Jump to content

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Not0nshoree (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 14 July 2024 (→The Evan Nucci photo deserves its own article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 13 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved from 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. A brief note for those curious re this process: Wikipedia's editorial processes (and indeed the software we use to edit it) are not really designed around extremely rapid breaking-news items, so even though mostly everyone (128 to 17) supported moving it, it still took a few hours, and in the process of executing the move I had to mess around with a bunch of crap. It takes a while for us to get around to stuff, you are just going to have to deal with it, unless they decide to make the software work better at auto-resolving edit/move conflicts. jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally → 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump – High usage of the term attempted assassination. Prior to administrator protection, this was the article title and an administrator, without discussion, moved it to the current name. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go with any "wait" ideas, given an administrator moved it away from that title with 0 discussion. It was the title prior to administrator protection, and a single person determined the current name. Nah, a discussion needs to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good solution. If the overall consensus from the discussion is that waiting is the best course of action then that is what should happen. ~OneRandomBrit | User Page | Talk 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump rally shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt, officials say https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
Authorities Investigating Rally Shooting as Assassination Attempt, Official Says
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-rally-incident/card/authorities-investigating-rally-shooting-as-assassination-attempt-official-says-O5l7DXuMcPRfvfdECEn0
The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump is clearly being investigated as an assassination attempt by federal officials per AP and WSJ. Atinus21 (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FBI called it an "assassination attempt" at the press conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-eqTvuxlw Atinus21 (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SimplyLouis27: WP:VNT. Do you have proof/sources that it was not confirmed or is not the common term? I listed 8 sources above using it. Sorry, but SNOWCLOSE isn't a valid thing for this, with a "not confirmed" reasoning because Wikipedia doesn't care about what is or isn't confirmed. Only what is verifiable, which "attempted assassination" is as presented above. If you wish to oppose, you can, but please provide a valid oppose reasoning via Wikipedia's policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of those sources are low quality tabloids. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous.
it was obviously an assassination attempt
his ear was shot and the man who was shot was in the vicinity of the firing line
it was clearly an assassination attempt on Trump. Joshsintrests (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, let's wait until there is a general consensus in reliable sources. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait, we still do not know the motive of the perpetrator(s), It's possible it was not the goal to harm Trump but simply shoot at the rally. There is more information we should wait for. I believe we can move when it is confirmed an assassination was the goal. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Pennsylvania, and WikiProject United States History have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would in that case be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump based on the Ronald Reagan article (and many, many other articles). LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's what I meant to say. Year won't be relevant to the article's title unless something changes in the near future. 49p (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's NORUSH. You are still making assumptions. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the infobox on this article lists "assassination attempt" under "Attack Type" LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note AP is now reporting that the Secret Service is investigating this as an attempted assassination (source). Unless there's a good reason not to, I'm going to unilaterally implement this move in about 10 minutes (since that seems to have rough consensus and be supported by RSes). Please let me know below if there is a good reason not to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Unilaterally is the wrong word to have used, but consensus is becoming pretty clear here in this RM. I don't see the point in Wikipedia's article title being vague and imprecise. If (and there's about a 0.1% chance at this point) this turns out to have been something *other* than an attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the article can always be moved back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to get this dragged into a process discussion, so I won't be making any move myself. However, I do support the proposed move. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's clear that this was an assassination attempt, quite frankly it's embarrassing that this is even a discussion. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do anything unilaterally is my advice. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support that move IDKUggaBanga (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... I see no reason not to implement it if it's exactly what it is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, the current title was unilaterally moved away from "2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump". Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and? The move from it was a rushed move to a worse title. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Investigating as an assassination attempt" is a far cry from "deciding it was an assassination attempt." Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
web link here [11] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Investigating =/= confirming. Let's slow it down here. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's a good reason, it's called WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't Ganesha811. Out of process moves often end up at ANI. Fences&Windows 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good reason not to - you don't have consensus. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? A former president is wounded in a shooting and we shouldn't have an article yet? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a shitty, shitty source for breaking news. 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopaedia not breaking news. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, too late for that. Article exists and no way can we go through AfD for this. BlunanNation (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem with renaming the article based largely on original research/editors opinions on the event. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree that we're often way too fast on creating articles on events, this is one case where the article is warranted. Assassination attempts don't happen everyday, especially not in the case of candidates for the President of the most powerful nation in the world. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I wouldn't say delete it but I see where they're coming from. It's a current event article about something so current we don't really know what's happen(ed/ing). If the very basis of the event's notability cannot be definitely said (i.e. is the event "someone tried to shoot Trump" or "someone tried to wreak havoc at Trump rally" or unlikely but possibly "Trump fan discharged gun in crowd at rally, oops") then it'd be hard to get it through AfC, for example. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article should not exist, you are free to nominate it for deletion. But I would advise against that at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The article won't be deleted" and "the article should not exist" are different statements. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. The whole point of deletion is to decide whether or not the article should exist. "The article won't be deleted" and "I don't think the article should exist" are different statements, rather. C F A 💬 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any deletion nominations as a note I will vote as speedy keep BlunanNation (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're admitting you're voting based on your opinions rather than policy as WP:SKCRIT wouldn't apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SKCRIT does apply, section 2, in this case. BlunanNation (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Calling legitimate attempts to improve Wikipedia is uncivil, just to let you know. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would never pass because no admin wants to deal with the flak from the 'Wikipedia should be breaking news' crowd. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It is way too early to be discussing this, the current title of the article is fine. Until an official statement about what just happened comes out from a major official source confirming what possible motive was involved here. (Major official source being something like: President's office, District Attoerey, US Secret Service, FBI, CIA) BlunanNation (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait Obviously an assassination attempt, but I think we should wait for some more clarification before we can make a decision to change the title. Indiana6724 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it is being investigated as an assassination attempt. NAADAAN (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: You're delusional if you think this was anything other than an assassination attempt. Scu ba (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The attempted assassination of President Reagan is described as such, even though it did not result in his death but did result in the death of another; this is no different. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any logical mind assumes that firing bullets at someone is an attempt at their life, as a political figure it is entirely fair to assume a shooting at them at a political event is an assassination attempt.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was clearly an attempt to take his life and this will likely lead to him being a martyr which could have election impacts. AlienChex (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait.' - We don't know what the shooter's motives were yet. It seems likely that it was an assassination attempt but it has not yet been confirmed. Shooting is neutral until authorities determine it was an assassination attempt. We should, however, add that this is being investigated as a potential assassination attempt in the lede. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Perpetrator is dead so we might never know the motive. We know who was shot though, and people usually shoot to kill. MonstoBusta2000 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It was clearly an attempt to wound and or seriously injure him. This is going to have major implications for the 2024 election. It is being investigated as an assassination attempt and the White House is making a statement related to the event. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming brings more clarity, not less. The attempt was clearly to kill Trump, regardless of the specific motive. Bill Williams 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now as WP:V is not met, in spite of what all of these support comments think. There is a great likelihood this was an assassination attempt, but for all we know some yahoo started firing a gun into the air and some shrapnel nicked Trump. We need to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation and mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick note: Muboshgu was the administrator who unilaterally moved this article to 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally, following a page protection for move warring. Just wanting that noted as this user (as well as myself) are involved in this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The existing title is factual and accurate. Whether it was an assassination attempt is speculation, which Wikipedia should not do. The cited news reports couch things in terms like suspected, alleged, or possible. Unless and until what happened is investigated and confirmed by a formal investigation by competent authorities, and even then, the existing title is fine. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you seriously arguing someone went onto a roof overlooking a trump rally with a rifle and it was some sort of accidental misfire and that he wasn't trying to assassinate him? Scu ba (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also change the title of the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” article to “1963 shooting at Dealey Plaza”? Catauro (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Warren Commission took 10 months to investigate Kennedy's assassination, before concluding it was one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that Wikipedia contains information from reliable secondary sources, and they do not say definitively either way. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present we don't know, for certain, what was going on, who the person on the roof was or what their motives for being there was. Second guessing in advance of a formal investigation is WP:SPECULATION. Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah right it could've been anything! people clamber onto roofs with a rifle overlooking a presidential candidates rally all the time! Maybe he was just there for a skeet event and got lost! Scu ba (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Scu ba on this one. The Oxford definition of assassination attempt is "an attempt to murder someone famous or important." Whether it was politically motivated or not doesn't really matter. C F A 💬 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia's standard for saying it is murder is that there is a conviction for murder, or some other similar court ruling. That is going to take some time to happen as the shooter is deceased. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear attempt at his life Munknjet1234 (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as soon as we have reliable sources that cite that the shooter's motives was assassination or most likely assassination. 00101984hjw (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. FoxNews and CNN have reported for a few hours that the Secret Service is investigating this as an assassination attempt. If Trump’s head was turned 45 degrees it’d be an assassination not an attempt. Face facts and change it immediately. Zindulee (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than the current title and has enough reasonable citations Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and CBS, among others, now reporting that Trump shooting is now officially being investigated as an assassination attempt, so the title change can now go ahead? Editorforwiki15 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others have said, this was clearly an attempt at Trump's life, treating it as anything different is disingenuous. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this will help people searching for the event discover the Wikipedia version of it, as they, as well as news sources, will likely assume it to be an assassination attempt and group it as such. Rcarver3 (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the shooting is now being investigated as an assassination attempt. Wait if that's still preemptive, though I imaging that'll be the result eventually. jan Janko (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposition to immediate renaming; with no prejudice towards subsequent revisit of proposal Hold off. We should not use a title that assigns a motive until there is verified information that sufficiently evidences said motive. Even if that motive is the one that is easy to assume: we are in the business of facts not assumptions. The current title is the most verifiably accurate option at the moment. SecretName101 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and dittoing others. Not only do we have multiple articles at this point but leaving the title as "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" implies political bias. Burned Toast (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. See Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan among others. Garnet Moss (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course.  53  (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Wait the result QalasQalas (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. Bremps... 03:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit/Comment We're clearly at the point now where it is being called an assassination attempt by major international news agencies.[20][21]IceBergYYC (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for additional reporting about the investigation by credible sources, and update as such information is verified as credible. Ajk1962f (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what we are waiting for anymore. Support the renaming as we have a WP:RS (right here) describing the shooting as an attempt on Trump's life (and also common sense). Bremps... 03:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Astropulse (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Referring to it as just a "shooting at a Trump rally" both implies that Trump wasn't the target and that it isn't as notable as it clearly is. Vader13289 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support per above Babysharkboss2 was here!! Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would Trump not be the target. You shoot at Trump but he isn’t the target? Change the title to attempted assassination stop trying to be partisan JackW2023 (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support again FBI's confirmed it. Let's make it formal. Pickle Mon (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The FBI, the lead law enforcement agency in the investigation, have now called it an assassination attempt. Percy Gryce (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are voting "wait" (which I heavily disagree with, but that's neither here nor there) please specify what standard of evidence you are waiting for. Otherwise, just vote oppose. Bremps... 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support partially. Attempted assassination of Donald Trump seems like a better title without the year, unless I guess it were to happen again, but that would be tackled in that hypothetical future. Raskuly (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-disturbance-pennsylvania-rally/story?id=111913361
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
  3. ^ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/07/13/assassination-attempt-florida-reacts-incident-donald-trump-rally/
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONSISTENT, the appropriate title for this article is Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The other page 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident can be handled by a hatnote. At the very least, the title should be 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and not the currently suggested title. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to this suggestion. Supporting C&C's proposal. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attempted assassination of Donald Trump: Disambiguator is not needed. Obviously the primary topic. C F A 💬 02:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support C&C proposal, including year in title is inconsistent and unnecessary. Garnet Moss (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The AP has reported that it as assaination attempt.[1] The current title makes it seems as if Trump was not the target. The change in title should also not include the year as it makes it seems that there has been more than one attempt and is not consistent with other US president assaination attempts. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
  • Strong Support Common sense to me would seem to dictate that if you set up a rifle from a sniping position and shoot at the former President of the United States, you are attempting to kill said former President. This would fit the definition of attempted assassination in every English dictionary known to man. Are we really supposed to believe it plausible that, when a rifle bullet hits the former President, this was a random shooting that just so happened to occur at a former President's rally, or that the gunman was aiming for some random bystanders? I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says we debase our innate common sense. CounselForMuffinMan (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proposed title accurate. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:28, 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.

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]

If the sources specifically connect the phrase to the incident, then it should be included. If they don't, then including it violates our policies on original research and neutral point of view. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[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.
Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
No all journalists are reliable. Just look at the comments here about Fox. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:58, 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]
OK, but half of my complaint is this is (was, it's gone now) in the lede of the article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance size

A better source that the Republican County Chairman is needed for the figure on the number of attendees. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - added better source needed template. LucasR muteacc (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan's governor is not a federal official

@Wikieism:, did you mean to move Gretchen Whitmer's statement from "state officials" to "federal officials" in this edit? If so, would you be willing to explain why? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please join this discussion. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any major change beside add a hyperlink to the 2011 shooting, however I'll take note on that Wikieism (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Assassination"

Please, I beg of you all, do not add that this was an "assassination attempt", including in categories, until we know for sure that it was one. Mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:RSBREAKING... Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean given the hyperreality of the situation, I'm pretty sure the circumstances call to suggest this might be an assassination attempt. Woobab (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you're right! it could've been anything! someone clambered onto a rooftop overlooking a trump rally with a rifle and shot him in the ear because he didnt wan't to assassinate him! It could've been anything! Scu ba (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to break journalistic standards by prematurely declaring something an assassination attempt before the investigating parties say it for certain, you can do it at a tabloid. Which us here who know about sourcing on Wikipedia wouldn't use as an RS while waiting for actual confirmation. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journalistic? I thought we were not news? Regardless, I don't see what in the world this could be other than an assassination attempt, doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Kline • talk • contribs 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I mean. Which also answers your second sentence: Wikipedia is not here to figure it out, and anyone who claims they have before the people doing the investigating announce it, isn't an acceptable source. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry but this is ridiculous, did Dallas in 63 think it was “just a shooting”?
they knew it was an assassination attempt, they watched Kennedy get shot. Instead for them it was successful. Joshsintrests (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and then a formal investigation came to the same conclusion. We'd be having this same discussion if we had the same WP:V policy and were discussing it in real-time back then. Kingsif (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They conducted an investigation to find the motive and the exact course of events
not to figure out whether it was an assassination attempt or not Joshsintrests (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would it be if not an assassination attempt? USA1855 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His ear just did that, it was crazy. Ryonne (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah!
the gunman just happened to fire at a major and controversial politician and almost kill him
what else could it even be? Joshsintrests (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Best deny the label of “assassination” and call it “shooting” instead! Why do we even have this article? Shootings happen every day! Icrin7 (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI, As reported by CNN and NBC has called it an assassination attempt.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/secret-service-rushes-trump-stage-shots-fired-pennsylvania-rally-rcna161735 Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This WAS an assassination attempt. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was clearly an assassination attempt and anything else is utterly absurd. Wikipedia's integrity is coming into question. justdweezil (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Joshsintrests (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. All sources call this an attempted assassination. It appears that some Wikipedians simply do not want to acknowledge that the attempt occurred and want to deny it. Icrin7 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hit the nail on the head Joshsintrests (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Even if most reliable secondary sources do not call it an assassination attempt, I would still argue that a case could be made for including either "assassination", or something similar, to the title (especially taking WP:COMMONSENSE in to account).

The current title of the article does not provide as much context as it can provide, given that "shooting" is incredibly vague and so could easily be taken to mean that the target was the crowd, or that the shooting may have been done only by the Secret Service, it does not clarify these things.

A great portion of this talk page reeks of political bias. I know everyone (including me lol) is biased in some form, but it is still frustrating, as too much of it seems to be coming from one side. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 04:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA

The Butler Farm Show Airport and Butler Farm Show fairground are both located just outside of Meridian, Pennsylvania in unincorporated Butler County, Pennsylvania. This article is currently too chaotic for me to try and clarify the incident did not actually happen in Butler, Pennsylvania but I wanted to make note of it. Raskuly (talk) 00:25, 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. Dough4872 00:32, 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, Pennsylvania
Raskuly (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 incorporated Marion 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]
Oh crap, you're right. Raskuly (talk) 05:26, 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.
On the question of why the postal addresses of the Kingwood community did not change after Houston annexed it (they still use "Kingwood, Texas" to this day), the city responded: "The U.S. Postal Service establishes ZIP codes and mailing addresses in order to maximize the efficiency of their system, not to recognize jurisdictional boundaries."
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.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Williams 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the address says Butler, I strongly agree the article should associate it with Butler, saying it is near there. As a note, Meridian, Pennsylvania is a census-designated place within Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, so this is taking place between two townships. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 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 Williams 05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Live or Archived Sources

I noticed the archiving of some live sources. Should we not be simply linking live sources instead for higher accuracy and to prevent future confusion if the old sources report outdated information? Some people may update the content of this Wiki article and not change the outdated sources. Bill Williams 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I also think we should prefer regular articles if possible. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox image is biased and inappropriate

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp is already being cited in the context of political grandstanding.

I have doubts that it even passes WP:NFCC. Can we locate something better? Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It likely does not pass it. Removing for now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how recent it is, no way it passes NFCC right now. Speedy tag it for basically any of the criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine, see Battle of Iwo Jima or September 11 attacks (A firefighter requests assistance at World Trade Center site) both are common pcitures for propoganda. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I still think its a good picture if we can find a free verson. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Difference is those images have historical significance, which, yeah, something that just happened really doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting of a former president and nominee for a second term to that office is not notable? NorthropChicken (talk) 00:51, 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]
Definitely doesn't pass NFCC, I've opened a discussion for the file on WP:FFD. Di (they-them) (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 Williams 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using what is now a campaign photo in a Wikipedia infobox. That would be as daft as adorning every Barack Obama campaign page we have with the Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 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]
There are bound to be other images from the event that aren't copyrighted, so yes there is a choice here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:19, 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]
It is not on the main page? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:45, 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]
PSA, the discussion is here. Bremps... 04:02, 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)

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c51yly4085lo

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]

We are in "fog of war" mode, so the pattern is that the first 24 hours of reporting are generally chaotic. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language

The page feels like it’s written as a dramatic retelling of the “harrowing events of Donald Trump” being filled with flowery language which comes of as heavily biased towards Trump. The articles image description speaks perfectly to this with the unecessary usage of “Bloodied” coming off as a vanity piece more than an informative article, I think this should be reworded and should have higher levels of protection in place as many edit wars will likely be waged on such a hot topic here. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • InternetEnigma: For edit requests, you have to suggest alternate language for specific examples, not cite a general problem. For instance, not only is his face generally described as "bloodied," I also personally believe that such a description is accurate and representative. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term bloodied was only a problem in the specific highlighted issue of the image caption as it sounds more like a headline to a newspaper than an informative encyclopedia article, the article itself was riddled with such problems when I made this which is why I made a discussion about it it felt way too much like a tabloid than Wikipedia. InternetEnigma (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple above discussions on inclusion of the image. What do you think would be a good alternative to the image description? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a higher level of protection other than full protection, which restricts editing to only administrators. C F A 💬 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify the currently available information about the alleged shooter

It is clear that the shooter was male, of slim build, with light to fair skin complexion. There are already hundreds of sources confirming this.

For instance: [22]

Vitreology (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and who shot the attendees? The assassin or the secret service snipers?MisawaSakura (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm not aware of any current source offering this information, but I'm sure it will be available soon Vitreology (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is not a reliable source. C F A 💬 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there are hundreds of reputable sources already. I'm planting the seed for further investigation, not the final solution Vitreology (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, link a reliable source then. No one is going to update it if you link to a Twitter video. C F A 💬 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, which is why I'm searching for other sources in between replying. Are you doing the same? Vitreology (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shooter was male. He was not a rally attendee. "He was outside the grounds" of the rally [23] Vitreology (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The gunman opened fire from AGR International, a plastic container manufacturing facility." [24] Vitreology (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it claimed that the Butler Police Department has confirmed that the shooter is (Redacted) who has links to the Antifa extremist group, and that he uploaded a YouTube video saying justice was coming shortly before the attack. I've yet to see any MSM sources with this however, and have also seen it claimed this is a dangerous right-wing conspiracy theory which will be exploited to impose intensified crackdowns on Leftist movements. If the claim is false it may still be relevant as a false claim depending on how widespread it is.
Note that the shooter was outside the security perimeter using an unsecured rooftop. Security experts appear unclear on why such an obvious danger wasn't secured. On the other hand DHS apparently denied Trump's Security Service detail's urgent request for more protection and resources so perhaps they simply didn't have the manpower? 人族 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the sources where you've seen such claims about (redacted)? Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not widespread and definitely not confirmed. It was a rumour on Twitter. There are a few sources talking about the false claim, the most in-depth being this one. It was also mentioned in this NBC article. C F A 💬 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitreology Hi, so far everything I've seen supporting this claim has been from less-than-reliable sources (WP:NYPOST, WP:DAILYMAIL). Please let me know if there's any other sources you can find with this information. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only one person, I can't be expected to do this alone Vitreology (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't doing this alone! We're all scouring the Internet at this point for information, but if you find some faster than people can add it, you can let us know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

Remove the paragraph at the bottom of background, the one about the vote share in the 2020 election. Paragraph is irrelevant. guninvalid (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one: "In 2020, Trump won 65 percent of the vote in Butler, Pennsylvania—the site of the rally—compared to Biden's 33%.[13]" guninvalid (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Guninvalid, can you explain why it's irrelevant? I personally think it is relevant, with the opportunity to build on background on the rally itself. Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's not relevant to the shooting. At the end of the day, it would'nt've mattered whether this happened in a county that voted Trump or Biden or Santa Claus. It may speak to why Trump had the rally there in the first place, thus being relevant to the rally, but the shooting has almost nothing to do with it. guninvalid (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly considering that we might want to add more information about the rally in the future, when things have stabilized a bit. Better to include the information now so people don't have to go searching for it later. But, if another editor wants to remove it, I won't object. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove it myself but I don't have edit perms. Maybe that's a good thing guninvalid (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it, but preserving the comment here for posterity:
In 2020, Trump won 65% of the vote in Butler County, Pennsylvania—where the rally was held—compared to Biden's 33%. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/07/13/trump-rally-butler-pennsylvania-shooting/74396188007/
Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logical error in lead

"The shooting is being investigated as an attempted assassination. It is the first time that a U.S. president or presidential candidate was injured in an attempted assassination since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981."

The first sentence suggests that it is not definitive whether it was an attempted assassination ("investigated"). The second sentence implies that it was an attempted assassination as a matter of fact. JDiala (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

suggest change to something along the lines of "It is the first time that a U.S. president or presidential candidate was injured in a shooting since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981." Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this change better. I actually think the live update that AP provided stating, "This appears to be the first assassination attempt since Reagan was shot in 1981", is incorrect; an assassination attempt against Obama occurred in 2011, albeit without injuries to the president. [25] Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was very sloppy wording by AP. List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots has a an attempt against George H.W. Bush, 5 against Bill Clinton, 2 against George W. Bush, 8 against Barack Obama, 3 prior against Donald Trump, and 1 against Joe Biden. Also, this exists: Template:Assassination attempts on presidents of the United States OCNative (talk) 02:25, 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]
That only gives 1 injured and two deaths Trade (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade, which article? If you have Chrome, here's a page archiver extension you can use to view most online news articles. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category “Mass shootings involving AR-15–style rifles” should be added.

“Category:Mass shootings involving AR-15–style rifles” is applicable, per secret service. Macxcxz (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done C F A 💬 02:01, 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. C F A 💬 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass shooting (see definitions). I realize WP is not useful for defining this either, but the sources cited are. Also, what WP:RS has reported this as a mass shooting? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Kcmastrpc (talk) Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont we have a Rfc about the definition of mass shootings somewhere? Trade (talk) 02:29, 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):
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting?utm_source=perplexity Ambndms (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be re-added I think. The categories seem to have been wiped a few times. Macxcxz (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add pinpoint to map for location of shooter

The shooter was located a couple hundred feet to the north at the nearest building outside of the venue. https://i.imgur.com/41KT0Wx.png Michiganguy123 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you have a reliable source? @Michiganguy123 Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/13/us/trump-rally-shooting-maps-photos.html
Will this work Michiganguy123 (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/secret-service-rushes-trump-stage-shots-fired-pennsylvania-rally-rcna161735 Michiganguy123 (talk) 02:11, 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]

reports he was struck by glass, not bullet

https://x.com/juliegraceb/status/1812269074367320509

https://x.com/alexsalvinews/status/1812271945401929755

slow down soibangla (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, this keeps getting asked, and it also keeps getting removed. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 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
it has not been confirmed he was struck by a bullet soibangla (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources say that he was, while no reliable ones are saying glass struck him. Bill Williams 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to keep in mind is that Trump himself stated that "the bullet rip[ped] through [his] skin". Slamforeman (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
yes, but only because I changed it soibangla (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine for now then. Thanks and I guess we'll update as more info comes out. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. FallingGravity 05:31, 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.
Sources describing shot to ear:
USA Today, BBC KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Citation 6 sufficient to source "Trump was shot"?

currently article text reads: "Trump was shot in the upper right ear and was quickly surrounded by the Secret Service, before raising a fist in the air and being rushed to a vehicle." citing https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sounds-multiple-shots-heard-trump-rally-pennsylvania-video-2024-07-13/

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

Secret Service statement https://x.com/SecretSvcSpox/status/1812288378596982908/photo/1 also does not include language that affirm the claim Donald Guy (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If sources do not endorse it as fact, we shouldn't either. "Trump says he was shot" would be preferred. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reliable source now. This should not be removed: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sounds-multiple-shots-heard-trump-rally-pennsylvania-video-2024-07-13/ --TocMan (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that his the same source that was removed
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]
Reuters is a reliable source. Until we have other sourcing, which may come out, this should hold. TocMan (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSHEADLINES is relevant. Reuters says Trump said it. Kingsif (talk) 03:11, 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]
The body of an article is categorically not a subheadline --TocMan (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But an opening summary statement that precedes the article starting can be. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 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 the CBS News story currently on the matter https://www.cbsnews.com/news/possible-shots-fired-at-trump-rally-in-butler-pennsylvania/ does not see fit to go any stronger than reporting that Trump says it Donald Guy (talk) 03:51, 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:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/
(*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." C F A 💬 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]

(Redacted) shooter?

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]

I'd wait until reliable news sources repeat the claim. You can't trust every Twitter rando you hear. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The poster refuses to post the supposed announcement. Plus FNAF 2 Bonnie is in the bg. This is a likely troll Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this should not have been posted here without anything in RS. C F A 💬 02:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should redact this name, per WP:BLP. OCNative (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I redacted the link to X/Twitter also, just to be safe. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was Thomas Matthew Crooks of Bethel Park, a Pittsburgh suburb. Delectable1 (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why were the flags removed from politicians?

there was flags removed besides the international responses, why? NotQualified (talk) 02:35, 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]
seems silly that this isnt precedent? where do we argue for new precedents? NotQualified (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are entire countries suddenly not notable anymore? Trade (talk) 02:41, 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]
There's already discussion on whether to even keep the international responses in Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm. Flags are totally unnecessary and irrelevant. guninvalid (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Flags are totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
it's an international response section...? NotQualified (talk) 02:39, 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 Williams 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous news outlets talking about him insisting on getting his shoes: https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/assassination-attempt-donald-trump-unfolded/story?id=111915028, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/donald-trump-pennsylvania-rally-apparent-shooting-1235948085/ Worstbull (talk) 03:04, 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 Williams 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's being mentioned four times in the article, this is clearly biased. Worstbull (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found 70 articles from the past hour alone, and multiple of them highlight Trumps call for his shoes. Examples with let me get my shoes being the headline: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-trumps-comments-just-after-shooting/, https://www.the-sun.com/news/11915975/donald-trump-rally-shooting-shoes-sniper/, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-s-last-words-before-and-after-shots-let-me-get-my-shoes/ar-BB1pW3Zo, https://radaronline.com/p/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-donald-trump-comments-assassination-attempt/
There are even T-Shirts being sold already, with the slogan "LET ME GET MY SHOES". Worstbull (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three of these are sources that we are not allowed to use as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:47, 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]
Many news sources are focusing on that fist pumping, so it must be mentioned. Perhaps remove it from the lede, however. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many news sources talk about Trump insisting: Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes also. Worstbull (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That should be mentioned in the "Shooting" section as well. It is not as prominent as the fist pumping, however. Here is one of the few direct sources mentioning it that I found: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13632127/donald-trump-shot-rally-words.html. Daily Mail isn't the best... Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:08, 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]
Point taken. When the article is more stable in 24 hours I will make an attempt to add it if it already hasn't been inserted. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:13, 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 Williams 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search for any? I've found 70 articles from the past hour alone, and multiple of them highlight Trumps call for his shoes. Examples with let me get my shoes being the headline: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-trumps-comments-just-after-shooting/, https://www.the-sun.com/news/11915975/donald-trump-rally-shooting-shoes-sniper/, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-s-last-words-before-and-after-shots-let-me-get-my-shoes/ar-BB1pW3Zo, https://radaronline.com/p/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-donald-trump-comments-assassination-attempt/
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]
There's even a T-Shirt already on sale, featuring the slogan "LET ME GET MY SHOES". Worstbull (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now veering off-topic a bit, but don't take that as a sign of much. You can slap stuff on shirts really easily and it's a staple of right-wing politics. Especially for Trump. There's an article on it here: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9798887440286. "Click to Edit" by Alex Lukas. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump felt bullet go through ear

We usually shouldn't take politicians at their word for much, but I think we can make an exception for someone who experienced this firsthand: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-rally-incident Bremps... 02:55, 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." C F A 💬 03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise it is _stated_ in the lede. it is not supported. support would involve additional information Donald Guy (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that they are going to have an underlying ballistic report on Trump's ear being released anytime soon. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:53, 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):
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/
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]

Map removal

@Mikeblas: removed the map in this diff, and I agree - how is the map not original research? Daniel (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two locations in the map are backed up by this source; I don't know where the Secret Service locations are from. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:05, 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]

Reference format

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]
When people use the visual editor, as most editors do, list defined references are utterly broken. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 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]
Apologies about my edit reverting to the broken version - I got caught in an edit conflict. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic question, but is this why the reference section was like 40k bytes 10 minutes ago? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why, yes. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:21, 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]

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.

Other articles that are about assassination attempts in the United States that resulted in mass shootings such as the 2011 Tucson shooting and Congressional baseball shooting include the relevant template as well. Raskuly (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
In the US, a "mass shooting" is usually defined as at four least gunfire victims in a single incident. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 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]
I know it doesn't, I am just saying that the exact intent is also unknown. Raskuly (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Trump may have been hit by glass debris caused by the gunfire. I think that counts too. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:20, 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]

National File publishes photo of alleged assassin on Twitter (NSFW)

The link the the photo can be found in the Category:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally category at Commons

Is this an reliable source? Trade (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones' National File? Probably not. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think the United States Department of Homeland Security employee license is legit? Trade (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet that it's legit, but I'm not sure it's usable. Also the pic is removed as of right now. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:26, 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]
No, per WP:INFOWARS. Also probably wouldn't suit the article anyways due to its graphic nature. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i would probably not have bothered if i knew that Info went under multiple different names Trade (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to evaluate the usability of a source, I have WP:RSP bookmarked. It's super helpful to me! Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence image was from homeland security (metadata was completely clean).©Geni (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete White House statement by Biden

Here is the complete statement from Biden, as released by the White House. Part of this is already in the article. I can't understand why the text below was deleted. I will put it here so that an administrator can add it, if possible:

"I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania.

I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information.

Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it."

Statement from President Joe Biden | The White House Starlighsky (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its an assassination attempt. call it one.

ALREADY DONE
I moved the page already, the RM is closed, we can wrap it up now jp×g🗯️ 04:52, 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.

its an assassination attempt. call it one. Jaygo113 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Requested_move_13_July_2024. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we just listened to one dude, we'd be all over the place. See #Requested move 13 July 2024. It seems like there is a high probability this will end up being included in the title. Raskuly (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jaygo113 if you support moving the article then vote at #Requested move 13 July 2024. Bill Williams 03:46, 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.

Too Soon?

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]

What part of the article is wrong? Trade (talk) 03:39, 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]
Yes, yes. Fog of war. We're all familiar. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:41, 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."
So, what has you "convinced that there is no reliable reporting from any source at this point"? Leafsdude (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, then. What are those two sentences? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A shooting happened. It was at a Trump rally. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 04:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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?
If not, then why only those two lines? How can you justify removing those bits of information? Leafsdude (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An AR, but otherwise correct. jp×g🗯️ 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
So we should accept unreliable reporting on Wikipedia with the excuse that lot's of people are visiting the page? — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 04:01, 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]
Absolutely agree. Keep to congressional leadership, world leaders, and Shapiro (and white house assuming they respond). Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I came here to say the same thing. This happens all the time with shooting articles. They get bloated with reactions from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Isaidnoway (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]
Business people and fan/supporter reactions are not needed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's bar new additions besides Joe Biden, Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro. We can discuss other people here. I am removing Elon Musk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 23:08, 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]
Musk is the world’s wealthiest man; hardly random. Mårtensås (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a matter of if he does anything with his wealth or power. Does his one sentence tweet of support matter? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be amazed if this is the last we see from him Trade (talk) 02:42, 14 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]
Musk is undue. "Space man said something on Twitter" isn't worth being in the article about an assassination attempt. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:45, 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]
Amending this with a recommendation to hold off on adding new reactions for another week. The Notre-Dame fire had an impossibly large reaction page for a long time. Save us all the effort. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:46, 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]
Support. I only suggest removing "universally". This section is getting way out of control now. Why do we care about Javier Milei's reaction? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't world leaders' reactions noteworthy, though? Isi96 (talk) 01:00, 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]
Good point. Isi96 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is rather significant event. One in which the reactions and responses should be recorded. At least in its own separate page. Declan Newton (talk) 06:18, 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]
If it becomes too crowded on this article, we can always create a separate article detailing a list of reactions to the shooting. AmericanBaath (talk) 01:16, 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]

Merged sections. C F A 💬 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A few reactions throw the section off a little. Shapiro is relevant since its his state, but not Whitmer. Additionally, as we discussed below, I also believe the international section is beginning to get too long. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luminism, please comment here. And, for the third time now, I do not believe any of the international reactions deserve mentioning. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:07, 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 Williams 03:49, 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]
They are not schmucks. These are people with heavy influence that have offered their sympathies to the former president and are denouncing it. Plenty notable for inclusion here. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 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]
CNN is reporting on RFK Jr's reaction. If it is notable enough for CNN to expend several paragraphs on, why not notable enough for a brief (max one sentence) mention here? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:43, 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 Ganguly 04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other major events like this have itemized reactions from heads of state, why shouldn't this? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We neutered that guff. The point is that other people are indiscriminately adding information and we should be cutting back. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was indiscriminately added? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's usually done for things like this is splitting to a dedicated reactions article. JDiala (talk) 04:07, 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]

Merged sections. C F A 💬 05:53, 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]

Musk endorsement

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/13/donald-trump-shots-fired-rally-elon-musk I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per many above discussions including Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm, his reaction and endorsement is not that relevant in the article. It used to be in the reaction section but has since been removed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 02:39, 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 Williams 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Williams At this rate, it will become notable because journalists will read this article for beats. Now that the section is only 6k bytes I guess it's whatever for now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Ornov Ganguly that I still don't believe it needs to be included. Perhaps in Musk's own wiki page, sure. But I don't think all the Elon musk info is necessary here. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 02:52, 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. C F A 💬 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFA Should we take this as consensus? Bill has added it back numerous times and this shouldn't turn into an edit war. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would. No one but Bill Williams has objected to the removal.. C F A 💬 03:57, 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 Williams 04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged sections. C F A 💬 06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add more reactions

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]

Modi

Indian Prime Minister commented on the incident https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1812315611940176344 should be added to reaction section Joshsintrests (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should use WP:SECONDARY sources such as newspapers for the reactions section, to help us figure out what is WP:DUE. Twitter is WP:PRIMARY so not a good fit for citations in the reactions section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:30, 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]

Oppose We have too many randos in the reaction section as is. Refer to the numerous discussions above, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because he is not a notable politician in my opinion. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Reactions

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]

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Donald Trump Jr.'s reaction

According to CNN, Donald Trump Jr. spoke with his father and said he is in "great spirits" and that "he will never stop fighting to save America". Source: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24#h_302de5a1a63151d9a743e1a86c684e6d AmericanBaath (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I don't think believe his children's reactions are that needed. We should keep it generally to politicians. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Again, please discuss reactions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I did not see that this discussion was already here. Apologies. AmericanBaath (talk) 01:15, 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]

Man, it's insane how good the secret service is. JDiala (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) is the alleged shooter's name, not (Redacted). I'd like to wait a bit as more sources corroborate it. Raskuly (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bremps... 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted), ya. Delectable1 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies on talk pages, including WP:BLPCRIME; please make sure to always include citations with claims like this. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:16, 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
(Redacted)
However I could not find any other source stating the ID of the gunman. SKAG123 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted), ya, that's the name. Delectable1 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add it yet. WP:NYPOST is not reliable and has been the only source to report it. C F A 💬 04:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) posted on his social media profile, that he is still very much alive. Worstbull (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. C F A 💬 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been confirmed by now, the updated article reflects this. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-identifies-thomas-matthew-crooks-subject-involved-trump-rally-shooting-2024-07-14/
One of the circulated images of the alleged shooter, was of an unrelated Twitter user. Worstbull (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being able to agree on the given name is always a great sign--Trade (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link / source ? I can't find any info about him online. Ikmxx (talk) 04:17, 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]
    Fair point. Ikmxx (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And just noting that I've removed the name per WP:BLPCRIME until there is sufficient reliable sourcing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows that it was Thomas Matthew Crooks now. Delectable1 (talk) 05:58, 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]

As reported, Thomas Matthew Crooks, of Bethel Park, a Pittsburgh suburb. Delectable1 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBI statement

According to USA Today, the Bureau wants people to call 1-800-CALL-FBI to submit information. I am unsure whether we should include this as per WP:NOTADVOCACY, but I would like to hear some thoughts. Cheers. LucasR muteacc (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly standard after a major crime. Bremps... 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, does standard mean not notable enough? LucasR muteacc (talk) 04:11, 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]

QNA is needed

ALREADY DONE
I moved the page already, the RM is closed, we can wrap it up now jp×g🗯️ 04:52, 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.

To stop people saying to change it to assassination. Needs to say something like "we do not have it as a assassination attempt because its not confirmed" or something like that, and to stop asking Sharrdx (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What standard of evidence would you require to consider it "confirmed"? Bremps... 04:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you proposing? It shows that there is an active discussion going about renaming it when you open the article and the final title will likely have "assassination" in one way or another in it. I'd imagine the renaming discussion will be over somewhat soon considering most Wikipedians are now coming to the conclusion that "assassination" should be in the title. Raskuly (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard for it to be anything other than assassination. The guy climbed to the top of a building with a rifle, and shot the Former President's ear from long range. Ikmxx (talk) 04:27, 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.

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:

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-pennsylvania-rally-incident-reactions-conspiracies-2024-7

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/us/politics/trump-rally-disinformation-x-social-media.html

EDIT: another from WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/14/trump-shooting-conspiracy-theories/

Cheers, all Tdmurlock (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 would. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Conspiracy theories about the Trump rally shooting flourish online". NBC News. 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
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. C F A 💬 04:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should only be added when things quiet down, otherwise it could just fuel the fire of conspiracies even further. Bill Williams 04:40, 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 Ganguly 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAN WHOEVER'S ARCHIVING STUFF FROM THIS TALK PAGE PLEASE STOP

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]

@CFA:, can you explain why you archived this section? It seems liked discussion was still ongoing, but it got caught up in this set of manual archives. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: The latest comment was an hour and a half prior to archiving and it seemed most discussion had moved to other sections, like #Trimming down the reactions section, #Musk endorsement, etc. Feel free to move it back if you think it was archived prematurely. C F A 💬 05:32, 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 Williams 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A local newspaper stated the specific township, so hopefully this should satisfy any concerns with sourcing. (I used a website to get past the paywall) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 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]

@Trorov: Hi! I notice your edit summaries mention a map. Which maps are they? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump’s Truth MSG after attempt

When the Wiki says "…that he was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of [his] right ear" I believe the Truth MSG from Trump [URL/link below] should be here however, when I used attempted to add using (as a reference) how Twitter is cited in Wikipedia, it didn't work. So I post to the Wiki's Talk Page.

Truth Details from/by @realDonaldTrump — Truth Social-https://www.truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112782066045321247/;

Sroth0616 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 05:20, 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 ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/#link-4MOOJP5R7BDUDELTHA5TKAAHIY Donald Guy (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byline ( Devlin Barrett and Alex Horton ) or ~title might also be worth including in cite Donald Guy (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator name confirmed by local media

WTAE also reports that the shooter is named TMC. This report does not cite the New York Post, but instead claims "officials have identified the man as" TMC. https://www.wtae.com/article/thomas-matthew-crooks-trump-gunman/61588989?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI has also done so https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1812359994211234167 SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an appropriate source for a BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it has now been confirmed in RS. See Reuters for example. C F A 💬 06:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still should not be used as a source for BLP regardless if Reuters confirms it, and BLP applies to project space too. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The FBI has formerly identified Thomas Matthew Crooks as the attempted assassin. This should now be noted in the article. Icrin7 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SocDoneLeft can confirm NBC has announced the shooter live KoP152 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, now confirmed. C F A 💬 05:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC has also identified him https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/13/donald-trump-shot-live-updates.html ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and USA Today are covering this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unexplained removal of the photo

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 Williams 06:12, 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]

Confirmed Shooter

I was previously told via WP:BLP to not put potential names of assassins without excellent sourcing, however this time I believe it is credible enough. However, this time see here and here for credible information of the confirmed shooter. I would edit the page myself, but am not an extended auto confirmed user. InfiniteSword (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done: It was confirmed and already updated. C F A 💬 06:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the "Investigation" section under "Aftermath" should also be updated InfiniteSword (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. C F A 💬 06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The identity of the killer is also confirmed by the FBI. InfiniteSword (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evan Nucci photo deserves its own article

This might be one of the most important photos of our lifetime. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:12, 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 Williams 06:18, 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. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 06:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania&oldid=1234411715"