
Note: All OSM copyright information seems to be in order, this image is fine to be in the article, and the edit request is being closed. Lordseriouspig12:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not actually. From OSM: "Attribution text
Attribution must be to “OpenStreetMap”.
Attribution must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open Database License. This may be done by making the text “OpenStreetMap” a link to openstreetmap.org/copyright, which has information about OpenStreetMap’s data sources (which OpenStreetMap needs to credit) as well as the ODbL.
The text must be easily readable and understandable, taking into consideration the font, size, colour, contrast, positioning and amount of time that it is visible. We recommend you follow accessibility guidelines such as WCAG, and any other locally relevant regulations."
You must not be reading that either. I am quoting it from that link you shared: "
Illustrating Wikipedia articles with rendered maps
This is the main area where there's lots of obvious potential. Thousands of map images based on OSM have already been uploaded and are being used to illustrate Wikipedia articles describing places.
Wikipedians will take offense if we plaster lots of low quality images on there. Obviously we need to pick only areas where we have achieved a good level of mapping coverage, and where the rendering comes out well to produced maps which are actually useful. Note that we can upload quite large images, but it is preferred that an image looks good and is useful in its thumbnailed form, appearing on the article page itself. For maps this might mean the street name text should be readable in the thumbnail. That is actually quite a tricky restriction to work with (pick zoom level and thumbnail size carefully)
The image description page for any such image must attribute the image to OpenStreetMap and link to our copyright page. Templates such as Template:OpenStreetMap can help with that. This is also a good place to provide good links to openstreetmap. See #Linking from Wikipedia to OSM below.
Author did not use OSM imagery from my understanding. They used NOAA Imagery from yesterday. That is public domain imagery and then vectorized. So falls outside of OSM. MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was about a map that was on the article not attributing OSM correctly. The public domain issue was about a map that I submitted that which has open rights. MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will remove the unsourced template, and the speedy delete template in favour of a standard delete template (as per the appeal instructions in the speedy delete notice) Lordseriouspig13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“International” section
The “International” section in the “Responses” should be cleaned up drastically, it’s more just a huge, one-sentence list. At the very least, bullet points should be added. Lordseriouspig10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Do we also need to list every single country that condemned the incident as well? I remember this conversation when the attempted assassination of Robert Fico occurred. Procyon117 (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour deleting most of it under WP:NOTNEWS. We can just say “international leaders condemned the attack”. The only interesting bit is the Georgian prime minister spreading a conspiracy theory. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or he moved. I suspect that we will know a lot more about it and be able to know for sure what the deal is a day from now. Until then, who knows. You might be right: it may be worth just taking out the bleeding-edge conjecture about political affiliation stuff entirely and revisiting it in a few hours. jp×g🗯️10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ActBlue donation has been shown to be another Thomas Crooks, aged 69. Same name, different birth years, different address. Ms.britt (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected: new users please try to behave and read the other sections before you open a new one
Okay, well: I have un-semiprotected this talk page (I don't see the original protection in the log, last entry is from 2020 so I suspect something weird happened during the move). Please, anons and friends, use this opportunity in a smart way. Hopefully a bunch of people do not immediately post a giant amount of stupid crap here and make me look like a moron for doing this, or else I will probably have to end this hobby of unprotecting controversial talk pages. jp×g🗯️11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first couple of hours after the event, both the article and the talk page were an unusable shithouse -- as in, you literally couldn't save an edit for tens of minutes at a time -- so I think some level of protection was warranted at least for the first little bit. After that, yeah, I think it was probably unnecessarily strict. jp×g🗯️00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (4)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
also making a lot of countries with lots of references in a single sentence is kinda messy and hard to pinpoint specific leader(s) of the country(ies) maybe can consider rearranging into bullet points so that it would be easier to read and pinpoint? Foxy Husky (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ic..... then in this case, maybe just type "dozens(?) (or maybe 'most of international') leaders condemned the assassination attempt of trump" or something
i am unable to add it due to the protection level and also because last time i tried, i got a nastygram from an administrator claiming i am an vandal, and a different admin claiming i am on thin ice so i will leave it to others to determine whether to add this material. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really does seem conspiratorial at this stage.
As well as the bullseye comment, Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. I've yet to see any news site mention that in relation to this shooting, but it's something that was said and is arguably as related as the bullseye comment, in that it's pure conjecture and likely had no bearing on the shooter's motive. Just throwing it out there. Caesar35 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to include the suspected attempted assasssinstor?
I feel like it’s too early to include the shooter’s name, as the FBI hasn’t yet completely confirmed it was Thomas Matthew Crooks. They labeled him as “suspected.” The FBI can still make mistakes in their investigations. CavDan24 (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scale
As good as it is, File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg needs a scale. Butler Farm Show is not that big; its own website doesn't even have a map, and there are no available photos on Flickr. In this wise someone could work with these references (I would just blunder into WP:0R) . Many thanks.
Should we change the short description? I think 2024 shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, United States does not represent the article very well. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine. The article title is already descriptive, and the short description provides additional disambiguation as to the date and location. What change do you want to make? Catalk to me!14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Identity of other victims?
One thing is that Trump got hit in the ear, but someone actually died. They are apparently not important enough to be identified in mainstream media? Palnatoke (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist|20em is not (in your words) terrible. It, or something close to it, is necessary. There are already over 100 citations listed in the references section. Reflist|20em is not some strange, obscure, unused solution to the issue. It is quite common and can be found in many featured articles.
I am sure it was not your intent, but reverting my edit with the comment "no this is terrible" smacks of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Let's work together to solve the issue of compressing the lengthy and still growing reflist.
It was 15em (diff), not 20em, and looked terrible on my monitor, with way too much whitespace. 15em is good for shortened footnotes, but just isn't reasonable here. It makes the references take more vertical than horizontal space. They were much harder to read. 20em could be okay, I will implement that, if you haven't already. Sincerely —Alalch E.14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20em is a poor choice, which is generally used with short form references rather than the full cites used in this article. It's a poor choice as it displays poor formatting on some displays. 30em is the standard used for full cites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjectively, 20em feels okay to me, but yes, you are entirely correct. 30em is the standard for full cites. @Kingturtle: I think that you could be mixing up the width used for full citations and shortened footnotes. Also, narrowing the columns does not "compress" the reference section, it actually makes it take more space due to more unused space between the columns —Alalch E.14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for 20em here. Recommendations for column width can be found in the {{reflist}} documentation, and it says that 30em should be used when there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection. That's certainly the case here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it "colwidth=20em"? Does reflist really just parse our fine if you give the param as {{{1}}}? Have I been living a lie? Has the corporate liberal fake-news media and/or conspiratorial right-wing misinformation machine been suppressing the truth about reflist params from us true Wikipedian patriots? jp×g🗯️19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of places where multiple references are being used, removing redundant references and only including the strongest ones should help with this.
No source is cited for this being a mass shooting as stated in the info box. The most broad definitions of mass shooting that I'm aware of require either 2 people to be killed, excluding the perpetrator, or 4 people to be injured. There are dozens of news articles. None of them are calling it a mass shooting. Please edit. Amthisguy (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There are multiple discussions where this has been noted and it's clear there is no consensus for this to be added (and as you pointed out, reliable sources aren't calling this a mass shooting). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Mass shooting says A mass shooting is a violent crime in which one or more attackers kill or injure multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm.. It says nothing about deaths being required for an event to qualify. The very name of the term includes "shooting" not "killing"... Trump et al were in fact shot. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider opening an RFC, multiple editors have disputed this, there are scant reliable sources on describing this event as such, and WP:ONUS is clear here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply following appropriate definitions and attempting to categorize this article appropriately. I don't see why a news outlet has to necessarily refer to this attack as a "mass shooting". I will create an RFC. Raskuly (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn’t conduct original research per WP:OR. This discussion is spread across multiple sections so please collapse and redirect to the RFC if you decide to open one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided not to open one because I am just done with this. I've never been so thoroughly mentally exhausted by something on Wikipedia before, I do this for fun not to be told I'm doing original research when I am not. Since when was citing sources original research? Raskuly (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International Reactions - Global War Party
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, as well as other government officials,[1] have accused the mystical shadowy New World Order organization "Global War Party" of being responsible for the assassination attempt.[2] It has been a big story in Georgian news and has also been covered by other regional news.[3][4] The party has also accused the Global War Party of organizing "bloody attacks against politicians in America and Europe", being behind Attempted assassination of Robert Fico and threats against his life.[5]
Now, I feel it is entirely warranted to have a sentence about this whole debacle in the international reactions section as it is the only instance of a world leader not offering a tradition message of support or condemnation of the attack and naming an alleged perpetrator. I don't feel this warrants being an entire paragraph, but a single sentence should be reasonable.
I think we should. The current citation only supports the part of the quote currently in the article. This MSNBC article has the whole post. CFA💬16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see where you're coming from, obviously his reaction is very important. But I think its better to take out the most important quotes and put those excerpts in the article. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be there. There are multiple reliable sources quoting Trump's statement. It is not a long statement. I think that it is giving it due weight to include it in full. JMM12345 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. It's more relevant than reactions from basically anyone else — with the exception of Biden — and far more significant than talking about reactions from Anthony Albanese, Narendra Modi, or Cyril Ramaphosa. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insertion of possibly undue framing to the lead section
@KlayCax: inserted the phrasing to the lead: "Political scientists, historians, many Republican political figures, and some Democrats pointed the events as a sign of profound political polarization in the United States, and there was widespread criticism made against heated rhetoric that Trump was a potential dictator. The events led to widespread sympathy for Donald Trump on social media..."
The first time this was added and I removed it, I found that the given sources did not support this claim and in fact one (Axios) was a reused source having nothing to do with it, another (NBC) made clear this was a claim made solely by some Republican politicians, and a third (Scotsman) was an op/ed by a Liberal Democrat from Scotland. Maybe this claim is true but can we scrutinize this? I saw more sources were added to it. Is it due to be in the lead section if so? VintageVernacular (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the biggest problem I have here is probably the fact that the first (political polarization) and second ("heated rhetoric") parts are blended into one sentence which implies, and then even outright claims, the criticism of rhetoric is so "widespread" that it's more than just Republican politicians saying it according to the given sources, which as far as I saw isn't true at all. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these four points should be clearly communicated + can be found in 100+ sources:
World and domestic political figures (including from the left) overwhelmingly denounced the attack.
Trump was widely seen as a martyr among conservatives.
Historians and political scientists saw the events another example of polarization and the normalization of political violence in the United States. Heated, often hyperbolic rhetoric also contributing.
There were widespread calls, including from Congressmen, for increased security among the major presidential candidates.
I agree with you that the sentences should be split, @VintageVernacular:, however, for clarity reasons. I'll do that now. Ian Bremmer and other historians/political scientists have explicitly stated that we're in pretty unprecedented waters. At least since the 1960s. So I think the present, uniquely unstable domestic political situation within the United States (vs. other G7 countries) should undoubtedly be mentioned. KlayCax (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And since we're talking about both domestic and international relations. I think a comment from a Liberal Democrat from Scotland is fine. KlayCax (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.
The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 8+ sources that state such. That's as near as close to a consensus among major news agencies that you'll fine. Has any disputed it or stated anything else that would put it in doubt, @Ms.britt:? KlayCax (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the 8 sources for review to keep this objective, or perhaps clarify that 'Conservative news agencies and opinion writers'. Most news sources have not claimed or adopted the martyr narrative. Ms.britt (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ushering "in a dark new chapter of political violence"
Just because one publication wrote this sentence, doesn't mean it belongs in the lead or even in the article. If it really has to be in the article then it should be along the lines of "The Axios website wrote that this event 'has ushered in a dark new chapter of political violence '".
As well as his repeated call for his shoes. Let me get my shoes! Let me get my shoes! as it shoes how confusing the situation was. Worstbull (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"extended right arm from the shoulder into the air with a straightened hand"
There's a more concise way to describe this. Many people refer to it as "waving." At the risk of bringing in original research, I can report that I've even done this myself when encountering someone I know. I've also seen politicians direct such a "wave" at a crowd when they enter or leave a venue. I understand that it's a pleasant greeting of sorts. 2601:3CB:502:29E0:193A:C17A:84BF:9B28 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight shots"
Were all these shots from Crooks? Does this count take into account the secret service firing back at him? The audio of the incident shows a group of shots, a pause, then another group of shots. The second group of shots might be the secret service. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article cited states that the 8 shots were all from Crooks, based on audio analysis that isolated the distance of the gunfire and the consistency of the AR's shots. Both the first round of three and the second of five shots were fired approximately 330 to 390 feet from the C-SPAN microphone Mr. Trump was speaking into. That location was consistent with the location of the suspect’s body. There was no significant difference between the sound of the eight shots, which suggests that they likely came from the same firearm, Mr. Maher said. The Secret Service sniper team that shot back used a rifle packing a bigger punch than a .223, maybe .300 win mag, was closer to Trump, and thus should be more distinct. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic showing the locations of trump, secret service, and shooter is great. We should consider adding the shot victim locations to it if we can find an RS with that info. Video exists of two wounded spectators being carried off the bleacher between trump and the shooter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible accidental reversion
Hey, @Harizotoh9:. Did you mean to revert my addition of a "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation" section? I'm assuming it was a mistake. But if not: I'll revert, since I've already used my 1RR today.
I definitely think the vast swathe of social media misinformation and conspiracy theories should be mentioned, at least in brief.
Omit subjective sentence "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event"
This line is subjective: "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event ". It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.
The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s already a lot of hedging in that sentence, it’s hard to say it’s subjective (and certainly isn’t in Wikivoice). Still, you have concerns that the selected sources don’t represent all news agencies, which is a fair concern. This can be resolved with in-text attribution — naming the news agencies being sourced. The sentence could also be rewritten to be less clunky and remove the SCAREQUOTES, e.g. it could be "X and Y news agencies reported that many people considered Trump a martyr after the event." Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that opens the door for more opinion and subjective comments if we were to outline all the biased headlines on all sides of the aisle. Ms.britt (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's front-page news on The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Axios, and more. It's indisputably notable and should be in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't set a precedent for adding endless comments; standard of inclusion is still measured by in this case WP:DUE, regardless of how the content is written. If other views are not prevalent in sources, they're not given prominence. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, although I have already posted a similar message to this on the Commons talk page of the file, the diagram of the attempted assassination is not correct. The AGR buildings in the image are not all separate as the image shows, but instead they are connected by a corridor system, which may have been used by the shooter to jump from building to building by using the tops of them. Could this be corrected? Thanks. CutlassCiera18:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on www.openstreetmap.org the building is fixed - building layout was fixed 2 hours ago, so somebody can now grab new screenshot and fix the picture. (if the building does not load immediately you have to refresh the page) Pipi Skoda (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the donation and the zip code matches with the street where his address was confirmed to be located on. All of the other people by the name of Thomas Crooks in Pittsburgh have different ZIP codes. CutlassCiera19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden statements before shooting belong in background
Reliable sources attributing the following statement to Biden on July 8th and associating his rhetoric with the shooting. This belongs in the article.
Biden statement:
"It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye"
The background should have a couple sentences like this:
"On a call with donors on July 8th, Presoent Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting."
you seem very intent on relegating this information to the conspiracy theories section. do you have a reliable source that paints it as such? Daddyelectrolux (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biden said those words, but it's a conspiracy theory to say the shooter acted on those words, because there's no evidence they had any bearing on his actions.
is there a reliable source that calls it a conspiracy theory? The reliable sources are attributing the quote to Biden. The reaction to the quote is also reported by reliable sources, It’s quite simple. The background section is for events proceeding. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to see more RS covering this or is the list of CNN, USA today, BBC and WSJ not enough? This legitimate reporting on a relevant fact that they have all covered in their articles. The link you dismissed is covered in the RS. Is it your opinion that the link is "speculative"? I don't see the RS uaing that language. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't even able to properly interpret the sources you're mentioning. The sources aren't reporting that "Biden is responsible," they are reporting that "Republicans ACCUSE Biden for being responsible." You're trying to pass off the latter (an opinion) as the former (a factual claim). Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs in official reactions, I don't see why it would be in conspiracy section; AFAIK nobody is claiming Biden ordered a hit. There's already crazier content there about Republican U.S. representative Mike Collins of Georgia called for a Republican prosecutor to charge Biden for inciting an assassination and very parallel content about Senators Vance and Scott + Leader Scalise generally criticizing rhetoric.
It's probably better to have an actual statement to link back to that's consistently covered in RS rather than vague "X accuses Y of supposedly infallamatory content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section on the photo of Trump either needs to be seriously adjusted or removed entirely.
First off, the whole section feels extremely long winded and tangential, exasperated more so by the fact that this is still a developing article. Secondly, the opinion pieces are not only unnecessary but also heavily skewed in a left-wing point-of-view. What I suggest is either the removal of the opinion paragraph entirely, which would not only present a neutral view of the photo but also more than half the length of that section, or an attempt to politically balance said paragraph.
As of now, all five sources cited in this section are left to left-leaning and have a combined political bias of -14.40 to the left according to measurements done by the leading media bias focused website, AllSides. This is an unacceptable bias for a Wikipedia article. Either we need to remedy this by removing further leaning political pieces and adding more centrist takes or we need to balance the political leaning of the story by removing some of the left-leaning op-eds and adding some right-leaning pieces to the article. This much of a political bias appearing on the article of a tragic shooting in which one innocent civilian lost their life and two others are fighting for theirs is an oversight the lengths of which I seriously cannot comprehend.
We do not remove sources simply because they are biased, see WP:BIASED for more information on how we treat reliable sources when adding content. Whether the section is WP:DUE or not, is a different story. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the photo in particular, as well as the general optics of the event, have been the subject of significant coverage from a very wide range of reliable sources. Currently, I find the space devoted to the topic to be adequately proportional. Joe (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the reliability of the sources. Every source mentioned and cited from in the paragraph is extremely reliable. The problem is that all of these reliable sources are clearly touting a left-leaning bias which isn't present in much of if not the rest of the entire page. Firestorm0718 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more info under the 'misinformation' category
I see a lot of people posting that it was an inside job, talking about how it took the Counter Assault Team a "long time" to respond and "let him climb to the roof" or that "they waited till Trump was down to shoot". Should this be added? Moirrey22 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-winded way of saying this is not a neutral summary of the article and the whole section needs work. — jonas (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources note it, @Jonas1015119:. The section starts off by saying: BBC News noted the current normalization of both across the political spectrum, noting that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe". What exactly is objectionable here? There's never a claim that "left-wing conspiracy theories were a majority" or a minority. KlayCax (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole section is silly: do we really need a compilation of times that some guy on social media said something dumb, and then a tally of how many of them were libs? Should we go to the article for Chicago and make a huge section called "harmful misleading narratives" and then list all the people on Twitter who said it was in Indiana and not Illinois, which was baseless untrue damaging evidence-free extremely dangerous misinformation thoroughly repeatedly discredited disproven and debunked by expert fact-checkers? Who cares? jp×g🗯️20:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include a conspiracy theory section in other articles. Two paragraphs is entirely WP: DUE. It's received overwhelming attention in WP: RS's and it's going to be something remembered for a long, long time.
We don't have to think about it very hard to notice that people often say stuff online about ongoing breaking-news events, which turns out to later be untrue, and this is not really a coordinated action, or evidence of societal decay, or part of some sinister scheme. Like, do we need to accompany every single news event with a running feed of "at 1:45 PM, some guy on /pol/ said it was yet another perfidy of the Jew, meanwhile at 1:49 PM @hoxhaistcatgirl said on Twitter it was another fake KKKapitalist action movie staged by the united snaKKKes of ameriKKKa, make sure to get all your news from a reputable source like the New York Times, special introductory offer of just $4.99 per month"? These people say the same crap every day, and for that matter so does the newspaper (e.g. "you should buy a subscription to us!"). jp×g🗯️21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples have nothing to do with the content in question. At least question the content, not theoretical examples. That's why I repeated that you're overthinking it, or arguably not thinking critically enough. Overall it seems like a reasonable summary of conspiracy theories from a diverse perspective, aside from some unnecessary additions; "LinkedIn co-founder...", "Alex Jones livestreamed...", and "Georgian prime minister...". No offence but that's how you criticise content, rather than speculating theoretical exmaples. CNC (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting to remove this also, or return the other examples? Bare in mind it's irrelevant how influential Reid Hoffman is, if there is only one source regarding this content (thus unlikely to be due). I'll remove Jones for now, for balance, as specific individual opinions aren't necessary. CNC (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Jones, Hoffman isn't someone who is just running his mouth and dabbling in a conspiracy theory. He actively pushed reporters to consider the attack as staged. Warrants inclusion imo.— hako9 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it's best to stick to weight of RS and summarise as such, but you do you. I'm not here for an edit war so be bold. CNC (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question of edit warring over this. We disagree on a point. That's perfectly fine. I won't restate. — hako9 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's conceivable that a section on social media rumors could be warranted, but repeatedly editing everything about it (including this talk page section header) to push the sensationalized POV buzzword "misinformation" I think is completely unnecessary. jp×g🗯️22:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your idea of "POV buzzword". RS clearly identifies conspiracy theories and misinformation, I don't know where you got the idea of "rumours" from. What RS do you have that describe this predominantly as rumours, rather than conspiracies and misinformation? CNC (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours". CNC (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This needs immediately reverted ASAP, @CNC:. He just turned the section into a textbook WP: BLP violation.
Please stop edit-warring, and please stop lying about what the edits do: you have, multiple times, done reverts to 'remove BLP violations' that do not actually remove the sentence you claim is libelous. jp×g🗯️00:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor recently removed "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" from the section and changed it into a version that suggested that there were valid theories that this event, among other things, was a false flag planned by Donald Trump and a right-wing "deep state" in the Secret Service. This is a textbook violation of WP: BLP and I reverted it under exception #7 of WP:3RRNO: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." This is a blatant violation of policy and is borderline libelous. We should absolutely not amplify any of this or give it credibility. These claims have already been debunked by multiple sources. I don't want to start an edit war here, nor am I asking for anyone to be punished, but this is grossly irresponsible and everyone involved in this definitely knows better: the involved editors making these changes - judging from their long history on Wikipedia and contributions - should absolutely know about WP: BLP before making a change like this. Pinging involved editors @CNC:, @JPxG:, @Hako9:. Also asking for other editors feedback. Thank you. KlayCax (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wildly incorrect claim, and you are completely out of line by falsely accusing me of "giving it credibility". The edit I made mentioned, multiple times, that the claims were unverified and untrue; in fact, I added this, in a place where there had previously been a meaninglessly ambiguous soup of buzzwords. jp×g🗯️23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes absolutely do give it credibility. Changing "misinformation" (which isn't a buzz word) and "conspiracy theories" (which isn't a buzz word) to "rumors" (which implies that the claims might be true) implies that the claims might be true.
Not only that: but then you reverted back (on a WP: BLP issue no less) despite multiple editors telling you to get consensus on talk.
No: you are lying. Here is the text of my revision.
Rumors on social media
Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media. According to The Washington Post: "As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of [left-wing] conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right."
BBC News said that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe. According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views". Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump.
On X, NBC News said that conspiracy theories "gained traction" and "flourished" in the minutes afterwards, with the word "staged" becoming the second-highest trending topic immediately after "Trump". Right-wing conspiracy theories were also posted. "Antifa" also became a top trending topic after posts on X blamed the shooting on a "prominent Antifa activist", falsely identifying him as "Mark Violets" using a photograph of Marco Violi, an Italian soccer vlogger. QAnon-related accounts shared names of high-profile Democrats and Republicans, accusing them of colluding with the CIA.
The text says: "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media."
That directly implies that many of the claims made in the subsection are unverified but have significant plausibility. Multiple editors (including me) interpreted it that way. So it's not a ridiculous claim. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not mad at you, or accusing you of lying, or anything else, and I asked for this to be discussed on talk before any reversions were made. It's definitely true that unverified (but plausible) claims have been made about the event.
But by renaming the section from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "rumors" and without specifying which events have been debunked - while suggesting to many viewers that some of the wild claims listed are plausible or rumors that may have happened - it unambiguously crosses over into WP: BLP territory. Particularly on the extraordinary nature of the claims against a well-known figure. KlayCax (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're invoking 3RRNO over
−
Manypeoplepostedincorrectorunverifiedclaimsabouttheincident on social media.
+
[[Misinformation]] and [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] have spread wildly on social media.
Yes; they have been continually reverting to this version and refusing to explain why. I have just taken out the section entirely, so maybe we can discuss this on the talk page rather than 5RRing on the article (e.g. creating ECs for everyone else trying to edit it) jp×g🗯️00:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".
Your changes imply that the claims are rumors or misinformation. Making the claims made in the conspiracy section sounding like credible "rumors" about Trump. That's a clear WP: BLP violation. KlayCax (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.
"Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
"Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)
The edits you made, as noted above, could easily be read (and I interpreted this way as well/along with CNC) that there are "unverified claims" that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" within the Secret Service (along with the other claims made) are presently unverified but plausible. That's massively problematic to say the least. This is exactly a case where "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." applies. I asked you to respond in a civil manner on talk. I definitely didn't lie. I simply asked for this to be discussed on talk before what looked to multiple editors (including me) as a massive violation of policy.
So, you're claiming 3RRNO for using rumors rather than misinformation and conspiracy theories? Where is there a suggestion that any were true, especially dealing with a false flag? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.) The removal of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" with "unverified claims" and "incorrect claims" (see above)
2.) The claim that this is a WP: NPOV violation. (See here.)
Note that the original edit he made completely removed any mention that it was debunked, and left this paragraph, under a section that was renamed to "rumors on social media": According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views".[178] Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump. I would call the practical effect, even if not in intention, a clear case where WP: BLP comes into play. KlayCax (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bring that to BLPN, which you should anytime you're using BLPRESTORE, I think you'll find there is little support that what you're describing is the clear and unambiguous BLP violation severe enough to excuse edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (3)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Suggested content for "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" for more objective presentation of data concerning the rumors and misinformation across the political spectrum:
In the aftermath of the incident, social media platforms were flooded with unverified claims and conspiracy theories from across the political spectrum.[1] According to media reports, the spread of these theories highlighted a growing distrust in mainstream institutions and a tendency for people to seek information from partisan commentators and influencers.[2]
The rhetoric has ranged from people across the political spectrum concocting 'false flag' conspiracies and even blaming innocent people for either committing this crime or inspiring it, and inciting fear of a civil war.[3][4][5]
Fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets worked to debunk these claims, emphasizing the lack of evidence for any conspiracy theories. Misinformation experts are calling on the public not to share unconfirmed information.[6]
What's "non-objective" about it? We don't need to say "according to media reports" (which is verbose and vague). The other suggested changes are even worse, obscuring what the articles state. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ [misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online. misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online.] {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Currently the Vucci photo of Trump is under discussion regarding its inclusion and deletion, in the meantime, it would be great if we could get some kind of image to go in the infobox, like what we've got for the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan page. How would editors feel about including a low-res crop of one of the many news-feeds that captured the event? It wouldn't have the same commercial overlap concerns as the Vucci photo. Thoughts? Suggestions? Joe (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I see around the commercial issue is either extremely obscure but still quality photos or photos without Trump in them e.g. photos from after Trump left the rally or, better yet, potentially photos in which Trump is so obscured by the Secret Service whether head-on or side view that their is almost zero concern of any possible commercial use.
That's not how the usage of non-free content works. If you sub in another image with the same status as the other one, we're just in the same boat. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We use copyrighted images (albums, novel covers, video game promotional material, etc.) under fair use, because they represent the thing and don't impinge on the commercial viability of the work. There's a debate as to whether our use of the Vucci photo may impinge on its commercial success, because it's becoming iconic, but that isn't true of every frame of every shot taken that day. We're dearly wanting for something to visually represent the event in the infobox. Joe (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring a fair-use picture of the event itself, our best options are a) a bird-eye svg diagram or b) a photograph of the premises. Bremps...01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were thousands of people present, many of them with their phones taking pictures. Search the social media sites. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone willing to freely license their image. Having your image be the Wikipedia illustration is a big bragging point. Rmhermen (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Civil unrest?
The link "political violence in the United States" at the top of the infobox links to a list of instances of "civil unrest" in the US. I'm not sure what happened yesterday is exactly an instance of "civil unrest"; it seems to be an isolated act by an extremist individual. JDiala (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this the second "attempt at violence" at a DJT rally?
The source for this sentence doesn't say that: "This was the second attempt at violence during one of his rallies: the first was in 2016, when a man attempted to disarm a security officer at a rally in Las Vegas."
Is [better source needed] appropriate? Or delete?
I feel this statement is too broad. There's no way to know how many incidents of violence have occurred at Trump rallies, let alone attempts at violence. It depends on how you define violence. Seananony (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it could probably use some workshopping. Presumably, over hundreds of rallies in the last decade, there have been a few instances in which two guys in the back slapped each other around a bit, and other such things nobody cares about, so we might want to say something that excludes that. jp×g🗯️00:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump
The International leaders section only includes a list of countries. It seems like it would be better to create a separate article that covers different world leaders and politicians reaction to the attempted assassination. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either we specify what the actual reaction was, or we don't mention it at all. Simply saying "x number of countries condemned the shooting" without at all specifying what the reaction was (as the section is currently structured) is very suboptimal. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section originally spoke of foreign leaders expressing "solidarity" with Trump. I changed it to wording about condemning the attack. Even at that stage only on of the five sources said "solidarity". The word didn't belong. It's too political. ut right now, the section is useless. What does a giant list of countries tell anyone? The only notable thing would be if a leader said something unexpected, such as things I've seen on social media, like "Shame he missed". I would drop the section entirely. It serves no purpose. 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. The only thing notable about the reaction would either be if the reaction was something unexpected, or if the reaction included more detail than just saying "I condemn this." Gödel2200 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I totally agree with that too. I'd see some better reactions rather than the list of countries. I'd recommend finding some reliable sources that show some politicians' reactions rather than the whole list of countries. PEPSI697 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
I сould dare to ask for adding the mention of the world-wide known photograph taken by Doug Mills with the bullet's path visible millimetres away from the Donald Trump's head. The articles fully dedicated to this photo were posted by Australian, British, American, German and Russian mass-media. (!!)
[13][14][15][16][17]
original 'The New York Times' article; also it was mentioned that the photo is 'a one in a million shot and nearly impossible to catch even if one knew the bullet was coming'.[18]
The image went viral as 'one of the craziest photos ever'
[19]
I think K. M. Skylark was requesting we add information about the picture to the article, not necessarily include the picture itself. A sentence could probably be added somewhere considering the media attention it has received. CFA💬22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently much debate going on about the fair use of copyrighted images of the event. Until such debates are resolved, and in case things are resolved in the 'we can't use images of the event' direction, it would be great if we could get some Wikipedian's artistic representation of the event, a la a courtroom sketch.
I'm afraid I don't have the talent for it myself. If some bold Wikipedian out there felt like making a realistic but artistic sketch of the event, using whatever angle he or she felt represented the thing best, and posted it to the Commons for free use, that would be immensely appreciated. Any Wikipedian out there who feels that he or she has the artistic chops for it, please give it a shot! Such a sketch will probably never be better than a photo, but if we end up unable to use photos, it might just be the next best thing. Joe (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Teyumbaita sulcognathus.jpgA Wikipedian's own artwork of Teyumbaita sulcognathus, an extinct animal, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for free use.
Such a sketch would not need to be notable in itself, just representative of the event. See, for example, this Wikipedian-generated image of Teyumbaita sulcognathus: the image is not notable in itself, but it is representative of the subject. I agree that such a sketch would not be perfectly ideal, but it would certainly be superior to nothing at all if the consensus ends up being that we can use no real images of the event whatsoever, as some users (much to my bizarre amazement) seem to be arguing.
We've had discussions in the past about hand-drawn images used to adorn BLPs, and the problem is that there are WP:OR issues. This is not a good idea. Zaathras (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll be bogged down in 20,000 word discussions on whether Trump looks too ugly or handsome in the depiction. Best to leave Pandora's box sealed. Bremps...01:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) The RM that took place yesterday resulted in the current title. Start an RM if you want this article moved. Additionally, there's already a section about adding flags to the international responses section; please keep discussion on the topic in one place. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If your suggestion is on the grammatical side, let's say "Assassination attempt of Donald Trump", this could be confusing, as the "of" could indicate that either Donald Trump was the target, or that he was the perpetrator. Even if the latter is an unlikely interpretation, I think the current page title is best, per WP:NATDIS.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clothing brand of perpetrator
Does the shirt brand of the perpetrator (in this case, a gun YouTuber) need to be specifically mentioned? Has any reliable source made a connection between the shirt and the act? Much is unclear about affiliations and this seem biased and could needlessly cause backlash against an unrelated third party. Joellaser (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely wait, @Joellaser:. Editors are right now adding any scraps and details that come out. Unless there's a link shown it should be left out. KlayCax (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know. It's certainly an interesting factoid, but it might end up being relevant or it might not. As you say, in the meantime it has the potential to make the YouTube guy look like a giant asshole. I think that this stuff should probably be kept to a minimum until there's some more proper analysis. jp×g🗯️00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be mentioned per WP:RSBREAKING, which the NBC News source is - All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. And Sky News is just regurgitating what NBC reported. This is trivial information that has no encyclopedic value and should be removed.Isaidnoway(talk)00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more sources reporting on it now including Texan news outlets (where the channel is based). I added one to the article in response to your comment. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the encyclopedic value of including this? We have no idea why he is wearing the t-shirt in the first place. Not everything being reported is suitable for inclusion, especially when it is breaking news.Isaidnoway(talk)00:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the encyclopedic value of mentioning a fact that count hint that a shooter was possibly a gun enthusiast would be obvious. He was also in some gun club. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a gun enthusiast, if he even was, has no bearing on the act as a matter of fact. There is nothing liking this YouTube channel as a motive of an assassination. Same as mentioning his shoe brand and somehow linking it to this act. There is no information stating this. He could have just as easily picked this shirt off the ground. Unless you have sources conflating the two. Joellaser (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue a majority of that section lists facts about him that are irrefutable. Naming a YouTube channel, while a fact, implies something that is nothing more than conjecture and could cause irreparable harm to a third party that, more than most likely, has nothing to do with this in any capacity. If there are sources released about a connection, then that’s a different matter. Joellaser (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact brand was already removed, what was retained was a description of what the channel is about. It's intrinsically linked to this by the fact he was wearing it during. People can make their own judgments about it. The brand owner himself already seemed to draw the connection anyway (that is to say he recognized it was from his own merch). VintageVernacular (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He saw his merch being conflated in the news with no factual connection between him and an attempted assassination and his “drawing of a connection” was confusion and disbelief. I just don’t see the value added as not even the secret service have released a motive or mentioned it in any capacity. I’m for at least keeping it nameless, but leaning towards outright removal until any connections are confirmed. Joellaser (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because if no RS are making a direction connection between him wearing a particular brand of t-shirt and how it's related to the shooting, then it is just trivial. From what I've read in sources, they go into more detail about the YouTube channel and it's owner, rather than why this kid was wearing it.Isaidnoway(talk)01:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If RS give it weight, for now, it can be included, for now. Maybe in the future RS will not give it weight, at which point, it should be removed. A connection insofar as what RS explicitly say can be made. No connection should be SYNTH'd in. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Service identifying rooftop as vulnerability before rally
Omitted Context: The article does not mention recent calls for civil war from right-wing sources or their trending on social media, which is a significant aspect of the current political climate. [1][2]Ms.britt (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done C F A 💬 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Why should we replace the original image? They are essentially the same bar some colorisation changes. Lordseriouspig 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: All OSM copyright information seems to be in order, this image is fine to be in the article, and the edit request is being closed. Lordseriouspig 12:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGScpgVCXoAAtpfw.jpg
207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This whole section has been removed and the suggested changes clearly aren't non-controversial. Jamedeus (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[4]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[5]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[6]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
![[12]](https://images.indianexpress.com/2024/07/trump-shooting.jpg?w=1024){kind=link}
The redirect Donald Trump's ear has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Donald Trump's ear until a consensus is reached. Un assiolo (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
