Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024

I've vectorized the diagram of the positions of the shooter, Trump, and the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. Please replace File:2024 Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump Diagram.png with File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg in the article.

Bambobee (talk) 09:26, 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)

SVGs are considered better than PNGs. Cremastra (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok,  Done Lordseriouspig 10:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

New Updated Map! -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2024_Trump_Assassination_Attempt_Map.jpg

Please Update the graphic! MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You image is flagged for speedy deletion as the licence is not comparable with commons. Lordseriouspig 12:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is being fixed now! Some errors from author were known and are being addressed! MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your graphic is missing the OpenStreetMap Attrinution. Your map shows an exact copy of the features that are found on OSM. OSM requires you display copyright banner/attribution on the graphic. Please fix!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Note: All OSM copyright information seems to be in order, this image is fine to be in the article, and the edit request is being closed. Lordseriouspig 12:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Its not actually. From OSM: "Attribution text

Attribution must be to “OpenStreetMap”.

Attribution must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open Database License. This may be done by making the text “OpenStreetMap” a link to openstreetmap.org/copyright, which has information about OpenStreetMap’s data sources (which OpenStreetMap needs to credit) as well as the ODbL.

The text must be easily readable and understandable, taking into consideration the font, size, colour, contrast, positioning and amount of time that it is visible. We recommend you follow accessibility guidelines such as WCAG, and any other locally relevant regulations."

https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I should explain Wikipedia has a partnership with OSM, which allows the attribution provided (example, on the aforementioned image). See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia Lordseriouspig 12:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You must not be reading that either. I am quoting it from that link you shared: "

Illustrating Wikipedia articles with rendered maps

This is the main area where there's lots of obvious potential. Thousands of map images based on OSM have already been uploaded and are being used to illustrate Wikipedia articles describing places.

Wikipedians will take offense if we plaster lots of low quality images on there. Obviously we need to pick only areas where we have achieved a good level of mapping coverage, and where the rendering comes out well to produced maps which are actually useful. Note that we can upload quite large images, but it is preferred that an image looks good and is useful in its thumbnailed form, appearing on the article page itself. For maps this might mean the street name text should be readable in the thumbnail. That is actually quite a tricky restriction to work with (pick zoom level and thumbnail size carefully)

The image description page for any such image must attribute the image to OpenStreetMap and link to our copyright page. Templates such as Template:OpenStreetMap can help with that. This is also a good place to provide good links to openstreetmap. See #Linking from Wikipedia to OSM below.

Attribution requirement

Map images from OSM are covered by the OpenStreetMap License, and so require attribution. More general details can be found on the Legal FAQ." MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@MediaGuy768, please see c:File:Assassination attempt of Donald Trump diagram.svg, where OSM is properly attributed. There is nothing wrong with the map or how it is being used. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Said attribution is found in this template that is present on the aforementioned images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:ODbL_OpenStreetMap . This template is not present in your images. Lordseriouspig 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Author did not use OSM imagery from my understanding. They used NOAA Imagery from yesterday. That is public domain imagery and then vectorized. So falls outside of OSM. MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's public domain, what's the issue here? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was about a map that was on the article not attributing OSM correctly. The public domain issue was about a map that I submitted that which has open rights. MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, the image provided has no link to the source, can you please provide that in the image? @MediaGuy768 Lordseriouspig 13:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I will go see what I can do, thanks! MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it! MediaGuy768 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I will remove the unsourced template, and the speedy delete template in favour of a standard delete template (as per the appeal instructions in the speedy delete notice) Lordseriouspig 13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Identity of other victims?

One thing is that Trump got hit in the ear, but someone actually died. They are apparently not important enough to be identified in mainstream media? Palnatoke (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

They could be unidentified as of now. Bremps... 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Short Description

Should we change the short description? I think 2024 shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, United States does not represent the article very well. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The article title is already descriptive, and the short description provides additional disambiguation as to the date and location. What change do you want to make? Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

FBI statement

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

This is fairly standard after a major crime. Bremps... 04:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case, does standard mean not notable enough? LucasR muteacc (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"The FBI asked the public for information following the shooting" or something similar can work. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And there'll be lots to add from the federal investigations eventually, not least because this is the smartphone era. kencf0618 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

International Reactions - Global War Party

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, as well as other government officials, have accused the mystical shadowy New World Order organization "Global War Party" of being responsible for the assassination attempt. It has been a big story in Georgian news and has also been covered by other regional news. The party has also accused the Global War Party of organizing "bloody attacks against politicians in America and Europe", being behind Attempted assassination of Robert Fico and threats against his life.

Now, I feel it is entirely warranted to have a sentence about this whole debacle in the international reactions section as it is the only instance of a world leader not offering a tradition message of support or condemnation of the attack and naming an alleged perpetrator. I don't feel this warrants being an entire paragraph, but a single sentence should be reasonable.

Georgian prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze accused the "Global War Party", an alleged New World Order organization, of being responsible for this attack in addition to other acts of political violence such as the attempted assassination of Robert Fico and the alleged death threats issued against him.

I feel this should be reasonable. If anyone knows a way to shorten it, I'd be more than fine with it.

Zlad! (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I shortened the sentence to just:

Georgian prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze named the "Global War Party", an alleged New World Order organization, as the perpetrator of the attack. Zlad! (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reaction of PM Wong of Singapore and Requesting the reaction sub-page to be more simplified and clearer

there'z a lot of news about the failed assassination and i hv pm wong of singepore reaction news:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/society-should-never-resort-to-violence-says-singapore-pm-wong-after-assassination-attempt-on-trump

also making a lot of countries with lots of references in a single sentence is kinda messy and hard to pinpoint specific leader(s) of the country(ies)
maybe can consider rearranging into bullet points so that it would be easier to read and pinpoint? Foxy Husky (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

They did that before, but for some reason it was removed. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

ic..... then in this case, maybe just type "dozens(?) (or maybe 'most of international') leaders condemned the assassination attempt of trump" or something

that way messy reaction by every single individual leader will be cleared Foxy Husky (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass Shooting categories

This isn’t supported by RS or the article, which should be enough for editors to stop doing it. This category is wildly inappropriate as for the above reasons alone, and the general consensus is that a mass shooting involves 3 or more fatalities (not including the victim) according to the FBI (and many other sources as cited in Mass Shooting). Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that include injuries? 2 were killed (including the shooter) and 3 or more were injured, totaling 5. See 2024 Kansas City parade shooting for a good example of this. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 08:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

That's still 4+, which meets the minimum criteria for a mass shooting. Although I will say I can't find an RS, and it may be best to remove the cats until these injuries are proven to be from Crooks. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 08:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Per our own article on mass shootings and respectable sources such as GVA and MST this is eligible. Raskuly (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that this is WP:UNDUE and instead just categorization and as you said, there is no mention of "mass shooting" in the article but that is because of the focus on Trump. Categories "are intended to group together pages on similar subjects" and since respectable sources such as GVA and MST classify it as such it would make sense to include it. Raskuly (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

See #Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s on this page, where this was talked about at some length (for the record I agree that these categories do not make sense). jp×g🗯️ 08:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

ushering "in a dark new chapter of political violence"

Just because one publication wrote this sentence, doesn't mean it belongs in the lead or even in the article. If it really has to be in the article then it should be along the lines of "The Axios website wrote that this event 'has ushered in a dark new chapter of political violence '".

To support the way it is included now, there would need to be a consensus among several RS. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Raised his fist - mentioned five times in the article?

The article mentions Trump raising his fist after the shooting five times, which may unintentionally emphasize it as a patriotic gesture. This repetition not only skews the neutrality of the article but also assigns undue significance to a single action. For a balanced and objective portrayal, it would be prudent to either reduce the frequency of this mention or remove it altogether if it does not add significant information to the narrative. Instead, a more comprehensive view of his actions, including the repeated insistence on picking up his shoes, should be presented. Such adjustments would ensure the article adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines by avoiding the overemphasis of specific gestures that might be interpreted as patriotically charged. Worstbull (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Numerous news outlets and the most prominent photographs talk about him raising his fist and nothing about pumping his shoes. The article simply says he pumped his fist for multiple seconds, which is exactly what he did and what news outlets (like Reuters cited) say. Bill Williams 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous news outlets talking about him insisting on getting his shoes: https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/assassination-attempt-donald-trump-unfolded/story?id=111915028, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/donald-trump-pennsylvania-rally-apparent-shooting-1235948085/ Worstbull (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, buried in the articles and not featured prominently in a single news story. The fist pumping is, however, and is shown in all major news outlet photos. You're adding some patriotic angle when it's basic facts and notability. Bill Williams 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's being mentioned four times in the article, this is clearly biased. Worstbull (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've found 70 articles from the past hour alone, and multiple of them highlight Trumps call for his shoes. Examples with let me get my shoes being the headline: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-trumps-comments-just-after-shooting/, https://www.the-sun.com/news/11915975/donald-trump-rally-shooting-shoes-sniper/, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-s-last-words-before-and-after-shots-let-me-get-my-shoes/ar-BB1pW3Zo, https://radaronline.com/p/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-donald-trump-comments-assassination-attempt/

There are even T-Shirts being sold already, with the slogan "LET ME GET MY SHOES". Worstbull (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Three of these are sources that we are not allowed to use as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Many news sources are focusing on that fist pumping, so it must be mentioned. Perhaps remove it from the lede, however. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Many news sources talk about Trump insisting: Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes also. Worstbull (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. That should be mentioned in the "Shooting" section as well. It is not as prominent as the fist pumping, however. Here is one of the few direct sources mentioning it that I found: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13632127/donald-trump-shot-rally-words.html. Daily Mail isn't the best... Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Point taken. When the article is more stable in 24 hours I will make an attempt to add it if it already hasn't been inserted. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some whataboutism doesnt change that publications like Reuters highlight in the first few sentences that he pumped a fist, while zero highlight anything about his shoes in the first few paragraphs. Bill Williams 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you search for any? I've found 70 articles from the past hour alone, and multiple of them highlight Trumps call for his shoes. Examples with let me get my shoes being the headline: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-trumps-comments-just-after-shooting/, https://www.the-sun.com/news/11915975/donald-trump-rally-shooting-shoes-sniper/, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-s-last-words-before-and-after-shots-let-me-get-my-shoes/ar-BB1pW3Zo, https://radaronline.com/p/let-me-get-my-shoes-microphone-captures-donald-trump-comments-assassination-attempt/

Either way, there is no justification for mentioning this four times in the article. That's clearly biased, adding undue significance to a single action. And needs to be cleaned up. Worstbull (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's even a T-Shirt already on sale, featuring the slogan "LET ME GET MY SHOES". Worstbull (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm now veering off-topic a bit, but don't take that as a sign of much. You can slap stuff on shirts really easily and it's a staple of right-wing politics. Especially for Trump. There's an article on it here: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9798887440286. "Click to Edit" by Alex Lukas. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If the fist bump gesture is included so should the gesture he made directly after this on his way off the stage be. 2600:8801:9B0A:8D00:ADCD:12CC:83EC:5435 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Add injured spectators to diagram?

The graphic showing the locations of trump, secret service, and shooter is great. We should consider adding the shot victim locations to it if we can find an RS with that info. Video exists of two wounded spectators being carried off the bleacher between trump and the shooter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible accidental reversion

Hey, @Harizotoh9:. Did you mean to revert my addition of a "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation" section? I'm assuming it was a mistake. But if not: I'll revert, since I've already used my 1RR today.

I definitely think the vast swathe of social media misinformation and conspiracy theories should be mentioned, at least in brief.

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)!

"Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight shots"

Were all these shots from Crooks? Does this count take into account the secret service firing back at him? The audio of the incident shows a group of shots, a pause, then another group of shots. The second group of shots might be the secret service. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I wondered this as well. I think it should say that eight shots were fired, but not attribute to who. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The NYT article cited states that the 8 shots were all from Crooks, based on audio analysis that isolated the distance of the gunfire and the consistency of the AR's shots. Both the first round of three and the second of five shots were fired approximately 330 to 390 feet from the C-SPAN microphone Mr. Trump was speaking into. That location was consistent with the location of the suspect’s body. There was no significant difference between the sound of the eight shots, which suggests that they likely came from the same firearm, Mr. Maher said. The Secret Service sniper team that shot back used a rifle packing a bigger punch than a .223, maybe .300 win mag, was closer to Trump, and thus should be more distinct. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Good info. In that case we should probably keep as is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

“International” section

The “International” section in the “Responses” should be cleaned up drastically, it’s more just a huge, one-sentence list. At the very least, bullet points should be added. Lordseriouspig 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I summarized it to only country names and removed individual names of government leaders. User:WoodElf 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"near the event's magnetometers"

I guess there were some kind of airport security metal detectors? Please explain what is meant. 2003:C6:3742:EEB8:8C09:30D:D977:8BC1 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t know why metal detectors are being called magnetometers. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Slovenian politicians reacting to the assasination attempt

https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/slovenska-politika-pretresena-v-demokraciji-ni-prostora-za-nasilje/714785

somebody qualified can add slovenian politicians to the list of Reactions:International leaders Pipi Skoda (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Outdated OpenStreetMap data on diagram

Hello, although I have already posted a similar message to this on the Commons talk page of the file, the diagram of the attempted assassination is not correct. The AGR buildings in the image are not all separate as the image shows, but instead they are connected by a corridor system, which may have been used by the shooter to jump from building to building by using the tops of them. Could this be corrected? Thanks. Cutlass^Ciera 18:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

on www.openstreetmap.org the building is fixed - building layout was fixed 2 hours ago, so somebody can now grab new screenshot and fix the picture. (if the building does not load immediately you have to refresh the page) Pipi Skoda (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Path of Bullets

Can a subsection be added about the paths of the bullets with a custom illustration similar to ? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGScpgVCXoAAtpfw.jpg 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Time

Sources seem to conflict on whether the shooting took place at 6:11 or 6:12. Which time should be used? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

References

reports he was struck by glass, not bullet

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.

---

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

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

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

Keep in mind, this keeps getting asked, and it also keeps getting removed. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

I am not using twitter as an article source, but it is valid for discussions

it has not been confirmed he was struck by a bullet soibangla (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that he was, while no reliable ones are saying glass struck him. Bill Williams 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind is that Trump himself stated that "the bullet rip[ped] through [his] skin". Slamforeman (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump does not qualify as WP:RS when it comes to things he has no knowledge of. He only knows he was hit by something. Bricology (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

the article never states that Trump was hit by a bullet, only that he was injured

yes, but only because I changed it soibangla (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine for now then. Thanks and I guess we'll update as more info comes out. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, the teleprompters look intact after Trump is shown to be bleeding 2607:FEA8:E2E3:C300:F3C2:AB9B:7A1F:507B (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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. ^Falling_Gravity 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are changes being made based on twitter posts from Newsmax reporters, citing reporting from Newsmax? Unreliable sourcing nested within unreliable sourcing.

Sources describing shot to ear:

USA Today, BBC KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

None of the photos indicate flying glass. One even showed a streak past Trump's head that was descipbed as the bullet, The broken glass speculation is just that - non-evidenced speculation. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

it has not been described as the bullet that struck Trump, except by some who have erroneously deduced and conflated that

the photo is notable only because the photographer caught a speeding rifle bullet in midair by shooting at a 1/3000th of a second shutter speed. very impressive shot, but otherwise irrelevant.

there were multiple bullets and there remains no public evidence Trump was struck by any of them, despite many reliable sources reporting he was shot in the ear. and despite the plethora of cameras recording the scene, there is no Zapruder film here. soibangla (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times photographer Doug Mills took a photo that captures the bullet streak of the ear-shot. Ikmxx (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Source? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This streak, identified by a retired FBI special agent. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

it is one of the bullets and passed by Trump but there is no indication it made contact with him soibangla (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to review WP:RSBREAKING. A great deal of early information about this even that has been published in normally reliable sources will prove to be incomplete or inaccurate. Attribution is important here. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

no evidence the photo is of any ear shot. it is notable only because a rifle bullet was caught in midair after passing Trump, with the 1/3000th of a second shutter speed Mills was using soibangla (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"I'm inclined to go with the mainstream sourcing here and ignore the Tweets by a WP:NEWSMAX reporter."

This is REQUIRED by policy. YoPienso (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Citation 6 sufficient to source "Trump was shot"?

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.

---

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

This article only quotes Trump on Truth social stating so. Separate from the speaker and site's credibility overall, in all cases I wouldn't necessarily take such a statement as definitively credible compared to a scenario I've seen (no better sourced) reported that he was hit by glass shrapnel from a shot teleprompter screen

the time before now that I checked AP was maintaining language that it was unclear if Trump had been injured by a bullet or in the response

now AP and BBC both seem to be preferring "Trump says he was shot" over separately affirming that as a fact

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

If sources do not endorse it as fact, we shouldn't either. "Trump says he was shot" would be preferred. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a reliable source now. This should not be removed: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/sounds-multiple-shots-heard-trump-rally-pennsylvania-video-2024-07-13/ --TocMan (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

that his the same source that was removed

it states it as a fact in the headline but provides no support in the body beyond quoting Trump saying so on Truth social

while admittedly, I would think doctors at hospital would have clarified the matter to him, it is far from impossible that he could be genuinely convinced he was injured directly by a bullet and also be wrong about that fact (e.g. having been hit by glass shrapnel or having heard a bullet and then sustained injury during his and SS response in quick succession)

the source of his injuries presumably _will_ be established on public record sooner or later, but has not been to several major media outlets' satisfaction

(and while I am by no means an expert, photos I have seen do not seem clearly consistent with a bullet wound, with his auricle seeming intact and source of bleeding unclear) Donald Guy (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters is a reliable source. Until we have other sourcing, which may come out, this should hold. TocMan (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSHEADLINES is relevant. Reuters says Trump said it. Kingsif (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The body of an article is categorically not a subheadline --TocMan (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

But an opening summary statement that precedes the article starting can be. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

that said the CBS News story currently on the matter https://www.cbsnews.com/news/possible-shots-fired-at-trump-rally-in-butler-pennsylvania/ does not see fit to go any stronger than reporting that Trump says it Donald Guy (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

_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)

and the reddit post that purports to be that and Mills' next 2 exposures* apparently shows blood on his hand after touching his ear prior to ducking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/

(*which may be present on NYTimes.com as well, I do not currently have an active subscription to check behind paywall)

if that sequence is published by NYT (with captions that corroborate as such), that is probably an adequately primary source to satisfy my skepticism in the absence of more definitive statements from elsewhere Donald Guy (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the first paragraph reads: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally." C F A 💬 03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Al Jazeera: Donald Trump has been shot in the ear

Axios: former President Trump was shot in the ear

The Guardian: Crooks, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, fired off shots — one of which grazed Trump in the ear KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

All of these statements are based on Trumps, because there is no actual evidence as of now. They just started shortening "Trump says he was shot in the ear" to "Trump was shot in the ear". None of the articles have any kind of evidence other than that. Axios, Newsmax and TMZ got sources claiming it was glass (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-was-hit-by-glass-fragments-not-a-bullet-report/, https://twitter.com/jeffgoldesq/status/1812272053040615873), though the Axios reporter later deleted their tweet. (Also both teleprompters appear to be intact, but the glass could be from elsewhere) The New York Times had an expert comment on the image showing a possible bullet flying towards Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html?), but there is no definitive evidence confirming it was a bullet, until Trump, law enforcement or his doctors release an official statement. There are guidelines regarding citogenesis, are we really incapable of handling a bunch of generally reliable sources running wild with the same piece of evidence trying to outdo each others headlines and not doing the best possible wording during breaking news?

The lead should state is as a statement from Trump, the section in the article should include the NYT piece and say it was likely a bullet, but we can't take the other news pieces at face value when they aren't citing any new sources. — jonas (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to follow independent, reliable sources. There are clearly very many trusted sources reporting he was "shot in the ear." Whether or not it has been confirmed by the FBI doesn't really matter to us. Your comment above is mostly synthesis based on things you've seen. Until reliable sources reasonably start contesting the fact that he was shot, we have to follow what they are saying. C F A 💬 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The shooter was outside the rally, but he was within earshot.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@CFA based on that, synthesis could also look like this "Trump claims he was shot, some media reports that he was shot, authorities have no yet confirmed he was shot". Not to mention that your statement on reliable sources completely ignores WP:RSBREAKING which exists for this very reason, reliable outlets reporting on breaking news using incomplete information still get things wrong, and an encyclopedia should be more cautious. See also Wikipedia:Breaking news sources. At least this article will get to be another example for the essay. — jonas (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"...former President Donald Trump after he was shot at at a campaign rally..." -CBS News, less than an hour ago.

It's still being reported after 2 days. This isn't breaking. Amthisguy (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSBREAKING applies when the sources are actually breaking the news (i.e. directly after the event). Not two days later. The sentence you mentioned would not be synthesis because it is not you forming a conclusion based on what some sources are reporting. Rather, it's just stating what a variety of sources are reporting. There is no WP:OR analysis: Trump claims he was shot (one source), some media reports that he was shot (other sources), authorities have not yet confirmed he was shot (other sources). C F A 💬 17:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Trump felt bullet go through ear

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.

---

We usually shouldn't take politicians at their word for much, but I think we can make an exception for someone who experienced this firsthand: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-rally-incident Bremps... 02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

It is supported in the body. It reads: "Donald Trump was shot in the ear during a Saturday campaign rally, streaking the Republican presidential candidate's blood across his face and prompting his security agents to swarm him." C F A 💬 03:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

To be precise it is _stated_ in the lede. it is not supported. support would involve additional information Donald Guy (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that they are going to have an underlying ballistic report on Trump's ear being released anytime soon. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

But if this photo sequence was in fact published in full by NYTimes (I don't currently have an active subscription to dig through; have only seen the first one republished by CBS News):

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1e2q931/the_photograph_sequence_of_the_bullet_that_hit/

and shows like this reddit post version blood on Trump's hand in the instant before ducking, that is a pretty good direct proof of cause of injury Donald Guy (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Donald Guy this can all be summarized as saying nothing short of signed statements by a doctor is sufficient to prove a bullet caused harm, even in the precense of shoots fired, photos of the bullets passing by, photos of the damage, and the lack of any competing explanation for any of this. Bjngobkngo (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean at this point i mostly concede, because of, for example, the (unlikely) high speed photographic proof.

but no, i think you are mischaracterizing my objection and standard of proof:

what I wanted was _any_ sourced quote from any credible second individual [including an anonymous source of a credible news organization] (casually) stating it as a fact, which up to the point i stopped looking for it I never found, which seemed odd.

The notion that it was glass shrapnel persists as something (apparently spuriously) also reported and i'm sure will make more appearances on this talk page.

And especially before more was known public ally about the position of the shooter based on early photos, it seemed equally probable the minor injury might have been sustained in the response to the gun fire rather than being caused by it. Donald Guy (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

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

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

 Done C F A 💬 02:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

It was confirmed by the Secret Service. A mass shooting is a shooting where there are multiple victims. Your number of 4 is completely arbitrary. C F A 💬 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass shooting (see definitions). I realize WP is not useful for defining this either, but the sources cited are. Also, what WP:RS has reported this as a mass shooting? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Kcmastrpc (talk) Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Dont we have a Rfc about the definition of mass shootings somewhere? Trade (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trade Apologies if it isn't an acceptable source, but I've found that the FBI defines a mass shooting as one involving three fatalities (excluding the perpetrator):

https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting?utm_source=perplexity Ambndms (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be re-added I think. The categories seem to have been wiped a few times. Macxcxz (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a mass shooting. It's not being reported as a mass shooting. It doesn't meet any common definition of a mass shooting. Amthisguy (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It meets the definition set by the Mass Shooting Tracker organisation, Stanford University MSA Data Project and the Gun Violence Archive, all of which are accepted as definitions on the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 article. In fairness, no reliable source has explicitly called this incident a mass shooting, even if it may meet some of these criteria, so I can understand this exclusion. Macxcxz (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Besides, is it really comparable to something like the Ulvade shooting where several people were killed and dozens of others wounded? LordOfWalruses (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• How about we wait to see if the other victims were accidental shootings by law enforcement. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed with Objective3000. Plus, when the term "mass shooting" is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people? We know so little about the shooter's intentions now, and while his death makes it impossible to know all his thoughts, investigators may be able to learn a good deal more. If this man's intention were only to shoot Trump, and the other victims were shot accidentally (e.g. he mis-aimed, or the bullet that hit Trump continued on and hit someone behind him), it really shouldn't be categorised as a mass shooting even if there were four victims. If Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 2020s

I added this template at the bottom of the article because it qualifies as such according to several sources, yet it has been removed twice. To me it seems like an appropriate thing to add as it has been so far reported that there were at least five casualties. One attendee was killed, two attendees were injured, Donald Trump was injured, and the perpetrator was killed. Excluding the perpetrator that means there were four victims of this attack which meets the criteria of the definition of a "mass shooting" as described by sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, and Stanford University.

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

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)

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)

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)

In the US, a "mass shooting" is usually defined as at four least gunfire victims in a single incident. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I know it doesn't, I am just saying that the exact intent is also unknown. Raskuly (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems Trump may have been hit by glass debris caused by the gunfire. I think that counts too. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't understand how this is a violation of NPOV or RS as our own article on mass shootings would qualify this incident as such. GVA and MST have both listed this incident as such. Raskuly (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s no way of knowing the shooter’s intentions this early. The shooter was killed fairly quickly after opening fire. He may have intended to continue shooting at other people for all we know, had he not been killed. To assume this was solely targeting Trump is based on no evidence whatsoever at this point, even if it is very likely Trump was the main target. Macxcxz (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the train of thought that the shooter had to intentionally fire upon other people other than Trump for this to qualify as a mass shooting. Raskuly (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait for "sources such as Mass Shooting Tracker, Gun Violence Archive, and Stanford University" or other sources to report it as a mass shooting. Your original research doesn't belong on wikipedia Amthisguy (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I can’t speak for the others, but the Mass Shooting Tracker did classify it as a mass shooting. See here. Macxcxz (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Gun Violence Archive, not Mass Shooting Tracker Macxcxz (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

MST and GVA have already and Stanford University no longer compiles this. Raskuly (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Copying my comment from above. When the term "mass shooting" is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people? We know so little about the shooter's intentions now, and while his death makes it impossible to know all his thoughts, investigators may be able to learn a good deal more. If this man's intention were only to shoot Trump, and the other victims were shot accidentally (e.g. he mis-aimed, or the bullet that hit Trump continued on and hit someone behind him), it really shouldn't be categorised as a mass shooting even if there were four victims. If Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby. Nyttend (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"When the term 'mass shooting' is involved, doesn't it indicate that the shooter attempted to shoot multiple people" No, it indicates that a high enough number of people were shot. "f Oswald had shot several times just to increase the chance that he'd hit Kennedy, and each bullet had hit a different person, we wouldn't call it a mass shooting just because unintended victims happened to be nearby." Why not? Raskuly (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

These categories have been added again, despite this not being widely described as such by WP:RS, an actual comment in the article cat section, and there not being consensus for their inclusion. Could another editor please remove per WP:ONUS as I don't want to end up at ANI for edit warring. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a mass shooting

No source is cited for this being a mass shooting as stated in the info box. The most broad definitions of mass shooting that I'm aware of require either 2 people to be killed, excluding the perpetrator, or 4 people to be injured. There are dozens of news articles. None of them are calling it a mass shooting. Please edit. Amthisguy (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. There are multiple discussions where this has been noted and it's clear there is no consensus for this to be added (and as you pointed out, reliable sources aren't calling this a mass shooting). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Our article Mass shooting says A mass shooting is a violent crime in which one or more attackers kill or injure multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm.. It says nothing about deaths being required for an event to qualify. The very name of the term includes "shooting" not "killing"... Trump et al were in fact shot. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm exasperated. This is a mass shooting per respectable sources. I would not expect most news outlets to refer to this incident as such given that there were only four victims and the majority of the spotlight is being cast on Trump. Raskuly (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Consider opening an RFC, multiple editors have disputed this, there are scant reliable sources on describing this event as such, and WP:ONUS is clear here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am simply following appropriate definitions and attempting to categorize this article appropriately. I don't see why a news outlet has to necessarily refer to this attack as a "mass shooting". I will create an RFC. Raskuly (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn’t conduct original research per WP:OR. This discussion is spread across multiple sections so please collapse and redirect to the RFC if you decide to open one. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've decided not to open one because I am just done with this. I've never been so thoroughly mentally exhausted by something on Wikipedia before, I do this for fun not to be told I'm doing original research when I am not. Since when was citing sources original research? Raskuly (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Another reason is because I believe once the "hype" dies down the article will eventually be properly categorized and I see no reason in fighting for it when it seems inevitable. Raskuly (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Complete White House statement by Biden

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

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

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

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

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

Added as blockquote in article. User:WoodElf 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Starlighsky (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

sources that report he was shot

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.

---

• 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."[1] soibangla (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Guardian says he was, "(...) fired off shots — one of which grazed Trump in the ear" (Also, this might be better to discuss in one of the prior discussions on the topic.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

though "Trump appeared to have been struck by something in the area of his right ear"[2] soibangla (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Ditto for BBC: hours after a gunman shot Trump in the ear KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

16 RS vs the 8 remaining ones on your list, (excl unusable Fox News). Please self-revert. I believe I've satisfied your standards. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.”[3]

which explains why many sources are holding back for now soibangla (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

my concern is that some sources may be adding 2 + 2 and getting 3:

shooting + blood = shot

groupthink happens, especially in a crisis

law enforcement has not confirmed this

let's wait until we have decisive proof. for now, all we know for a fact is that his ear was injured. soibangla (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So you’re doubting the reliability of all 16 very reliable sources above? It’s not really our problem if all of them made a journalistic error; we’re just supposed to report what they say. Also, WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. C F A 💬 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's not pretend these reliable sources actually investigated if a bullet hit his ear or a shard of glass (they did not, Al Jazeera does not have access to Trumps ears, so counting them is kinda nonsensical). Even RSes report something quickly, with the information available at the time, and later have to improve their article when more information emerges. Polygnotus (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're interested in an investigation, the NYT did an analysis here. C F A 💬 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's be patient, pretty sure people more qualified than a NYT journalist are investigating the incident in minute detail. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, we only have dozens of journalists and citizen journalists monitoring the before, during, and after of the event, multiple HD perspectives of video and photos, HQ audio from a microphone positioned right in front of Trump, analysts available to these newsrooms to examine the entire incident, and common sense. It appears that was sufficient for multiple RS to state in their own words that Trump was shot after a sniper shot at him, a bullet wound subsequently appeared on Trump's ear, and Trump grimaced and reached for his ear, alongside a photo of a bullet passing by him right at the same time. What exactly is behind this glass theory that keeps cropping up? That a round hit a midair beer bottle thrown into the air, which somehow none of the countless witnesses and cameras captured, and then a superfast shard of glass sliced Trump's ear, that was also not witnessed by anyone? KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the claim was that it hit an autoprompter. Common sense says that we don't know what exactly happened yet, because we do not work for the agencies whose job it is to know. But they'll figure it out and then tell us. Polygnotus (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There were countless eyes and cameras trained on the stage with the teleprompters. If they got hit in that first shot, it would not be so hard to find a trace of that in RS reporting. Like I mentioned with the multiple perspectives above though, we do have such photos available and published. Here is a closeup of both teleprompters from the AP, showing they are clearly intact. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

TBH I am just going to wait until some 3 or 4 letter agency has completed their investigation because they (e.g. secret service) have access to resources we do not have access to. I was just trying to make the point that journalists, even those who work for reliable sources, are fallible humans who have not investigated Trumps ears. Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

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.

---

why is call like that? JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose instead? C F A 💬 23:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Because that seems to be what the event was.

If your suggestion is on the grammatical side, let's say "Assassination attempt of Donald Trump", this could be confusing, as the "of" could indicate that either Donald Trump was the target, or that he was the perpetrator. Even if the latter is an unlikely interpretation, I think the current page title is best, per WP:NATDIS.

Let us know if you have any particular suggestions, though.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Assassination attempt on Donald Trump JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you suggest this over the current title?
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think not same as other title from Assassination attempt famous leader JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, this would majorly go against consistency policies.

Compare: [4] [5]

So, if you wanted this kind of change to be made, it wouldn't just affect the current one. This would be a much bigger discussion.

I don't think you'd be able to get a majority vote on this, at least for this specific page, unfortunately.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

what about a change to International leaders Section JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That section is about reactions to the event, not about related attempts. But See alsos exist.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

yes, but I want more detail with flag JNOJ1423 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

International leaders Section, I think it should be more detail like other famous Assassination attempt JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

How long was the AR-15 barrel?

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.

---

Oswald shot Kennedy from 265 feet away. Crooks was shooting about 400 feet with 5.56 ammo. How long was his AR15 barrel? It's probably 16 inches but could be anything from 10.5 to 20 inches. Please see: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/07/14/trump-shooting-gunman-father-ar-15/74401175007/

and https://sdi.edu/5-56-barrel-length-ballistics/

We should be able to confirm or compare the velocity expectation with the photograph which captured a travelling bullet if we can get the shutter speed. Alternatively, if we assume a 16 inch barrel, we should be able to calculate the shutter speed of that photograph. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a question pertinent to skill. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The physics as captured by photograph are objective. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven is right: everything you've written above is WP:OR. If there's anything specific you want adding to the article, you're going to have to say plainly what it is and supply sources that back it up. — Czello ^(music) 14:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, by generative AI: https://chatgpt.com/share/a6f84e6e-36cc-4db7-9906-f004ff379876 141.239.252.245 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Barrel length does affect velocity, but will have diminishing returns and even start slowing down if it’s too long. The length of the bullet appears to be about a foot, not 2 feet. The exposure of the photograph is reported to be 1/8000 of a second. This obviously doesn’t add up, but I would assume the metadata would lean closer to 1/2500 or 1/4000 at most as that makes the most sense for what we are seeing and normal velocities. But we are getting into some serious napkin forensics here, and it probably isn’t that serious. The only thing this would prove is “this velocity is way too high” which doesn’t even make sense or matter. It’s probably a normal velocity and we aren’t getting the full story on exposures. If it’s an ar15, which I doubt there’s any reliable source even backing that up as everything is said to be an ar15 in these stories, I’d say it’s either 5.56/.223 or possibly .243 or .308 if it’s actually an ar10. Those are the most common I’d say. Joellaser (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I’ll state it here. That is not the bullet that hit Trumps ear. The photo is confirmed to be 1/8000 of a second. The photographer was within 15 feet of trump based on photos of where the photographer was. The only way any of this makes sense is if the bullet was between the photographer and trump. About half the distance. This would give the bullet an actual distance in the air of about 4 or 5 inches, which works out to the velocities you would expect to see. In fact, I’d say it entirely possible it’s a round from the Secret Sevice from the other roof. With that exposure time, that cannot be the bullet that hit trump in the ear. Joellaser (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is still all WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your source for 1/8000 second shutter length? 141.239.252.245 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Chatgpt is not an RS, but it does nicely illustrate one of the issues, at what velocity was the bullet fired? 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• This doesn't matter. The weapon can hit a target at that distance. The user got actually impressively close considering they had basically no experience. Anyone familiar should know that ~150m isn't that difficult if you have eight tries. GMG^talk 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Jurisdictional issues, Secret Service vs. Penn. State Police

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.

---

Please see https://old.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1e4289v/if_it_isnt_the_consequences_of_the_my_gun_laws_i/ 141.239.252.245 (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Random tweets or reddit comments are not reliable sources Q ^{T C} 00:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC).

I am not suggesting quoting or citing the original tweet, but I am suggesting that it raises a very serious jurisdictional issue. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If it comes from a reliable source, we can consider it for inclusion in the article. Otherwise, this disucssion is just a FORUM issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

And apparently, I ran into said source just an hour later...

The Agr building was not inside the secure area guarded by the Secret Service, which required members of the public to pass through a metal detector before entering. While Secret Service officers monitored the event inside the secure area, police officers from local township and county departments were assigned to secure the outer perimeter, The Post has reported. Officials said it was typical for the Secret Service to assign local police this responsibility, but that plans for securing the perimeter are structured and signed off by the Secret Service and are ultimately part of the overall Secret Service security plan for the event. [Over a dozen paragraphs later] An executive at Agr International, which manufactures quality control equipment for the bottle industry, told The Post that the company had worked with local police before the event on security matters. Police blocked off public access to the company’s parking lot and that space was available for law enforcement use, said William Bellis, the firm’s chief financial officer.

Seems like it was the police's jurisdiction, but that the Secret Service is ultimately responsible for how the security is handled through their security plans. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Tweet from a disbarred felon with no connection O3000, Ret. (talk)

Excuse me, but how does the law license status of anyone raising issues have to do with the validity of those issues? 141.239.252.245 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, thanks for the note, I can write a more professional administrative note if you want: "literally who?" This is a screenshot of a tweet on reddit. jp×g🗯️ 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, an IP editor wants to cite Reddit, thank goodness for locking pages. Scu ba (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In "Shooting" section, change "...drove an car..." to "...drove a car..." Harveyhiestand (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Typo on the "On social media"

The first word, 'the' has two Ts. It should only have one. JMM12345 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Civil unrest?

The link "political violence in the United States" at the top of the infobox links to a list of instances of "civil unrest" in the US. I'm not sure what happened yesterday is exactly an instance of "civil unrest"; it seems to be an isolated act by an extremist individual. JDiala (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Omit subjective sentence "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event"

This line is subjective: "News agencies described Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the event ". It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.

The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s already a lot of hedging in that sentence, it’s hard to say it’s subjective (and certainly isn’t in Wikivoice). Still, you have concerns that the selected sources don’t represent all news agencies, which is a fair concern. This can be resolved with in-text attribution — naming the news agencies being sourced. The sentence could also be rewritten to be less clunky and remove the SCAREQUOTES, e.g. it could be "X and Y news agencies reported that many people considered Trump a martyr after the event." Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that opens the door for more opinion and subjective comments if we were to outline all the biased headlines on all sides of the aisle. Ms.britt (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's front-page news on The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, Axios, and more. It's indisputably notable and should be in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't set a precedent for adding endless comments; standard of inclusion is still measured by in this case WP:DUE, regardless of how the content is written. If other views are not prevalent in sources, they're not given prominence. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly right, it needs restated, @Kingsif:. KlayCax (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)

I сould dare to ask for adding the mention of the world-wide known photograph taken by Doug Mills with the bullet's path visible millimetres away from the Donald Trump's head. The articles fully dedicated to this photo were posted by Australian, British, American, German and Russian mass-media. (!!) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

original 'The New York Times' article; also it was mentioned that the photo is 'a one in a million shot and nearly impossible to catch even if one knew the bullet was coming'.[11]

The image went viral as 'one of the craziest photos ever' [12]

sincerely, K. M. Skylark (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many photos we wish we could have. Copyright is the major question. JDiala (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think K. M. Skylark was requesting we add information about the picture to the article, not necessarily include the picture itself. A sentence could probably be added somewhere considering the media attention it has received. C F A 💬 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's ear" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald Trump's ear has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Donald Trump's ear until a consensus is reached. Un assiolo (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead is misleading

It reads as if Trump is currently the President. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup; edited to replace "45th" with "former." Levivich (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't donate to ActBlue?

It appears that the perpetrator possibly didn't make this supposed 15 dollar donation back in the day, but it was another Crooks https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897 I don't have enough activity to do any editing on the article, but I would suggest that people who can edit the article and are curious about this will look into it. --Carius (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the donation and the zip code matches with the street where his address was confirmed to be located on. All of the other people by the name of Thomas Crooks in Pittsburgh have different ZIP codes. Cutlass^Ciera 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The AP citation for that fact doesn't in any way refer to the donation. This has been debunked. YallAHalla☎ 23:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reflist|20em

Alalch E.,

Reflist|20em is not (in your words) terrible. It, or something close to it, is necessary. There are already over 100 citations listed in the references section. Reflist|20em is not some strange, obscure, unused solution to the issue. It is quite common and can be found in many featured articles.

I am sure it was not your intent, but reverting my edit with the comment "no this is terrible" smacks of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Let's work together to solve the issue of compressing the lengthy and still growing reflist.

Best, Kingturtle = (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was 15em (diff), not 20em, and looked terrible on my monitor, with way too much whitespace. 15em is good for shortened footnotes, but just isn't reasonable here. It makes the references take more vertical than horizontal space. They were much harder to read. 20em could be okay, I will implement that, if you haven't already. Sincerely —Alalch E. 14:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. 20em is indeed okay as far as I'm concerned. —Alalch E. 14:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ty for compromising :) Kingturtle = (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

20em is a poor choice, which is generally used with short form references rather than the full cites used in this article. It's a poor choice as it displays poor formatting on some displays. 30em is the standard used for full cites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Subjectively, 20em feels okay to me, but yes, you are entirely correct. 30em is the standard for full cites. @Kingturtle: I think that you could be mixing up the width used for full citations and shortened footnotes. Also, narrowing the columns does not "compress" the reference section, it actually makes it take more space due to more unused space between the columns —Alalch E. 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no need for 20em here. Recommendations for column width can be found in the {{reflist}} documentation, and it says that 30em should be used when there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection. That's certainly the case here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it "colwidth=20em"? Does reflist really just parse our fine if you give the param as {{{1}}}? Have I been living a lie? Has the corporate liberal fake-news media and/or conspiratorial right-wing misinformation machine been suppressing the truth about reflist params from us true Wikipedian patriots? jp×g🗯️ 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's all a lie, {{reflist|2}} doesn't specify two columns but just sets |columnwidth=30em. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is now 40% text and 60% references listed. This needs to be addressed. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of places where multiple references are being used, removing redundant references and only including the strongest ones should help with this.

I'm not sure whether ever country needs to be listed in International leaders, which constitutes more than 25% of all the references in the article at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Unprotected: new users please try to behave and read the other sections before you open a new one

Okay, well: I have un-semiprotected this talk page (I don't see the original protection in the log, last entry is from 2020 so I suspect something weird happened during the move). Please, anons and friends, use this opportunity in a smart way. Hopefully a bunch of people do not immediately post a giant amount of stupid crap here and make me look like a moron for doing this, or else I will probably have to end this hobby of unprotecting controversial talk pages. jp×g🗯️ 11:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why on earth was the talk page semi-protected anyway? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For the first couple of hours after the event, both the article and the talk page were an unusable shithouse -- as in, you literally couldn't save an edit for tens of minutes at a time -- so I think some level of protection was warranted at least for the first little bit. After that, yeah, I think it was probably unnecessarily strict. jp×g🗯️ 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Insertion of possibly undue framing to the lead section

@KlayCax: inserted the phrasing to the lead: "Political scientists, historians, many Republican political figures, and some Democrats pointed the events as a sign of profound political polarization in the United States, and there was widespread criticism made against heated rhetoric that Trump was a potential dictator. The events led to widespread sympathy for Donald Trump on social media..."

The first time this was added and I removed it, I found that the given sources did not support this claim and in fact one (Axios) was a reused source having nothing to do with it, another (NBC) made clear this was a claim made solely by some Republican politicians, and a third (Scotsman) was an op/ed by a Liberal Democrat from Scotland. Maybe this claim is true but can we scrutinize this? I saw more sources were added to it. Is it due to be in the lead section if so? VintageVernacular (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the biggest problem I have here is probably the fact that the first (political polarization) and second ("heated rhetoric") parts are blended into one sentence which implies, and then even outright claims, the criticism of rhetoric is so "widespread" that it's more than just Republican politicians saying it according to the given sources, which as far as I saw isn't true at all. VintageVernacular (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think these four points should be clearly communicated + can be found in 100+ sources:

• World and domestic political figures (including from the left) overwhelmingly denounced the attack.
• Trump was widely seen as a martyr among conservatives.
• Historians and political scientists saw the events another example of polarization and the normalization of political violence in the United States. Heated, often hyperbolic rhetoric also contributing.
• There were widespread calls, including from Congressmen, for increased security among the major presidential candidates.

I agree with you that the sentences should be split, @VintageVernacular:, however, for clarity reasons. I'll do that now. Ian Bremmer and other historians/political scientists have explicitly stated that we're in pretty unprecedented waters. At least since the 1960s. So I think the present, uniquely unstable domestic political situation within the United States (vs. other G7 countries) should undoubtedly be mentioned. KlayCax (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And since we're talking about both domestic and international relations. I think a comment from a Liberal Democrat from Scotland is fine. KlayCax (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's important to note that these sources don't necessarily represent a widespread consensus among all news agencies. They are reporting on a perception or trend they've observed, rather than stating it as an undisputed fact across all media.

The data provided from various credible news outlets do not provide any information supporting the claim that news agencies described Donald Trump as being widely seen as a "martyr" after the assassination attempt. The provided sources focus on the details of the incident, the response from law enforcement, and the immediate aftermath, but none of them mention Trump being described or widely viewed as a "martyr" by news agencies. Therefore, the statement cannot be verified. Ms.britt (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's 8+ sources that state such. That's as near as close to a consensus among major news agencies that you'll fine. Has any disputed it or stated anything else that would put it in doubt, @Ms.britt:? KlayCax (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the 8 sources for review to keep this objective, or perhaps clarify that 'Conservative news agencies and opinion writers'. Most news sources have not claimed or adopted the martyr narrative. Ms.britt (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service identifying rooftop as vulnerability before rally

via NBC. Worth including, but not sure where is best. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"many left wing accounts"

the source doesn't list any left wing accounts let alone "many" that were sharing conspiracy theories that Trump didn't get shot. 2606:9400:9FA0:2E50:4D8D:7194:FA8A:44A8 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

After the "fist-bump"

Shouldn't a description of his extended right arm from the shoulder into the air with a straightened hand following his fist-bump fight fight fight action as he was ushered away also be documented? 2600:8801:9B0A:8D00:ADCD:12CC:83EC:5435 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As well as his repeated call for his shoes. Let me get my shoes! Let me get my shoes! as it shoes how confusing the situation was. Worstbull (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"extended right arm from the shoulder into the air with a straightened hand"

There's a more concise way to describe this. Many people refer to it as "waving." At the risk of bringing in original research, I can report that I've even done this myself when encountering someone I know. I've also seen politicians direct such a "wave" at a crowd when they enter or leave a venue. I understand that it's a pleasant greeting of sorts. 2601:3CB:502:29E0:193A:C17A:84BF:9B28 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)