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 Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump 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]
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]
Witness claiming police did nothing when the gunman was spotted
Trump rally: Witness says he saw gunman on roof (bbc.com)
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So definitely a slow reaction from security as a whole, which was poor (to say the least) in the lead-up to the assassination attempt. Once the assassination started they did as good as possible though. You can see the surprise of the Secret Service agent who first spotted assassin a split-second before the ear-shot, and then engaged the assassin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c0AEGIMo8 he probably caused the following shots from the assassin to be less accurate. However for the first shot, the only thing that saved the President's life was that he happened to turn his head. If he had not turned his head, the fact that the security didn't take the most basic security precaution of securing the roof, and also knew about the threat a few minutes before... forget worrying about conspiracy theories, I honestly think today's events could have easily spiraled into a cycle of long-term violence. Ikmxx (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"At least 3, including Donald Trump"
Can anyone find a quote in the article that explicitly confirms the number of injured as being greater than or equal to 3? I can't due to the paywall Trade (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's really necessary. Pretty hard to dispute given that Trump was injured and 2 died. Or maybe I'm just a silly little bean guninvalid (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From various sources, we have: Trump injured; shooter killed; one rally attendee dead; one do. seriously wounded; one do. slightly wounded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Yep, both sources qualify, and I've added it to the body of the article. I won't mess with the map for now since I don't want to mess it up, but another editor who is more skilled than I am with those should. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:12, 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.
Hi I saw this info here [link to X/Twitter redacted. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)] identifying the shooter as (Redacted), maybe add into article if there's more evidence? InfiniteSword (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it makes it seem like we are going to list every country with a reaction to the shooting, which we are not. Also, I don't know if there's such a precedent in other articles. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't when they just mention that they don't believe a thing was good. That's like if I was mentioned in an article on the penny because I gave a high school presentation on them being useless. It doesn't impact what the Treasury thinks about them. It's insubstantial. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 200 countries, give or take. Most leaders will have a take on a shooting. Heaven forbid we include them all. Bremps...03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a mess right now. Give it 24 hours and things will calm down a bit. Then we'll be able to handle sections like that. That being said, Abductive, mind explaining? I believe all these reactions have no business being here, at any rate. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors despise those flag salads, and the whole section is being discussed above, where consensus is developing that it is unencyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning)02:41, 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]
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]
NY Post posits suspect ID (renamed from "Attack")
The news has identified (Redacted) as being the gunman who was neutralized by the counter-strike Secret Service sniper team behind former President Trump and to his left. (Redacted) apparently was atop a building (Building 6) in a complex (American Glass Research International, Inc.) in Butler. Delectable1 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And yes, I recognize that if true, the claim is not about a living person, but I also remember the misidentification of the Sandy Hook shooter; it's better to be slow and right than fast and wrong on these things) Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)04:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NY Post does report(Redacted) ID’d as gunman who shot Trump during Pa. rally
It is entirely possible there is more than one person with this name. Two different people with same first and last name is actually rather common. Two different people with same first, last and middle name, is rarer, but far from impossible. For all we know, maybe the name reported by the NY Post is correct, and the person posting on social media they are still alive just happens to have the misfortune of being named identically. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think their point was there was an image being circulated of the supposed shooter that was actually just taken off of an unrelated person's social media. The name of the shooter has still not been confirmed; it's all speculation by the New York Post. CFA💬05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to trip over our shoelaces doing Reddit nonsense trying to e-detective the identity of some random guy who just did the most notorious crime of the decade. I am pretty sure they're going to figure out who the guy is, seeing as he tried to assassinate the damn former President and current candidate -- in about fifteen seconds we will have actual confirmation of his identity, and in the meantime, we are not going to accuse some random-ass dude who has a 5, 50% or 95% chance of being the right one -- the world's fifth-most-visited website does not need to be publicly making false accusations on its page for the most notorious crime of the decade. jp×g🗯️04:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't link to it, but I will note a number of global media outlets (e.g. Sky News Australia, Israel Hayom) are now reporting the same name, albeit with attribution to NY Post. Still not officially confirmed by the authorities, though. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*::FBI has identified the shooter (the same name mentioned from NYPOST) as per MSNBC, CNN, NYT, FOXNEWS, CNBC and multiple other sources. Should be added to article! Poplicolascribere (talk) 05:45, 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]
Should we have a Conspiracy Theory section?
I've been trying to add a section for conspiracy theories, as many articles regarding similar incidents frequently have specific sections for conspiracy theories, but it's been deleted twice, so as not to fall foul of 3RR, I'm bringing it up here.
The text was as follows: "After the assassination attempt, conspiracy theories quickly accumulated millions of views on social media. On X, conspiracy theories "gained traction just minutes after the incident occurred", the word “staged” becoming the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump”. "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. Alex Jones livestreamed and made posts blaming "the deep state", and highly followed QAnon-related accounts shared names of high-profile Democrats and Republicans, accusing them of colluding with the CIA.[1]"
Here are some further articles demonstrating the volume of conspiracies that have arisen from this incident:
I am really not sure we need to have this stuff in there at all. An extremely dramatic high-profile event happened, in which some guy tried to shoot a current presidential candidate (and former president) -- of course there are doing to be kooks on the Internet saying "da masonz" or "da alienz" or "da jooz" or whatever shit idiot brain fungus they're cooking up this week. Morons tend to say this kind of stuff any time anything happens ever. I don't really think it is that noteworthy unless there ends up being some unusually high amount of brain fungus here. Compared to, say, the normal amount of brain fungus that happens around American presidential elections (and around American presidential assassination attempts) it seems like this is pretty normal and expected. jp×g🗯️04:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen lots of people speculating and spreading theories on it; beyond the typical conspiracy-brained nutjob types. It seems totally fair to address these conspiracy theories on the page. MattiasLikesOxygen (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add it. It's mentioned in RS and probably necessary for due weight. Don't add too much because it's very early and they will obviously develop. CFA💬04:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Bill. Unless it's REALLY big now and the media is reporting on it (3+ dedicated articles, perhaps), we might just make things worse. Ornov Ganguly04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fourthed. People are spreading all sorts of disinfo/misinfo on social media, it's likely that 99% of it is not going to be encyclopedically relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently mentioned in the last phrase of "Reactions" and seems to be OK this way. Saying that, all experts agree it was a huge blunder by the Secret Service, which of course will fuel various "theories"; some well known bloggers are debating them. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact there are conspiracy theories for nearly every major event is not a reason to exclude them. Just follow RS coverage; currently there are five reliable sources documenting such theories, making it very much due by now. CNC (talk) 16:36, 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]
Location of the incident
I'm creating this section in response to the repeated changing of the location of this incident. The shooting happened at the Butler Farm Show fairground which is located in Butler County outside of Butler. However, the state of Pennsylvania, as pointed out to me earlier by @Dough4872 and @JWilz12345, is divided into townships. This fairground is located in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County just west of Meridian.
Therefore it seems inappropriate to refer to this as happening within the city of Butler, despite many sources saying it happened in Butler, which is simply because the fairground is located within the Butler metro. So, should we refer to it as have happened west of Meridian, in Connoquenessing Township, or perhaps even just in Butler County? I prefer something along the lines of "Connoquenessing Township west of Meridian" personally although that is a mouthful. Raskuly (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be mentioned but Butler because the media almost entirely only mentions Butler. I made it say "near Butler" in the opening sentence for clarity but that is the most that should be done because otherwise it is OR. Bill Williams05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out to me that the exact location on the fairground is actually within Meridian. My apologies for the mistake. Raskuly (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the fairground straddles the township line. The issue though is which part would it be in? Unless there's something solid, it may be best to defer to what the local newspapers say WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct location is "near Butler". Townships in Pennsylvania are mainly for administrative purposes and unless you're conducting a census or working for the post office, no one cares that much about them. Nosferattus (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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 ...
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't have the time to read the copious comments above, but I watched the replay of video of the assassination attempt just a few minutes after it happened. I quickly became skeptical. Trump's wound didn't look like anything that could have been caused by a "through and through" high velocity round. In the hysteria of reporting, I can understand why it was reported that he was "shot." However, as the "fog of war" cleared, there was considerable commentary in reliable sources that he was injured by a fragment of glass or hard plastic from the shattered teleprompter. Trump's personal account should be tempered by his need and desire for drama rather than reality. It would have more dramatic (as we can see above) impact that he was hit by a high velocity bullet rather than wounded by teleprompter fragments. He also has a propensity to lie about damn near everything. The Washington Post, for example, counted his lies or misstatements of fact during his four years in office and the total, if I remember correctly, was 30,573. We ought to let the dust settle until a more careful analysis comes to be established. Finally, if he was grazed by a bullet, chances are it would have wounded or killed the person immediately behind him, which I don't believe was the case. Activist (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist you can literally see pictures where the teleprompter glass is fully intact. As often happens with such conspiracy theorists, you've not sought even a shred of evidence despite it being abundant in this case. Bjngobkngo (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (5)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the lead, please change, "A rally attendee was killed, while two other attendees were critically injured" to, "A rally attendee was killed, while two other attendees were critically injured in the shooting." Ganeemath (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The $15 donation remark should be deleted as it's speculation. The city listed on the donation does not match Thomas' (Bethel Park), the full name is not mentioned, and there is a Thomas Crooks in a northern suburb of Pittsburgh (the city listed); he works for a construction company and volunteers at a local YMCA. Who is much older and still alive.
Special:Contributions/2603:6011:A600:84B1:B196:E0F:2E48:A108|2603:6011:A600:84B1:B196:E0F:2E48:A108]] (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: As noted above, it is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's job is to report what reliable, independent sources are reporting. If they make a mistake, we make a mistake. If any reliable sources come out disputing this claim, that can be included in the article. CFA💬15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (7)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Ethiopian PM Abiy Ahmed Ali has released a statement about the assassination attempt, so please add him and this as well. IGotAPHD (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: Can't find any reliable sources reporting this. If the only source is Twitter right now, it should probably wait. CFA💬15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SOCIALMEDIA , since this seems to be his official twitter account, it would be accurate to state that he said it, since it was not a claim about something made without a reliable source, in which case it would, of course, be completely unacceptable, but a simple statement made by himself. 88.18.180.40 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but all the other reactions are cited by independent sources. Most people seem to agree that we do not need to mention every world leader who reacts to this event (see the other sections on this talk page), so reactions without coverage in independent, reliable sources will not be included for now. CFA💬17:25, 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]
Not a mass shooting
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]
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.
The "International" section featuring political leaders that condemned the shooting. I would just like to add addition political figures that weren't mentioned and make the entire thing more organized as it is a little confusing to read as of right now.
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]
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]
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 '".
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]
Outdated OpenStreetMap data on diagram
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]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change X: "On social media, there were widespread claims by left-wing accounts stating that the event was a false flag, that Trump wasn't shot, and that those who died were crisis actors.[168]" to Y: [empty]
Simply put this source is "The Daily Dot" an unreputable source which uses anonymous twitter accounts, and deleted tweets to tie a loose correlation that there are 'left-wing accounts stating it was a false-flag'
It appears that the perpetrator didn't make this 15 dollar donation back in the day, but it was another Crooks https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897 I don't have enough activity to do any editing on the article, but I would suggest that people who can edit the article and are curious about this will look into it. --Carius (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Done C F A 💬 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Bremps... 04:12, 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)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lordseriouspig 11:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: As noted above, it is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's job is to report what reliable, independent sources are reporting. If they make a mistake, we make a mistake. If any reliable sources come out disputing this claim, that can be included in the article. C F A 💬 15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: I've removed the Daily Dot source and replaced it with the existing BBC source which says the same thing EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 14 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}
