The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 10 minutes ago312 comments200 people in discussion
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
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 | Talk01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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
I'd support a move to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump since none of the other assassination attempts against him (such as the ricin one) were nearly as notable as this one. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:06, 13 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
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
I'm saying this with no disrespect, but you are either as blind as a bat or just being really ignorant. There is 8 RS listed in the proposal saying it was an assassination attempt. Since this is now the 2nd time your mentioned RS not using it, I'm specifically calling out the 8 sources above. If you still say RS as an oppose reasoning, take all eight sources to WP:RSN to get a consensus on their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
With respect, most of those are not RS, or should not be taken as RS on such matters when well-established political and national news media are not saying something. The rest are just repeating verbatim what the first lot said. But they're just hyperbolic for clicks, because until there is intelligence about the situation, it cannot be said conclusively, and no RS worth its salt is going to effectively influence the immediate intelligence-gathering by putting such a statement out there. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
the sources you listed aren't exactly well known media organisations. For example, the BBC make not mention of this being a assassination attempt. [9]. Also, please don't call other editors ignorant its quite rude and condescending. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please, do not engage in exaggeration; it's not going to help the situation any. And, at this time, there is nothing indicating that Donald Trump was in any danger of "getting his f*cking brains blown out". In an effort to keep things civil here, it does appear that Trump ended up with some kind of injury to the back top of his right ear; however, due to the constantly evolving news environment, it's not yet confirmed how he ended up with that injury. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; however, I'm willing to wait for more reliable sources describing it as such. No objections, either, to calling it "2024 shooting of Donald Trump", or something simple in that respect; I strongly dislike the current name, which is wordy and falls flat on encyclopedic guidelines. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support His ear was literally shot, and the shooter was clearly aiming for his head. Had the shooter succeeded and killed him it would have been referred to as an assassination. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support for now, but we should wait. Almost every media source I can find explores the potential of "assassination attempt", even if they also refer to it as a shooting; though there is as of yet no official classification. Let's wait—but given current information, support is the way to go. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait There are no official versions yet whether Trump was the main target of the assassination attempt or not, but it is obvious that he was. I suggest waiting for the official version of law enforcement agencies about whether Trump was the main target, and if they confirm that he was, then change the page name. PLATEL (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait. We are getting to a point where the media will say this is attempted, but I think there we should wait. However, shouldn't this be like "Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump" (omitting the year, to be in line with Reagan's article) 49p (talk) 23:34, 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
Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; according to sources i read, multiple shoots being witnessed. let's wait for now and not rush things up till things get a bit cleared out. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support — WP:BLUE. Barring any issues with the title, the Butler attorney general has confirmed gunfire and everything hints at it to be a politically-motivated assassinatiion attempt. Luunarr (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wait, and oppose anything speedy No major media outlet (the proposal sources are dubious for political matters at best, some outright trash) is saying so, because they cannot confirm it, because police intelligence (while this is major and they will be working quickly) will not have yet told them so. The reason why no solid RS is running with "looks pretty obvious" is to not interfere, and Wikipedia absolutely does not lead the way on describing such incidents, especially if it would be applying a criminal motive that has not been reported by police yet. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - we don't know who the target was. We've got years to change it. There's other issues with the title ... 2024? Have there been others? Was it a rally or a campaign event? Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Who the target is, isn't really the point at this stage. No shortage of disturbed individuals at a rally for an adjudicated rapist, prosecuted racist, and convicted criminal. Though that Trump appears to have been hit certainly suggest he was the target. But how were the other 3 victims not appearing to be anywhere near the podium. Don't make assumptions. And what's the rush? The current title is not inaccurate. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support "Shooting of Donald Trump", pending further announcements of motive. The article title can be improved even before a motive is released, and the fact that Trump was shot appears to be the single most notable thing here. We don't need to circumlocute to "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" pending future announcements when we can make an incremental change to benefit the page. Status quo is not good enough, and also is not the sort of thing that we should default to in a WP:NOCON close, since the original page title was at 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If we do get motive, then I would support Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, since we don't need the year and it's better grammar-wise. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait. We should make sure we have the fine details worked out before. There has been reports by reputable news sources about this topic, but there's definitely still some ambiguity that needs settling. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble)23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support - It seems fairly clear that this was an assassination attempt, with some RS exploring the idea. We likely won't officially know until down the line, however, this should be moved back to its original title. A "shooting" understates the importance/severity of an assassination attempt, especially during an election cycle. 30Four (talk) 23:54, 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
Wait, because we don't know the motives of the perpetrator. We can't find out directly from the perpetrator because they're dead, but I imagine the Secret Service will find out what their motives were one way or the other. As I'm typing this, someone noted that the Secret Service is investigating this as an assassination attempt, so thanks in advance for that note. Ultimately, we'll have to see what they conclude. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:00, 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
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. CFA💬00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is obviously not a WP:G10. In what way is this page designed to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:06, 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. 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. 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
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
Support for reasons of common sense as stated above. Regardless, title should be changed in line with WP:NCWWW as the current one is very unwieldly. "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" would be more appropriate. CompassNNE (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an attempted assassination or not. We should absolutely not attempt to gun on this and frankly, the article was created too early as it is.}} Downerr2937 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose for now. Although I do not deny that Trump was purposefully targeted, we are not even sure quite yet what the downed shooter's motive was. Let's wait for the investigation to turn up any further information. FreeMediaKid$00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait. I say it's highly likely it was an assassination attempt, but it's also possible that it was a random shooting with no political or religious motives, which doesn't constitute an assassination per its definition: murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. It might be better to wait until a motive for the suspect has been found. SilentExplorer (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In his testimonies and letters, Yamagami claimed that he was driven by a grudge against the Unification Church for ruining his family. Even though he originally planned to target Hak Ja Han, then president of the church, he was unable to approach her, so he switched to Shinzo Abe, whom he believed was "one of the most influential sympathisers" of the church.SilentExplorer (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
AP saying they have been told it is being investigated as such =/= AP saying it is such. We have to wait for the latter, whatever editors think is obvious. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article says: "The attack, by a shooter who law enforcement officials say was then killed by the Secret Service, was the first attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981." They are on-board with assassination attempt. -- GreenC00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support This was a clear cut assassination attempt. As someone else stated above, this was clearly an attempt to take his life and people usually shoot to kill their target. Anthonyd33331 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Speedy support @ everyone going ermmmm we don't know the motive of the shooter, actually 🤓 There is no reason for an audience member to fire a gun at a politician unless it is to assassinate them. Enough chicanery. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs)00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I need to know where someone is being personally attacked. I cannot see anyone being specifically insulted, Kodiak is just having it out at a general argument here. BarntToust (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is your English this poor? The use of apparent implies a lack of decisiveness. ' : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid ' From your own source. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Sources have yet to identify it as an assassination attempt. "Shooting" is the predominant, even accounting for geographic and political bias, e.g. NYT: "Trump ‘Safe’ After Shooting at Rally", Fox News: "Former President Clinton condemns shooting at Trump rally", The Guardian: "Trump rally shooting being investigated". "Support but wait" is a meaningless distinction here, as we don't have crystal balls and don't know that will definitely be the language this turns out on. Sure, I'd put money on it, but this is an encyclopedia, we wait for reliable reporting. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a reliable source, so it doesn't really matter what I'd call it. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. FWIW, we have seen a recent case where certitude something would be labeled an assassination attempt on a US politician was wrong, with Attack on Paul Pelosi. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)00:48, 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
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. CFA💬00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Confirmed assassination attempt by multiple law enforcement agencies including the Secret Service. -- GreenC00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support Very clearly an attempted assassination on Trump, and it is also being referred to as such by law enforcement officials. IncompA00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support This was obviously an assassination attempt, it's crazy the extent people are going to deny it just because the subject is controversial. Deathying (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The AP reports that their sources ("law enforcement officials") have said that the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt; they are not calling it one. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong Support and I don't see the point in waiting either. The AP clearly states its being investigated as an assassination attempt. If circumstances change, it can be moved again. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wait for more reliable source reporting on what precisely has occurred. Though, I fully suspect it will be reported as an assassination attempt as more details emerge. Otherwise, the current title is a fine placeholder until then. R. G. Checkers talk01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I agree that this is obviously an assassination attempt. However, the article title policy requires that we follow what reliable sources say. The sources cited in this discussion are: (1) unreliable (such as WP:NYPOST), (2) only calling it an assassination in the headline (for example, [14]), or (3) calling it an "apparent" or "possible" or "suspected" assassination attempt (such as [15]), not confirming that it is one. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong Support* There is no need to "wait for more reliable sources to confirm what happened." It is very evident in the video that as the popping sounds rang out, Trump holds his hand against his ear and swiftly ducks beneath his podium. Literally every reliable source that has reported on this has reported that Trump was shot in the earlobe, obviously by someone in the crowd who had an assault weapon, one accidental wrist-flinch away from having shot the president. This was literally an attempted assassination. The only argument in favor of waiting is for the amount of edits taking place being potentially disrupted, but other than that, there is no need to wait more than 2-3 days for a name move if you know for sure it's going to happen. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support: Currently being investigated as an attempted assassination, reported as such on the front page of NYT ("The Secret Service killed a gunman after Donald Trump was rushed off stage in what is being investigated as an assassination attempt.") DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. In what universe is this not an assassination attempt? Have you seen the video? Whatever guideline one is relying on to object, WP:IGNORE, as minimizing such an obvious title is clearly a silly idea. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support, but if we wait, it should be clear in a couple days maximum and then it should be definitely changed to include "assassination attempt" in the title.Iljhgtn (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong Support - The fact that the attempted "plot" to kill Brett Kavanaugh is titled as an assassination, but a high-profile attempted assassination of Trump is not, is absolutely ridiculous. Almost every media network is reporting it as an assassination attempt, and it is being investigated as one. DocZach (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. They shot directly at Trump and struck him. Pretty much all media sources are calling it an assassination attempt. To say that it wasn't an attempt on his life is frankly insanity. Luminism (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong support and speedy move' This is not even debatable at this point of the evening. Just move the damn article already. Safiel (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose, the name "Assassination attempt of Donald Trump" reads as if Trump attempted to assassinate someone. The current name seems fine, if not renaming to "2024 Donald Trump Assassination Attempt" Vilo2023 (talk) 01:43, 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
Oppose: I sure think it was, but I'm with President Biden: let's have some facts, not opinions. We are not in a rush here. No one's giving out barnstars for the first edits on an "assassination" article. Ravenswing 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support The other assassination attempts that are covered on this website use BBC as the source. BBC has called it an assassination attempt, why have we not changed the title yet?-- Flynnwasframed (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support attempted assassination. At this stage it is reasonable to rename. Maybe this was different when the discussion started? gidonb (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support move, and the current title is actually woefully inadequate. If a user with no knowledge of the event saw the title as it is now—“2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally”—they could (and likely would) easily assume that this was a shooting unconnected to Donald Trump himself, as if it happened in the parking lot of the event or something. Other users have pointed out that sources are calling this an assassination attempt, and the FBI and US Secret Service are investigating it as an assassination attempt. I think we can call a spade a spade. —Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Adding to recommend: following the style that other Wikipedia articles used for assassination attempts, a better formulation of the title would be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support - One thing is "being investigated as assassination" means they believe it is assassination and that the case are investigated as such. It does NOT mean we should wait until investigation is complete. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support but wait. In Russian-language Wikipedia the article which I created already has this name. Here we can wait and then rename. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support This was obviously an assassination attempt, it's crazy the extent people are going to deny it just because the subject is controversial.
Support I understand that it is not technically confirmed, but all major media outlets are saying it, and sometimes, we just have to use common sense. NathanBru (talk)
Support: certainly better than the current title, that omits the intended target and instead includes a much less relevant setting. StAnselm (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support In addition to the common sense that someone taking a shot at the head of a prominent politican is an assassination attempt, every news organization I have seen is describing it as such. --CaptainTeebs (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support, but we should move to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The year is not necessary as this is the only notable and known attempt on his life. There is also precedent on how such titles are phrased:
Support: What's notable here is that Trump was shot, not that his shooter died, and Attempted assassination is a better title. Win8x (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: What I worry is that this would not be the last. He also got one in 2016 which means there are people who would like to try again. The target page itself is already an disambiguation page, with a link directed at this article, which I feel correct. Also, this article's title should be changed to "2024 Connoquenessing Township shooting" instead to make it more precise -- I believe the place is not too populus and not pested by shooting incidents? -- Patrickov (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This was an obvious attempt to assassinate Trump and the title of the article about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump should reflect that. BlueShirtz (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BlueShirtz:With all due respect I am not saying it's not, but I mean there had been one already in 2016 and I predict there're likely more. Trump is so controversal that there are apparently people who have both the intention and ability to render him dead. Patrickov (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Patrickov Your prediction is just speculation right now. The other article in 2016 is much less notable and Trump was not injured, this page should be renamed to state that it was an Assassination attempt. BlueShirtz (talk) 02:58, 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
Wait 1) Someone died at this event and it wasn't former President Trump. Focusing on Trump exclusively unduly erases or draws attention away from that person. We don't even know his name yet. 2) We don't know for sure that it was an assassination attempt, only that it is being investigated as one. My feeling is that we should call this something like "2024 Butler, Pennsylvania rally shooting." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's imperative that Trump is mentioned in the title. While the person who died wasn't Trump, they were (presumably) there because of the Trump rally. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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
Wait As much as I think this article title is manifestly confounding, we need further reliable reports that the shooting was indeed a confirmed assassination attempt before changing the title. Optakeover(U)(T)(C)03:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. Many mass media are already handling it as an assassination attempt, in which Donald Trump was wounded by a bullet in his right ear, a few centimeters more and it is clear that the attacker would have killed him.Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
On this point alone, that Trump himself said that he was shot in his ear, which is corroborated by photojournalism on the scene, and that it was an event for his campaign all but demonstrates it was an attempt on his life. FrickFrack03:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support This is being treated as an attempted assassination according to press conference statement by an FBI official a few minutes ago. Thriley (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment The front page of The NY Times website is calling this an assassination attempt. Time to move this. No reason to wait now. Thriley (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment It's kinda bizarre how agitated so many editors over a slight delay in renaming this until confirmed by an RS. JDiala (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It has been confirmed, both by the FBI, and by RS now. It was slightly more dubious immediately after it happened. Not anymore. CFA💬04:15, 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.
Comment »Attempt« implies intention. With a history of likewise events in the 20th century representing a diverse spectrum of intentions a wording like »near assassination« or »almost assassination«, does not have the same punch to it as »attempted assessination« but would not need to imply until the motive has been established. Frankverstärker (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, what else could it possibly have been an attempt to do - long-distance ear piercing? Debian upgrade gone wrong ("instead of typing sudo apt update I accidentally got my rifle, drove forty miles, climbed on top of a building, aimed my rifle at a politician and shot it at him, oops how do I get the old apt-get repos back")? I have done a lot of silly and dumb shenanigans with my friends for fun, but none of them ever caused us to accidentally plan and carry out the attempted murder of a major political figure with a 24/7 security detail. jp×g🗯️11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The current article lede states:
Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".
This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes Political speech § Shooting metaphors to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks.
Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.
Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well some guy took that literally it seems. Reliable sources are important here but we have to find a good balance being Wikipedia and all... Woobab (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago22 comments14 people in discussion
There already was a move request and it has been moved now. Wikipedia and Wikipedians are not biased, just cautious and reliant on reliable sources. Fences&Windows09:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I 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 • contribs01:39, 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”?
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
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.
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
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. (Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!) 04:33, 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.
Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA
Pennsylvania does not have unincorporated areas. If it’s outside the city limits of Butler it’s likely part of a township. Dough487200:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled. Butler County, PennsylvaniaRaskuly (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Raskuly there are no unincorporated places per se in Pennsylvania as per @Dough4872. Boyers is just a community within the incorporatedMarion Township. Townships are incorporated; better cite sources that actually specify Connoquenessing Township instead of "just outside Meridian, Pennsylvania". JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand. I am not familiar with how Pennsylvania divides itself. My stance then is that this incident should be referred to as being within Connoquenessing Township or near Meridian. Raskuly (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The map of that has been added to the article clearly shows that the incident happened on the Butler Township side of the Connequenessing/Butler Township line – therefore it happened in Meridian. Trorov (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trorov: Found the section! Is this based upon the dot on where the stage/specific event happened? One issue is that the local newspapers say it is in Connequenessing Township. If the assertion that it took place in Butler Township (as in the specific site) is to be added, one would need to find a newspaper article saying specifically it took place in Butler Township (otherwise people would have a lot of difficulty analyzing the specific lines and trying to see if the specific site is on one side or the other, and this is why people defer to WP:OR) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bill Williams: Hello! Postal address city names often do not match actual locations, and in my view the readers need to be taught this.
We have local newspapers giving the exact location here (similarly, St. Louis County, Missouri, does not coincide at all with St. Louis City but has places with St. Louis postal addresses, but the local newspapers clarify this).
Readers read Wikipedia to gain a comprehensive knowledge and attention to detail, and in my opinion readers should understand that this did not take place in Butler, full stop.
I wrote in the background that it is between the township and Meridian, but the infobox is listing a specific location and its address is Butler. The lead is stating what is notable which is that it is near Butler, as the vast majority of media outlets report it is there. Bill Williams05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is true, but I put "between Connoquenessing Township and Meridian near Butler, Pennsylvania" which is technically true because it is between the two, and Butler is separate from Butler Township. Bill Williams05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 Williams00:27, 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
That is a completely - completely - different question to whether a photo is itself inherently so historically important to make it fair use. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quite the opposite, this is the image the media is using the most (all show different variations of him raising his fist) and therefore it is most informative to readers and most identifiable if this image is used. This image should displayed in the infobox. Bill Williams00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry again for the ambiguity. The main article. However, it is on the main page of every newspaper at this moment. I don't think it is going to go away. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
So definitely a slow reaction from security as a whole, which was poor (to say the least) in the lead-up to the assassination attempt. Once the assassination started they did as good as possible though. You can see the surprise of the Secret Service agent who first spotted assassin a split-second before the ear-shot, and then engaged the assassin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c0AEGIMo8 he probably caused the following shots from the assassin to be less accurate. However for the first shot, the only thing that saved the President's life was that he happened to turn his head. If he had not turned his head, the fact that the security didn't take the most basic security precaution of securing the roof, and also knew about the threat a few minutes before... forget worrying about conspiracy theories, I honestly think today's events could have easily spiraled into a cycle of long-term violence. Ikmxx (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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
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
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
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. CFA💬02:31, 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
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
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
Latest comment: 9 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion
"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
Latest comment: 6 minutes ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Can anyone find a quote in the article that explicitly confirms the number of injured as being greater than or equal to 3? I can't due to the paywall Trade (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure it's really necessary. Pretty hard to dispute given that Trump was injured and 2 died. Or maybe I'm just a silly little bean guninvalid (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From various sources, we have: Trump injured; shooter killed; one rally attendee dead; one do. seriously wounded; one do. slightly wounded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reverted. Disputed and not supported by RS. mass shootings in the US typically involve more than 4 victims AND assassination attempts are typically not categorized as such. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was confirmed by the Secret Service. A mass shooting is a shooting where there are multiple victims. Your number of 4 is completely arbitrary. CFA💬02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Trade Apologies if it isn't an acceptable source, but I've found that the FBI defines a mass shooting as one involving three fatalities (excluding the perpetrator):
Yep, both sources qualify, and I've added it to the body of the article. I won't mess with the map for now since I don't want to mess it up, but another editor who is more skilled than I am with those should. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neither of these sources are reliable. Twitter is not a reliable source. WP:NEWSMAX is also a deprecated source. If you can provide a reliable source for this information, please let me know and I'll add it. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not using twitter as an article source, but it is valid for discussions
To be fair - the article never states that Trump was hit by a bullet, only that he was injured. If more information comes out stating he was hit by glass, then we can add it; right now, I think the best course of action is to just leave it. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
the article never states that Trump was hit by a bullet, only that he was injured
Should be noted that Juliegrace is a reporter for Axios, so not just some tabloid rag. Still, it's probably best to wait for further reporting for confirmation. FallingGravity05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why are changes being made based on twitter posts from Newsmax reporters, citing reporting from Newsmax? Unreliable sourcing nested within unreliable sourcing.
I'm inclined to go with the mainstream sourcing here and ignore the Tweets by a WP:NEWSMAX reporter. It's possible that it was shrapnel, but WSJ, CNN, etc. seem to be putting that Trump was shot in their own voice. It seems reasonable for the article to do so, rather than use the awkward "was injured during a shooting" construction. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article only quotes Trump on Truth social stating so. Separate from the speaker and site's credibility overall, in all cases I wouldn't necessarily take such a statement as definitively credible compared to a scenario I've seen (no better sourced) reported that he was hit by glass shrapnel from a shot teleprompter screen
the time before now that I checked AP was maintaining language that it was unclear if Trump had been injured by a bullet or in the response
now AP and BBC both seem to be preferring "Trump says he was shot" over separately affirming that as a fact
it states it as a fact in the headline but provides no support in the body beyond quoting Trump saying so on Truth social
while admittedly, I would think doctors at hospital would have clarified the matter to him, it is far from impossible that he could be genuinely convinced he was injured directly by a bullet and also be wrong about that fact (e.g. having been hit by glass shrapnel or having heard a bullet and then sustained injury during his and SS response in quick succession)
the source of his injuries presumably _will_ be established on public record sooner or later, but has not been to several major media outlets' satisfaction
(and while I am by no means an expert, photos I have seen do not seem clearly consistent with a bullet wound, with his auricle seeming intact and source of bleeding unclear) Donald Guy (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the body, first line: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, streaking the Republican presidential candidate's blood across his face and prompting his security agents to swarm him, before he emerged and pumped his fist in the air, appearing to mouth the words" --TocMan (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
From the link I provided: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." Emphasis mine. It can certainly be debated, but IMHO that first line is serving as the subheading overview and once the actual article content gets round to the shooting, it's "Trump said". Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't precede the article. It IS the article. It's after the byline. Do you have a policy you can point to that backs you up on this? --TocMan (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the interest of steelman-ing myself, I did also overlook til now that BBC published a liveblog entry as:
> Donald Trump has left a local hospital after being shot in the ear, two sources have told the BBC's US news partner CBS News.
a while back.
that could be imprecise quoting or imprecise speaking and its extremely anonymous sourcing, but in terms of any corroboration, its something Donald Guy (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
_that_ said, CBS News's article is the first credible outlet I have seen running the Doug Mills bullet-near-head photo (which I had seen going around social media earlier but after some effort had failed to find published by the NYTimes who employs him or otherwise managed to authenticate before losing interest) Donald Guy (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
and the reddit post that purports to be that and Mills' next 2 exposures* apparently shows blood on his hand after touching his ear prior to ducking:
(*which may be present on NYTimes.com as well, I do not currently have an active subscription to check behind paywall)
if that sequence is published by NYT (with captions that corroborate as such), that is probably an adequately primary source to satisfy my skepticism in the absence of more definitive statements from elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree the claim now appears in the lede of some versions of the Reuters story. It is still not a claim supported elsewhere in the article.
It seems to me a majority of sources (AP, BBC, CNN, NYT, Fox News) are proactively avoiding making the claim (vs only Infowars and Breitbart seen by me making it outside of this retuters lede)
I think that photos (which could definitely be misleading, e.g. injury obscured by blood) seem to potentially refute the claim and thats not an absurd thing to consider
It seems odd that there is not e.g. a law enforcement source that I've seen independently affirm it - but it might just be "active investigation", etc. thing
I sort of think it doesn't matter because that he was per se shot is likely to be the popular impression regardless of if it is exactly true, but also … I kind of think it matters specifically because it may end up being a common misconception Donald Guy (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a dr who has dealt with many wounds, I can assure you the wound is consistent with a graze from a bullet. Probably just above the Right ear. The colour of the blood looked arterial to me, so in upshot I believe the bullet nicked a tiny artery just above the right ear. No evidence for glass. Conclusion made in concert with known history of shooter armed with rifle and several persons injured or dead. Pravda. Koryushka (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are plenty other RS making this statement in their own words
Adding to Reuters: Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a campaign rally
CNN: Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear Saturday evening
USA Today: after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Latest comment: 4 hours ago13 comments9 people in discussion
Hi I saw this info here [link to X/Twitter redacted. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)] identifying the shooter as (Redacted), maybe add into article if there's more evidence? InfiniteSword (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, it makes it seem like we are going to list every country with a reaction to the shooting, which we are not. Also, I don't know if there's such a precedent in other articles. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)02:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
They aren't when they just mention that they don't believe a thing was good. That's like if I was mentioned in an article on the penny because I gave a high school presentation on them being useless. It doesn't impact what the Treasury thinks about them. It's insubstantial. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are 200 countries, give or take. Most leaders will have a take on a shooting. Heaven forbid we include them all. Bremps...03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article is a mess right now. Give it 24 hours and things will calm down a bit. Then we'll be able to handle sections like that. That being said, Abductive, mind explaining? I believe all these reactions have no business being here, at any rate. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago17 comments3 people in discussion
The article mentions Trump raising his fist after the shooting five times, which may unintentionally emphasize it as a patriotic gesture. This repetition not only skews the neutrality of the article but also assigns undue significance to a single action. For a balanced and objective portrayal, it would be prudent to either reduce the frequency of this mention or remove it altogether if it does not add significant information to the narrative. Instead, a more comprehensive view of his actions, including the repeated insistence on picking up his shoes, should be presented. Such adjustments would ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines by avoiding the overemphasis of specific gestures that might be interpreted as patriotically charged. Worstbull (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Numerous news outlets and the most prominent photographs talk about him raising his fist and nothing about pumping his shoes. The article simply says he pumped his fist for multiple seconds, which is exactly what he did and what news outlets (like Reuters cited) say. Bill Williams02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, buried in the articles and not featured prominently in a single news story. The fist pumping is, however, and is shown in all major news outlet photos. You're adding some patriotic angle when it's basic facts and notability. Bill Williams03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the info, but these were just the very first four examples I found with a really quick Google search, to make a point. Not as a suggestion to add specifically those. There are more. Worstbull (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A google search for "let me get my shoes" trump results in 70 articles from the past hour, mentioning that. Examples are listed above. Worstbull (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some whataboutism doesnt change that publications like Reuters highlight in the first few sentences that he pumped a fist, while zero highlight anything about his shoes in the first few paragraphs. Bill Williams03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Either way, there is no justification for mentioning this four times in the article. That's clearly biased, adding undue significance to a single action. And needs to be cleaned up. Worstbull (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I strongly disagree. Someone who might be experiencing some level of shock and is not a medical expert and moreover cannot see the site of the injury is not an authority on its cause
While he likely has been apprised of the cause, either confirming or refuting bullet damage by qualified experts, he did not make any such sourced claim and has publicly been a less-than-reputable interlocutor in the past
If it is a fact, other USSS/FBI/etc officials will state it. And despite it being privileged information in principal under HIPAA, one imagines leaks from medical sources will also find their way to press
AP, BBC, CNN, Fox News are all running with Trump injured and trump says he was shot. None affirm it. I have only seen the claim of him having been shot repeated explicitly by that one Reuters headline (without more support in body), InfoWars, and Breitbart Donald Guy (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is supported in the body. It reads: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, streaking the Republican presidential candidate's blood across his face and prompting his security agents to swarm him." CFA💬03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean he is not currently the president and he was notably not substantially injured, but the paths of all bullets involved in e.g. the JFK assassination as well as the attempted assassination on Reagan are both things which are extensively documented
insofar as a congressional investigation is being promised by GOP members and a Secret Service / FBI investigation is confirmed underway...
I'd think that you might be wrong (outside of your qualification of "on Trump's ear" making your statement potentially nonsensical) Donald Guy (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
But if this photo sequence was in fact published in full by NYTimes (I don't currently have an active subscription to dig through; have only seen the first one republished by CBS News):
and shows like this reddit post version blood on Trump's hand in the instant before ducking, that is a pretty good direct proof of cause of injury Donald Guy (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would it be possible to write that "while Trump has stated he was shot in his right ear, no law enforcement agencies have confirmed where Trump was shot"? Or something to that effect. That's what I noticed in this New York Times page. Soupcube (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There seems to be a reference about a Secret Service sniper neutralizing the alleged attacker, but no location or position information is included in that material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree. This is synthesis and hence I believe it is original research and should remain out of the article at this time. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Recently, an edit was made that added list-defined references, which broke much of the referencing on the page. I oppose converting this to LDR for this reason and, per MOS:CITEVAR, we should continue using the inline template references. I will work to try to restore the content added between the LDR-inserting edit and the reverting edit. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've gotten more edit conflicts in the last two hours than in the last two months and I'm not even trying to do any politics stuff I'm just fixing the formatting 😔
@Red-tailed hawk: The reference formatting script has an option to remove LDR, if it is that big of a deal as to warrant a gigantic revert, but I don't know why it would be helpful to put them all inline -- the source code for this page with all the refs inlined was completely unreadable. jp×g🗯️03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it were all bare URLs or light citation templates it'd be one thing, but with the archive URLs (which is the only way for people to verify the (subscription required)s) it's a total disaster. Like, this is the source for a three-sentence passage:
According to Butler County district attorney Richard Goldinger, an alleged perpetrator and an audience member were killed.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said two people are dead, including an apparent shooter. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713232323/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> At least one other person is in critical condition.<ref name="casualties">{{Cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Chris |last2=Lawther |first2=Fran |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Donald Trump is 'fine' after being rushed off stage at rally amid possible gunshots – latest updates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |access-date=July 13, 2024 |work=the Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=July 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714015033/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PowellShelton>{{Cite web|last1=Powell|first1=Tori B.|last2=Shelton|first2=Shania|last3=Meyer|first3=Matt|last4=D'Antonio|first4=Isabelle|last5=Tucker|first5=Emma|last6=Yeung|first6=Jessie|date=July 13, 2024|title=Live updates: Trump injured in shooting at Pennsylvania rally that left at least 1 dead {{!}} CNN Politics|url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|access-date=July 13, 2024|website=CNN|language=en|archive-date=July 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713222828/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Rep. [[Ronny Jackson]] (R-Texas) told Fox News that his nephew was shot in the neck.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
I mean, there's probably a solid month of edit wars already booked for this article, so I don't know if there is space here for a reference format argument. I guess my screed here is that it's extremely stupid that we have to deal with unreadable shit like this when there's a perfectly-functional alternative because nobody can be arsed to fix basic functionality in VE. It's especially dumb because it's not like LDR is some newfangled thing -- it was already four years old when VisualEditor was introduced, and VisualEditor itself is now eleven years old. jp×g🗯️03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No -- it had nothing to do with that. The byte difference was because the templates were vertically spaced, e.g. instead of
<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>
they were formatted like
<ref>{{Cite web
|last = McGraw
|first = Meridith
|last2 = Allison
|first2 = Natalie
|date = July 13, 2024
|title = Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting
|url = https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
|url-status = live
|access-date = July 13, 2024
|website = Politico
|archive-date = July 13, 2024
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
}}</ref>
. So that the vertical space increase didn't make the source code even more impossible to read or modify, I reformatted it to use WP:LDR, so that all the references would be moved to the bottom of the article instead of being plopped directly between the sentences of prose text. The reason this doesn't work in Visual Editor is because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided it doesn't matter if the default editor on Wikipedia can work without breaking when used to edit Wikipedia articles. jp×g🗯️03:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s
Latest comment: 3 hours ago15 comments4 people in discussion
I added this template at the bottom of the article because it qualifies as such according to several sources, yet it has been removed twice. To me it seems like an appropriate thing to add as it has been so far reported that there were at least five casualties. One attendee was killed, two attendees were injured, Donald Trump was injured, and the perpetrator was killed. Excluding the perpetrator that means there were four victims of this attack which meets the criteria of the definition of a "mass shooting" as described by sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, and Stanford University.
It's not really a "mass" shooting if the guy is literally trying to aim at one person and missed; I believe the technical term for this phenomenon is something closer to "skill issue". jp×g🗯️04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe this reply is meant to be humorous, but even if this attack was not intentionally a mass shooting, it seems like this is what happened irregardless. Raskuly (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, there are a lot of definitions, but they are all pretty unambiguous that they involve multiple people being targeted -- it seems quite obvious that this was a single person being targeted, based on every single available source, and there is no evidence to the contrary. The link you give to the 2011 Tucson shooting says that 18 people were shot, because the guy shot the congresswoman... then afterwards turned around and started shooting random other people in the crowd. I do not know of anything described by sources as a "mass shooting" where one guy shot one other guy and incidentally missed a couple times. jp×g🗯️05:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Shooting victims being the target of a shooting or not should not affect whether something is classified as a mass shooting. See the 2024 Kansas City parade shooting article as an example of what I mean. Besides, it is not yet clear whether or not the shooter also purposely shot at attendees. Raskuly (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think intent matters. You just need 4+ people hit by gunfire in a single event for it qualify as a mass shooting. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It does as long as the injury was caused by gunfire as you describe. I'm not sure whether or not the cause of Trump's injury has yet been clarified as being caused directly or indirectly by a gunshot yet. Raskuly (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Again, you have linked to an article with a gigantic number of people who were deliberately targeted ("One person was killed and 22 others were shot, including 11 children.") It is kind of hard to tell what was going on there, but this article suggests they were attacking a group of people, i.e. attempting to shoot them. This feels like one of those joke posts where somebody tries to argue that a bowl of cereal is technically soup... because gazpacho is served cold, Estonian milk soup uses milk as a broth, and sopa de ajo has croutons/grains in it. If you can find sources seriously describing this as a "mass shooting", then sure, but I do not see this anywhere. jp×g🗯️05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can assure you that I am completely serious. Most of the people hurt in this incident I used as an example were not targets. The number of people that were actually targeted in it that were struck by gunfire appears to have been two. There may be a few sources which refer to the attack as a "mass shooting", but most sources are understandably focusing on the fact that Donald Trump was injured, but as I said before this incident appears to meet the definition of a mass shooting. Raskuly (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't doubt that you are serious, I just don't think this is an appropriate addition to the article. jp×g🗯️06:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why not? These templates are located at the bottom of the article and if it meets the definition I see no harm in adding it. It will be collapsed. Raskuly (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’ve removed the references as it’s not supported by RS and is blatant NPOV. Multiple editors have disagreed so I recommend finding WP:ONUS before reintroducing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
National File publishes photo of alleged assassin on Twitter (NSFW)
I've seen that photo elsewhere. I'd want a bit more certainty that it's a Federal official who took that photo, since state and local police were also involved in the response. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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."
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.
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.
Latest comment: 3 hours ago19 comments8 people in discussion
How is there ANY Wikipedia article on this topic considering, at this early point (less than 6 hours), there isn't any reliable reporting of facts from investigative sources. Editing of this article should be locked for at least a few days until the real facts are reported. For cryin' out loud… This is a very good example why educational institutions do not allow student researchers use Wikipedia as a citable source for their class papers. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No one knows what is "wrong" with the article for the same reason that no one knows what is "right" with it. Can't you see the obviousness of that as evidenced by all the differing opinions shared already on this talk page? — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as you state, there are certain lines that this article has already passed. For instance, we can be sure that some shooting event did occur today, and that it was at a Trump rally, based off the reliable sources cited. As such, we ought to cover it, since it meets notability. Editing of this article is already locked to extended-protected reviewers due to fear of vandalism. Finally, I don't see how your point about class papers is relevant to meaningful critique of the content in the article. It may be true, but we are Wikipedia, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that Wikipedia isn't used as a citable source for class papers. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not being argumentative, but based on what you just stated, at this point this article should only contain 2 sentences… It happened, and where. Absolutely nothing else is reliable information and therefore doesn't belong yet — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)03:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was just giving an example there. The information that is in the article is ideally backed up by reliable sources, like any article on Wikipedia. If it's not backed up, it should be removed. I don't see why this should be disregarded simply because the article is recent. After all, it can always be changed as more information is relayed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest it "should be disregarded simply because the" event "is recent". I am convinced that there is no reliable reporting from any source at this point. We should not think a source is reliable just because they published an article themselves about it. The information reported is aggressively changing moment-by-moment. Based on Wikipedia policy, swiftly changing reports should not be considered "reliable". All I'm suggesting is a day or two before rushing to publish what is not even close to factual yet. — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk)04:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
1) The article is properly tagged with "This article documents a current event" just for that reason. That's the guideline here. That doesn't change just because it's contentious.
2) "Reliable reporting" is not analogous with "correct reporting". "Reliable reporting" would be giving the proper hedging and disclaimers with information being provided with the understanding that some of it is probably going to turn out to be incorrect. If there's a particular source where reporting is being made on something without providing such proper context, then specify the source and request it be removed and/or replaced by a better source. Per WP:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time."
I mean, like, we have high-resolution photos and statements from everybody involved detailing the whole timeline of the event. Is there any actual specific claim about this that's in doubt? The identity of the dude may not be known, but I feel like the basic bones of it are pretty obvious: the time, the place, the dude's ear getting blown off, et cetera. It's not like in two weeks we're going to suddenly decide that this isn't noteworthy. jp×g🗯️04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you contending, then, that we have no reliable reporting that 3 people in the crowd were shot and 1 is dead? That witnesses and law enforcement did not identify the weapon as an AK-style assault rifle? That it is not being investigated as an attempted assassination? That Trump didn't post to social media that he was shot in the ear? That various other political figures in the US and globally didn't post their own responses on social media?
I agree that there is going to be a lot of things written in this article that will later be altered in one way or another and there will potentially be bad actors in spite of the raised article protection it would be absurd to completely lock an article from editing when undoubtedly there are many people across the world visiting it right now. Raskuly (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, this article will be chaotic for awhile but efforts are being made by a multitude of Wikipedians to work towards this being as accurate as possible and weed out inaccuracies. If we refused to write about any current or trending event we'd have to wait up to potentially weeks before we were able to begin. Raskuly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Like what, there's no way to know what happened? There were like eight bazillion people there including news reporters who were taking high-resolution photos the entire time; it's far and away the biggest story of the day, the week, who knows maybe of the year. What aspect of this is in doubt?? jp×g🗯️04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That might be a topic for an article about Elon Musk's political donations as it stands. Besides that, we need to wait for someone to say that Musk is doing his usual nonsense. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning)00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are at least 193 countries on earth, each with many leaders. Javier Milei and Benjamin Netanyahu saying they offer condolences do not have lasting impact on politics. Unless the media hyperfixates on any specific leader's comments, they are trivia or clutter. We have set a very low bar to entry by allowing one line responses from even previous world leaders. When we mention Biden's responses, that is because it is an extension of the US government's attitude and because it will be highly covered. The same will likely not be true of Kier Starmer. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, they are politicians mouthing platitudes. That is the job of politicians, and deserves no more mention than any other non-encyclopedic topic. Abductive (reasoning)01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I cannot think of a single realistic scenario where this would be necessary. The point remains that we need to prune this section down to three or four sentences max. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reactions of world leaders are relevant. The reactions of former world leaders (e.g. Liz Truss, who was in the office for less than two months), and Opposition Leaders (e.g. Pierre Poilievre) isn't. Luminism (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I certainly agree with you on that last part. Hopefully we can get more support so this doesn't turn into WP:WAR. I beg to differ on the first part, and I suppose we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. Again, my reasoning is that their thoughts do not impact politics in either country. This is a national event, and unless/until other countries take it as a cue to update policies or treat the US a different way, this is politically irrelevant. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The responses section is the largest section in this article at 12,983 bytes. It is continuing to grow because we are allowing additions too liberally. Please use this area as a discussion section for this topic. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have made a few edits trimming down this section. It appears to be a bunch of copy paste tweets and other irrelevant information. The primary topic of the article is the shooting not the reactions. SKAG123 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this. RFK needs to be the subject of like two NYT op-eds about this specifically (even one) for this to be notable. It will take months. Same for Elon. Right now they're just some schmucks. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
But have they actually lent that heavy influence? Musk can say that he likes an anime today. If we don't see a spike in people watching it and talking about it crediting him, he has no connection. His PAC donations are an interesting lead, but they precede the shooting. Only if he donates more now will it be notable. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t see a reactions section, I see a responses section. And the responses by politicians is quickly bordering on lunatic fringe. Seriously, claiming the radical left and the corporate media is working together? And claiming Biden should be held responsible? Just total lunatic fringe nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well the lunatic fringe is what has more longevity here. People are talking about them disproportionately. We're keeping RFK off unless he suggests that the CIA tried to kill Trump. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I support a separate page called "Responses to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" which would have all the responses collected on it. This page would be reserved for the "big ones." BootsED (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is it in anyway astonishing or even notable that politicians are chiming in to say that they are against people shooting at politicians? Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comments from the Oliver should probably be added to the Responses category.
Might read something like "Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver extended well wishes to the former president, saying 'Political violence is never the answer, no matter how divided we may be.'" Abbyfluoroethane (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 hours ago23 comments14 people in discussion
The news has identified (Redacted) as being the gunman who was neutralized by the counter-strike Secret Service sniper team behind former President Trump and to his left. (Redacted) apparently was atop a building (Building 6) in a complex (American Glass Research International, Inc.) in Butler. Delectable1 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
(And yes, I recognize that if true, the claim is not about a living person, but I also remember the misidentification of the Sandy Hook shooter; it's better to be slow and right than fast and wrong on these things) Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)04:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
NY Post does report(Redacted) ID’d as gunman who shot Trump during Pa. rally
It is entirely possible there is more than one person with this name. Two different people with same first and last name is actually rather common. Two different people with same first, last and middle name, is rarer, but far from impossible. For all we know, maybe the name reported by the NY Post is correct, and the person posting on social media they are still alive just happens to have the misfortune of being named identically. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think their point was there was an image being circulated of the supposed shooter that was actually just taken off of an unrelated person's social media. The name of the shooter has still not been confirmed; it's all speculation by the New York Post. CFA💬05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason to trip over our shoelaces doing Reddit nonsense trying to e-detective the identity of some random guy who just did the most notorious crime of the decade. I am pretty sure they're going to figure out who the guy is, seeing as he tried to assassinate the damn former President and current candidate -- in about fifteen seconds we will have actual confirmation of his identity, and in the meantime, we are not going to accuse some random-ass dude who has a 5, 50% or 95% chance of being the right one -- the world's fifth-most-visited website does not need to be publicly making false accusations on its page for the most notorious crime of the decade. jp×g🗯️04:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I won't link to it, but I will note a number of global media outlets (e.g. Sky News Australia, Israel Hayom) are now reporting the same name, albeit with attribution to NY Post. Still not officially confirmed by the authorities, though. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
*::FBI has identified the shooter (the same name mentioned from NYPOST) as per MSNBC, CNN, NYT, FOXNEWS, CNBC and multiple other sources. Should be added to article! Poplicolascribere (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that was what I was getting at. On the other hand, law-enforcement investigations, international reactions, etc. are also standard for events of this magnitude and should obviously be included, so upon further reflection I'm on the fence. Bremps...04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wouldn't be a good fit for the tone of an encyclopedia article. We state facts, rather than trying to influence folks to do something. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 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.
Latest comment: 2 hours ago10 comments10 people in discussion
I've been trying to add a section for conspiracy theories, as many articles regarding similar incidents frequently have specific sections for conspiracy theories, but it's been deleted twice, so as not to fall foul of 3RR, I'm bringing it up here.
The text was as follows: "After the assassination attempt, conspiracy theories quickly accumulated millions of views on social media. On X, conspiracy theories "gained traction just minutes after the incident occurred", the word “staged” becoming the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump”. "Antifa" also became a top trending topic after posts on X blamed the shooting on a “prominent Antifa activist”, falsely identifying him as "Mark Violets" using a photograph of Marco Violi, an Italian soccer vlogger. Alex Jones livestreamed and made posts blaming "the deep state", and highly followed QAnon-related accounts shared names of high-profile Democrats and Republicans, accusing them of colluding with the CIA.[1]"
Here are some further articles demonstrating the volume of conspiracies that have arisen from this incident:
I am really not sure we need to have this stuff in there at all. An extremely dramatic high-profile event happened, in which some guy tried to shoot a current presidential candidate (and former president) -- of course there are doing to be kooks on the Internet saying "da masonz" or "da alienz" or "da jooz" or whatever shit idiot brain fungus they're cooking up this week. Morons tend to say this kind of stuff any time anything happens ever. I don't really think it is that noteworthy unless there ends up being some unusually high amount of brain fungus here. Compared to, say, the normal amount of brain fungus that happens around American presidential elections (and around American presidential assassination attempts) it seems like this is pretty normal and expected. jp×g🗯️04:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've seen lots of people speculating and spreading theories on it; beyond the typical conspiracy-brained nutjob types. It seems totally fair to address these conspiracy theories on the page. MattiasLikesOxygen (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would add it. It's mentioned in RS and probably necessary for due weight. Don't add too much because it's very early and they will obviously develop. CFA💬04:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Bill. Unless it's REALLY big now and the media is reporting on it (3+ dedicated articles, perhaps), we might just make things worse. Ornov Ganguly04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fourthed. People are spreading all sorts of disinfo/misinfo on social media, it's likely that 99% of it is not going to be encyclopedically relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I have been trying to close old requests and respond to questions on here and every time I click on a section-edit link I am ending up at wildly different sections. This has been going on for like five minutes straight. I've got blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my whatever. Some of these archivers are messing things up and putting sections on the wrong archive page! Can we just calm down for a minute. jp×g🗯️04:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One hour is an extremely short time for that sort of thing. It's about how the page will be structured broadly, and that will have impacts on the future of the page. I think it's probably better to have one thread where editors can discuss that for the long term rather than have a bunch that sporadically pop up. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 hours ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'm creating this section in response to the repeated changing of the location of this incident. The shooting happened at the Butler Farm Show fairground which is located in Butler County outside of Butler. However, the state of Pennsylvania, as pointed out to me earlier by @Dough4872 and @JWilz12345, is divided into townships. This fairground is located in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County just west of Meridian.
Therefore it seems inappropriate to refer to this as happening within the city of Butler, despite many sources saying it happened in Butler, which is simply because the fairground is located within the Butler metro. So, should we refer to it as have happened west of Meridian, in Connoquenessing Township, or perhaps even just in Butler County? I prefer something along the lines of "Connoquenessing Township west of Meridian" personally although that is a mouthful. Raskuly (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nothing should be mentioned but Butler because the media almost entirely only mentions Butler. I made it say "near Butler" in the opening sentence for clarity but that is the most that should be done because otherwise it is OR. Bill Williams05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was pointed out to me that the exact location on the fairground is actually within Meridian. My apologies for the mistake. Raskuly (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems the fairground straddles the township line. The issue though is which part would it be in? Unless there's something solid, it may be best to defer to what the local newspapers say WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 hours ago9 comments4 people in discussion
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.
A Truth Social post is a primary source. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. It could only be used for a claim that says something like "Donald Trump claims he was shot with a bullet..." CFA💬06:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@C F A , The Truth MSG (URL/link) in my Talk post on the matter, is from Trump sharing "…the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew…". Since it came from Trump's social media account I believe the URL/link should be in the Wiki article (I prefer as a reference).
There's no reason not to use Truth Social, especially if it's a statement from Trump and is framed that way in the article. I don't see any issue with saying "Trump stated in a post to Truth Social …"
I do not disagree social media is (as you said) "self-published", many other Wiki articles including "Fern Hollow Bridge" section: "Second bridge" sub-section: "Collapse" Sroth0616 (talk) 08:47, 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
Latest comment: 54 minutes ago14 comments10 people in discussion
I don't know why the photo keeps disappearing from the infobox -- there are some technical issues with edits getting messed up and repeatedly colliding with each other and destroying changes, but I feel like this picture has vanished like five or six times already. It is true that it's a fair-use image, and there is a FfD open for it due to copyright issues, but the procedure for ongoing FfDs is emphatically not "go through and rip images out of articles with a steak knife". Please do not remove the photo unless it is actually deleted at the FfD. jp×g🗯️05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll note that, besides the FfD, there is also the issue of this specific picture being non-neutral for the article's infobox, as it depicts Trump striking a pose in the aftermath of the shooting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As numerous editors have mentioned that is not how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't a non-neutral photo, it's respecting notability and showing what the vast majority of the media is covering. It is just like Battle of Iwo Jima showing a "non-neutral" pose, among plenty of other examples. Should we change Wikipedia precedent just for Trump? Bill Williams06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I swear to God I didn't see your comment when I was typing out mine. I am kind of embarrassed that we used the same photo as an example, it feels like showing up to a party with the exact same costume as somebody else 😅 jp×g🗯️06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean, it's not really our fault if the photo incidentally makes him look cool. It may be worthwhile to compare File:Tokyo Stabbing.jpg, a different historic photo of an assassination attempt, which happens to make the Otoya Yamaguchi look really cool (even if he was a deranged piece of shit, as can be seen by the fact that the photo depicts him in the middle of murdering a guy). File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger - edit1.jpg which makes the United States military look unbelievably cool -- so much so that they've used it in recruitment materials for a bajillion years afterwards -- but I don't think that using it at Battle of Iwo Jima is propaganda, it's just the most recognizable image that came from that battle (indeed, per ja:硫黄島の戦い, both sides agree that it's a dope photo).
Now, as an encyclopedia, we are not generally in the business of formally endorsing governments or militaries or politicians. But I think that, in the business of documenting history and the world we live in, it's appropriate to use the most iconic images, which are the most widely understood and associated with the stuff we're writing about. jp×g🗯️06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Definitely iconic, just like the one where he took the chiefs of staff for a walk to the church across from the White House and waved a Bible around. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that situation (Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church), we use a public domain White House photo, Creative Commons licensed images (Ashburton House fire), and a public domain video report from Voice of America, among other later images. People discussed his actions that day, not the individual photos. Fast-forward ten years, are people going to be discussing the photo itself, or Trump's fist pumping? -- Zanimum (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree; I question the use of this image as fair use, and also it being "the image". We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here. I'm also not seeing this photo very consistently - a lot of news sources are using other images, such as [28], [29], [30], and [31], all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JPxG the article describes how the image is used by his allies, and influencing his public image. The image is appropriate to use in the public image section. As the lead image of the article I would say it is breaching NPOV. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the discussion here and over on the FFD, I've been bold and moved the image to the point in the article where the image is being specifically discussed, in line with the NFCC and fair use, and the emerging consensus on the FFD discussion. Likely to be the less of the evils here. Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was going to suggest something along these lines: it seems like the main issue comes from it being in the infobox specifically, but there is no real reason that it needs to be in the infobox specifically. I think it is better to have it down further. jp×g🗯️10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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
I think it will be just fine being contained here. Similar to how the "photo op" in front of the Church is an article about the photo, not necessarily about the hundreds of people who got teargassed. CNC33 (. . .talk)06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm betting it will win a Pulitzer, but it can get its own article when that happens. It also needs to be expanded on in Evan's article. Otherwise it can be highlighted here. Bill Williams06:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I strongly agree with your statement on the incredible significance of the image. However, I think it is too early to give it an article. It might be WP:TOOSOON. A draft article, however, could be created for the time being if anyone is up for it. (Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!) 06:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Oppose. The primary topic of assassination attempts on Donald Trump is going to be the one where he was shot. This is fairly unambiguous; there is no need to include the year. And, per the criterion of concision, article titles ought be no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong Oppose this needs a speedy close, the other "attempt" was negligible and not nearly as notable as this. No need for clarification. Bill Williams06:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it." WWGB (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Obviously the primary topic on assassination attempts against Trump is this one, where he was actually injured. So an extra disambiguator is not necessary per WP:CONCISE. CFA💬06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Red-tailed hawk, Red-tailed sock, and Susmuffin: Does anyone know what is up with the archive links for the refs? All three of us have done them for this page, but they seem to keep disappearing. How is this happening? Is this some kind of arseways VE bug? What's going on? jp×g🗯️06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Someone is writing something. They see an edit conflict. They think "screw it", and just copy-paste their version into the page, ignoring the edit conflict, and deleting any edits that they conflicted with. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I really recommend that you do not archive any of the live links. It's completely misleading because the life information is frequently updating, so much of the archived information is outdated. Bill Williams06:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The point of archiving the live links is so that one can see exactly what one cited at a particular time (ideally, very close to when that link is added to the article). Isn't that something we would want archived? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The 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.
Adding this here as a placeholder as the suspect is said to now be a Republican. If true, sources may investigate the notion of far-right accelerationist terrorism, which we saw it play out during the BLM protests. Viriditas (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. The motive is as yet unknown and the authorities are not speculating on them. It may be that the shooter doesn't even have a logical motive, like the 1981 attempted Reagan assassination. They are presently searching his house, so hopefully, if they find a manifesto, we'll find out about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is the point of posts like these? We’re not honing our predictions for how the media will treat this. This feels like general discussion in disguise. ꧁Zanahary꧂07:58, 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.
"Effects on Trump's public image" section should be removed
Latest comment: 1 hour ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The Effects on Trump's public image section is entirely about one photo and is UNDUE and COATRACK. The article is about the assassination attempt, not people's opinions of the photo. If the photo gets sustained attention, then it might warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir(talk)06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have a more nuanced view. We are using a non free image and the relevant policy language about "Images with iconic status or historical importance" says Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. In this case, the image is from the Associated Press, and if we are going to use this image, the article needs to include sourced commentary from reliable sources making the case that it is iconic or historical. I believe that it is both. The passage of time will show that more clearly, but it is hard for me to visualize some future analysis by historians that concludes, "No, that is neither an iconic nor a historical photo of Trump". Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem; some people were saying the photo had to come out because there wasn't enough sourcing about that photo specifically to meet WP:NFCC, then somebody found a bunch of sources talking about the photo, then someone else was like "Why is there so much crap in the article about this one photo, this is WP:UNDUE" and removed them all. It has been oscillating between these two fairly regularly; I think both ends of the pendulum produce a noticeably worse article, so hopefully it will end up in some stable arrangement between them. jp×g🗯️09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Someone elsewhere on this talk page had the brilliant idea of putting the damn image somewhere else, further down the article, and by this part which is about it, which seems like a stupendous idea. jp×g🗯️10:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 hours ago8 comments8 people in discussion
Do we need to hedge with "suspected" when describing the shooter? He's quite dead, and I'm not sure we really need to give that sort of caution here that we would owe to living people. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Given that the FBI has identified the corpse at the sniper's perch, I think that the "suspect" terminology is no longer required or desirable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What do reliable sources call him? If they refrain from calling TMC “the shooter” in their voices, then we should avoid it too. ꧁Zanahary꧂07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The article says "he rose with blood on his ear and face and told Secret Service agents that he needed his shoes" and news reports say that he repeatedly asked for his shoes. Why would he not be wearing shoes? Does he take them off to speak or what? This seems to need explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One can hear Trump say "let me get my shoes" in video recordings of the event, just as the secret service agents are telling him they need to move him. It's possible that they came off when he ducked to the ground, or when the secret service agents piled onto him, or when they lifted him back up. Joe (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that the most likely explanation is that his shoes got knocked off when multiple Secret Service agents leaped on him to protect him from more bullets, and he was just trying to recover them for the walk down the stairs to the armored limo. People in general (not just Trump) immediately after a trauma often fixate on something later seen as of little importance. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 hours ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This isn’t supported by RS or the article, which should be enough for editors to stop doing it. This category is wildly inappropriate as for the above reasons alone, and the general consensus is that a mass shooting involves 3 or more fatalities (not including the victim) according to the FBI (and many other sources as cited in Mass Shooting). Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The shooter doesn’t count, and it’s unclear if the injuries besides Trump were firearms related. Additionally, not a single mention of “mass shooting” is made in the article. Clearly WP:UNDUE to include these categories. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago9 comments4 people in discussion
USAToday
Reuters
CNN
CBS
Al Jazeera
Sky News
France24
Donald Trump
sources that don't:
NYT
WaPo
BBC
AP
NBC
CNBC
ABC
NPR
WSJ
Times of London
Financial Times
Guardian
Fox News
Time magazine
US News
The Hill
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."[32]soibangla (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are two existing discussions on this, including one you started by referencing an alternate theory from Newsmax. Did you find any other sources that contradict the multitude of RS reporting Trump was shot?
Anyway, you're not referencing WSJ accurately, they report: Authorities have faced challenges identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
Apparently you've decided to edit anyway and remove a Reuters source based on "preponderance of RS", with no links to the supposed RS that apparently back your claim. At least we have some standard now? Sources that mention Trump was shot in their own voice (with links, with quotes):
WSJ (you claimed they didn't), identifying the gunman who shot Donald Trump at a rally
BBC (you claimed they didn't), hours after a gunman shot Trump in the ear
ABC (you claimed they didn't), investigating how a gunman armed with an AR-style rifle was able to get close enough to shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
The Guardian (you claimed they didn't), fired off shots — one of which grazed Trump in the ear
CNBC (you claimed they didn't),Trump was shot in the ear during the rally in Pennsylvania
NPR (you claimed they didn't), shoot and injure former President Donald Trump
US News (you claimed they didn't), after he was hit in the ear with a bullet
The Independent, Donald Trump was shot in the ear at a rally
CNN, Former President Donald Trump was shot in the ear
USA Today, after an assassination attempt left him with a bullet wound to the ear.
Axios, after former President Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Pennsylvania.
Al Jazeera, Former United States President Donald Trump has been shot in the ear
Reuters, Donald Trump was shot in the ear in an attempted assassination
The Telegraph, A bullet appeared to have grazed his ear
Sky News, Donald Trump shot in ear at Pennsylvania rally
France24. The former US president, who was shot in the ear
good job. there remain several highly RS that do not report he was shot. we know for a fact he was injured, we do not know for a fact he was shot. we should err on the conservative for the time being. if it is determined he was in fact shot, I will come to your Talk and bow to you. soibangla (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel like this is kind of obtuse. Are you saying that these dozen-some sources are lying? They're all too stupid to know what the definition of "shot" is? What possible reason could there be to suppose this, and not just that the other sources used slightly different language? There is not some kind of requirement that a specific term be used unanimously by every newspaper on the planet before we're allowed to mention it. Man point gun at other man, make gun go boom, other man hit face blood come out, what verb? Hint: "shoot". jp×g🗯️10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
of course I'm not saying they're lying
The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was “safe.”[34]
Latest comment: 1 hour ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The “International” section in the “Responses” should be cleaned up drastically, it’s more just a huge, one-sentence list. At the very least, bullet points should be added. Lordseriouspig10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Do we also need to list every single country that condemned the incident as well? I remember this conversation when the attempted assassination of Robert Fico occurred. Procyon117 (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would favour deleting most of it under WP:NOTNEWS. We can just say “international leaders condemned the attack”. The only interesting bit is the Georgian prime minister spreading a conspiracy theory. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Either that or he moved. I suspect that we will know a lot more about it and be able to know for sure what the deal is a day from now. Until then, who knows. You might be right: it may be worth just taking out the bleeding-edge conjecture about political affiliation stuff entirely and revisiting it in a few hours. jp×g🗯️10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 minutes ago5 comments5 people in discussion
It would be good to add information on the wind conditions. In Pittsburg winds blew from the WNW, which would be perfectly from the side, to miss to left, i.e. hitting the right ear. 82.209.143.42 (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 21 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Okay, well: I have un-semiprotected this talk page (I don't see the original protection in the log, last entry is from 2020 so I suspect something weird happened during the move). Please, anons and friends, use this opportunity in a smart way. Hopefully a bunch of people do not immediately post a giant amount of stupid crap here and make me look like a moron for doing this, or else I will probably have to end this hobby of unprotecting controversial talk pages. jp×g🗯️11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
.jpg){kind=small}
Done C F A 💬 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Bremps... 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Already done: It was confirmed and already updated. C F A 💬 06:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Why should we replace the original image? They are essentially the same bar some colorisation changes. Lordseriouspig 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: The Infobox Docs infer that local timestamps should be used, but I changed the Timezone to a UTC Offset as per the docs. Lordseriouspig 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: As per WP:TOOMUCH Lordseriouspig 11:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
![[28]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[29]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[30]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[31]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
