:::In response to CNC’s statement about using RS above, I should have cited both the Tweet (primary source) and a news article for a secondary source. That said, now that Adolphus79 has also stated the tweet is “meaningless”, we still need this conversation as we now truly have a split consensus on whether the U.S. Congressional investigation actually has merit for this article at all. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::In response to CNC’s statement about using RS above, I should have cited both the Tweet (primary source) and a news article for a secondary source. That said, now that Adolphus79 has also stated the tweet is “meaningless”, we still need this conversation as we now truly have a split consensus on whether the U.S. Congressional investigation actually has merit for this article at all. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Canvassing or not, SPS or not, I would still be asking you this same question after you added it a third time, to another statement of which is it completely unrelated... my comment of "meaningless" is because, of the two statements you have added this same tweet to, neither of them are mentioned anywhere in the tweet... why is it so important you are willing to war over it? - [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] ([[User talk:Adolphus79|talk]]) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Canvassing or not, SPS or not, I would still be asking you this same question after you added it a third time, to another statement of which is it completely unrelated... my comment of "meaningless" is because, of the two statements you have added this same tweet to, neither of them are mentioned anywhere in the tweet... why is it so important you are willing to war over it? - [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] ([[User talk:Adolphus79|talk]]) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::“Another statement of which is it completely unrelated”. Excuse me??? LOL! So to you, the U.S. Congress saying and I quote, “While U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle refused to answer most of the questions asked of her today… She thinks that the assassination attempt was “the most significant operational failure at the Secret Service in decades,” yet she still believes she is the best person to lead the Secret Service… She ADMITS to multiple lapses in security under her leadership of the law enforcement agency” ''does not relate'' to “security scrutiny”? This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Just casually a situation mentions “multiple lapses in security” and you legit just stated it is unrelated to the security of the shooting. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was, given your replies here. With all respect for you as an editor, please drop out ([[WP:DTS]]) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2024.
Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm
I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a topic for an article about Elon Musk's political donations as it stands. Besides that, we need to wait for someone to say that Musk is doing his usual nonsense. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning)00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 193 countries on earth, each with many leaders. Javier Milei and Benjamin Netanyahu saying they offer condolences do not have lasting impact on politics. Unless the media hyperfixates on any specific leader's comments, they are trivia or clutter. We have set a very low bar to entry by allowing one line responses from even previous world leaders. When we mention Biden's responses, that is because it is an extension of the US government's attitude and because it will be highly covered. The same will likely not be true of Kier Starmer. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are politicians mouthing platitudes. That is the job of politicians, and deserves no more mention than any other non-encyclopedic topic. Abductive (reasoning)01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of a single realistic scenario where this would be necessary. The point remains that we need to prune this section down to three or four sentences max. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reactions of world leaders are relevant. The reactions of former world leaders (e.g. Liz Truss, who was in the office for less than two months), and Opposition Leaders (e.g. Pierre Poilievre) isn't. Luminism (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you on that last part. Hopefully we can get more support so this doesn't turn into WP:WAR. I beg to differ on the first part, and I suppose we'll have to wait and see what others have to say. Again, my reasoning is that their thoughts do not impact politics in either country. This is a national event, and unless/until other countries take it as a cue to update policies or treat the US a different way, this is politically irrelevant. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responses section is the largest section in this article at 12,983 bytes. It is continuing to grow because we are allowing additions too liberally. Please use this area as a discussion section for this topic. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few edits trimming down this section. It appears to be a bunch of copy paste tweets and other irrelevant information. The primary topic of the article is the shooting not the reactions. SKAG123 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people are disagreeing with you on this. RFK needs to be the subject of like two NYT op-eds about this specifically (even one) for this to be notable. It will take months. Same for Elon. Right now they're just some schmucks. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But have they actually lent that heavy influence? Musk can say that he likes an anime today. If we don't see a spike in people watching it and talking about it crediting him, he has no connection. His PAC donations are an interesting lead, but they precede the shooting. Only if he donates more now will it be notable. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions. Right now, it is at what I hope is the peak size. 17k bytes is excessive when nobody is doing anything more substantial than saying "sending love and prayers xoxo such tough times" Ornov GangulyTALK16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see a reactions section, I see a responses section. And the responses by politicians is quickly bordering on lunatic fringe. Seriously, claiming the radical left and the corporate media is working together? And claiming Biden should be held responsible? Just total lunatic fringe nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the lunatic fringe is what has more longevity here. People are talking about them disproportionately. We're keeping RFK off unless he suggests that the CIA tried to kill Trump. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a separate page called "Responses to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump" which would have all the responses collected on it. This page would be reserved for the "big ones." BootsED (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in anyway astonishing or even notable that politicians are chiming in to say that they are against people shooting at politicians? Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Hardly any reactions besides those of Biden, Harris, Shapiro, and maybe Trump's core team are notable on their own. They set precedents for political relations and local rule. If we make another article just for this, it would be pointless and begin a debate there about how much is too much in an already unnoteworthy article. Ornov GangulyTALK17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did previously endorsed democrats. But he never was a democrat politician. He just was an investor trying to get political support for his investments.
It is only in the past few years that he began to make statements about politics on a very regular basis, even more since he bought Twitter. And during all this time, journalists always described nearly all of those statements as leaning towards Trump. Dumbleporte (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add comments from Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver
Comments from the Oliver should probably be added to the Responses category.
Might read something like "Libertarian Party presidential candidate Chase Oliver extended well wishes to the former president, saying 'Political violence is never the answer, no matter how divided we may be.'" Abbyfluoroethane (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a WP thing about how it's easier to keep adding to an article than to trim it. There's no discussion with them often because they don't go to the talk page, but if we remove it, it'll become a huge thing. Ornov GangulyTALK17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the reactions section is a long paragraph. I suggest we make it a table and then if I understand correctly a map can then be autogenerated of the nations with responses. ItzSwirlz (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is a very effortful workaround to a problem that exists only because we are ignoring the discussions here to keep adding international reactions. This should be two sentences maximum until and unless a foreign leader makes a substantive change to their own security as a result. Georgia is possibly the only exception to this rule because they are making huge political claims. Ornov GangulyTALK17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way, way, way too long, and efforts to discuss it are being ignored
The reactions/responses section continues to grow rapidly. Since yesterday, I would argue that progress has been made. The intro paragraph is good, Trump and U.S. Officials' reactions give due weight and are relevant, but the International leaders and Others sections are a bit wanton. Why do we care about Broglio? Evidence of people listening to these influential people or them making substantial contributions to Trump's campaign are the only things that would validate mentioning them.
43,717 bytes. 19k of which are just the international reaction. This is absurd.
Elon donated money to Trump before the shooting, but right now he is offering platitudes. Endorsement here is not meaningful because he has already endorsed Trump on Twitter. Why does Bezos even matter? They need to do more than speak. The President earns a mention because his words set a precedent for the country, and because he is caught up in the accusations of conspiracy.
International leaders are not doing anything about the shooting, nor are they offering anything but words to Trump. Irakli Kobakhidze is the exception, undue weight be damned, because it is part of his conspiratorial politics. Who cares what Finland thinks? Israel is not changing their policies based on this. People can find this information any way they want. We have set a horrible standard in allowing everything in. This section should simply be "Many heads of state condemned the shooting. K-I-S-S.
Much of this section will undoubtedly be merged into the Conspiracy theories section once time passes. Let's set standards now because editors are avoiding the talk page and just putting more information in. Ornov GangulyTALK20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. The reactions and conspiracy sections, especially the international reactions section is entirely too long for the article. Should we move them both to the same article or to separate articles?
If it's notable that "Trump was seen by many Americans as a living martyr after the event", it is also notable that many Americans expressed regrets that he survived the attempt. Is there any particular reason for which we are limiting information about the public reaction to views that are considered savory in mainstream politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.89.202 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, the only people saying anything publicly along the lines of "I regret the shooter missed" are either 1) retracting it quickly after due to blowback, or 2) not exactly notable people that Wikipedia should cover? I also haven't seen any credible sources saying that it's a widespread view.
I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say I don't know know anyone who is happy the shooter missed. Granted, I mostly know queer people who are staring down having all of their rights being stripped in away in the next four years because this guy couldn't aim slightly to the left, and for whom this all feels a bit 1933. I think it makes sense that it's hard to find news sources reporting on this, but it's not hard to, e.g., browse through the latest posts with the #KillTrump hashtag on X and find this sentiment being expressed, despite censorship and fear of recriminations. Somewhat more difficult is finding the same sentiment being expressed more covertly, because obviously it's hard to search for it by design, but there's a good deal more of that. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are deviating widely of what is expected of wikipedia and its editors.
I understand that. It is a frustrating restriction, though. It means that I read this article and am presented with the impression that America unanimously and vociferously celebrated the moment when the fate of me and everyone I love was set in stone; that no one was afraid for us; that we ourselves cheered on as the man empowering the people who want us dead escaped the consequences of his actions unharmed. I thought that this country would always be a safe place for me to live. It is becoming clear that in fact, it would throw me and everyone I care about under the bus to avoid discomfort. 32.216.89.202 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article serves as one, though, because it reads like a press release from the Trump campaign. It may as well begin, "Everyone on Earth adores Donald Trump and fully supports everything he does. Here are a hundred or more pieces of evidence to that effect." 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reframe this issue in a way that might be more helpful. Considering the second pillar, how does Wikipedia deal with the issue of the available sources not affording a neutral point of view? If it is the case that "a viewpoint is held by a significant minority" but it is not "easy to name prominent adherents" - as in this case, where the possibility of naming prominent adherents is less viable for fairly obvious reasons - how does Wikipedia handle that? 32.216.89.202 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in my last comment below, if RS comment on it we can, if RS do not we can't so find some RS comments on this, or get the policy changed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where has Trump said he wants you do die?
I'm talking an original quote. Considering how mainstream media even on both sides distorts pretty much everything, an original quote with day, time and location where he said it would be good.
Also, as a general rule, I never wish anyone dead. Even people who outright hate me. I very much hope every one finds the true source of Joy. Nickalh (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Donald Trump is a narcissistic bigot and an enabler of the worst evils this country abides. This is akin to Hitler dodging justice during the Valkyrie plot. I would imagine that a lot more people feel this way in private than the niceties of public discourse might have one believe. George Mucus (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned to others here, Please read wp:soap
If you see a "not nice" reaction that has RS, we can consider adding it. It likely wouldn't be unless the person is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue for us to include it, it would have to be sourced to RS saying it, thus they have noticed it, thus we should, if it can't be sourced to RS this is just soapboxing and needs hatting. So it is down to those who want to include something about this to find RS backing up their edits, or dropping the stick. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 have to disagree with this statement, the photo of Trump with his fist in the air in undoubtedly a powerful moment in American history, but worry about backlash shouldn’t be a reason for the photo to be taken down by any margin. In my opinion, the best option should be to leave it up regardless. 2601:80:CC01:97D0:3444:8183:AAE9:5E87 (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I question the use of this image as fair use, and also it being "the image". We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here. I'm also not seeing this photo very consistently - a lot of news sources are using other images, such as [3], [4], [5], and [6], all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We should try and see if we can get someone to release an image into the public domain/creative commons to use here." Any images taken from the event would be valuable. Why would anyone give it up for free? Trade (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn’t be a good excuse to take it down at all, the author of the photo clearly didn’t take the opportunity to copyright the photo after the photo was taken, instead people have been using it left right and center, and if the original author of the picture wanted it removed, they would have done something about it by now. 2601:80:CC01:97D0:3444:8183:AAE9:5E87 (talk) 20:03, 21 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]
@Jcoolbro I think the consensus here is clear that the usage in the infobox isn't supported, and I don't see what an RfC will add given the mess the FFD discussion has become with people who aren't used to working with copyright. I can go through the article history later to ping those restoring it to get them to contribute, but I can't really work this out on mobile! Mdann52 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a stable image on the page? Maybe through an RfC? The image has been replaced again, this time with an obvious copyright violation that is just going to be deleted on Commons. CFA💬19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please count me as being extremely strongly in favor of any image arrangement whatsoever -- I do not care even slightly -- so long as people quit slapboxing each other moving the pictures around constantly, and the pictures quit getting randomly removed over and over. jp×g🗯️07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA.Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA. I've found some footage which is probably more illustrative of the assassination. It shows Trump being escorted to his car by the secret service right after the assassination attempt. The footage was provided by VOA (I found it on the Albanian channel so thats why the text is in Albanian) and was not attributed to an external source, so as far as I am aware it is the most illustrative free content recording of the event. Perhaps it should be placed at the top of the article instead?
Anybody is free to edit it and remove the watermark. But even with the watermark, it's still highly relevant to the article and should be included. ―Howard • 🌽3313:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The clip was used in the video without attribution in the form of a watermark, whereas every other clip in the video was attributed to the respective providers (AFP, Reuters, etc.), so I assumed it was created by VOA themselves. I will try and see if any original of this video can be found. ―Howard • 🌽3313:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can restore it no problem. The YT video is under a CC license, but it also includes a boat load of obviously fair use content. The VOA thing only covers content that is the original creation of VOA. GMGtalk13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Howardcorn33: Yeah, you gotta be careful with YouTube. A lot of the stuff is just uploaded by some intern or something who doesn't necessarily take into account things like fair use or derivative works. GMGtalk14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing raised-fist photo
Per WP:NFC#UUI number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). Ergo, we should remove the image of Trump pumping his fist from this article right? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussions here about the use of the image seem to have stalled for over a day (not long in the general Wikipedia case, but long on this high-attention page), and the point you raise is valid. Yes we should remove the image from here so long as the image has its own article. This is a copyright concerned, and ought not be overruled by people's liking of it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't there just need to be a second NFCC template at the image's information page? Fair-use images can be used in more than one page, can they not? jp×g🗯️06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp -- it looks like there IS a second NFCC, so I don't think there's a fair use basis to remove it from here. I am not familiar with the proper channel for disputing an improper NFCC rationale so I cannot give any guidance on that (I mean, maybe it is talk page consensus, who knows). jp×g🗯️06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that the image is used in another article, it's that it violates WP:NFC#UUI number six in the most straightforward and plainest of words possible. [Using a fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).TheWikiToby (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
..through a magical cocktail of chance and Vucci’s excellent eye, this scene with the close-knit human group under the stars and stripes echoes Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph of US Marines Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima in 1945. Both pictures portray an embattled collectivity with the stars and stripes triumphant above them. A similar scene was invented by Emanuel Leutze in his 1851 painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. This photograph joins those timeless patriotic images. It would not be the same without Old Glory. The American flag is the best-designed in the world, its abstract beauty striking and poignant in any setting. Here it is surrounded by violence and fear, as in the US national anthem: Trump makes his defiant call to fight on with the star-spangled banner perfectly situated parallel to his fist.
Presently, we don't explain why the images were praised, and a short explanation for why seems entirely WP: DUE for the article.
There should be some explanation for why the images were classified among the greatest works of political photography ever. Vox, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other news organizations have gone and made similar statements. Would you be okay with wording that gives an alternative description of the ideas portrayed in the paragraph? This is obviously a concept that deserves at least a brief mention and I'm open to suggestions. KlayCax (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an overreliance on quotes and I see you've done the same (and had it objected to) on Vance's bio. Not to mention this is the article on the assassination attempt, not the article on the photograph. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, to my understanding, there is still zero evidence that a bullet ever touched Trump. Now, I'm not saying I believe that, and there's a really convincing video that was uploaded the other day that shows how Trump's ear was hit by a bullet, but other than Trump saying "I was injured by a bullet", there's no evidence, and the article should mention that. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If news sources are wrong due to lack of evidence, it's still not the editors' job to comment on that lack of evidence. I will add that wikipedia is not a race toward some imaginary finish line. Certain facts can take a while to emerge and getting ahead of ourselves is just bad practice. Ultimately, whether he was hit by a bullet or a piece of glass is a barely important fact compared to basically everything else in this event. Yvan Part (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. The pattern goes like this: Event happens; sources are published; many sources disagree; sources eventually converge over a period of time to a single, unified narrative, although this can take longer than usual. Within that unified narrative, there are subnarratives indicating how each narrative came to be. The notion of a paper trail, which includes medical records and professional opinions about Trump's injury are part of this narrative. We've discussed many times over the last several decades what to do when sources are wrong or make unusual claims. We are not stenographers, and we do have the ability to pick and choose sources and modify the narrative so that it aligns with what we know to be true. Just because a source says the sky is green when it is clearly blue, doesn't mean we have to print the sky is green. We have choices, leeway, and agency over how we write articles. But let's cut to the chase: was Donald Trump shot? Do most sources agree on this point? What do they base this claim on? Is it just Trump and his people saying he was shot, or do we have good evidence? (Someone said there's actually a photo of the bullet in the page history of the iconic photo upload; no idea if that is fake, but it's there, I looked). What do the medical records say? Have they been released? These are perfectly normal and legitimate questions for us to ask and to answer here. This is entirely within our remit. With that said, given the authenticity of this photo, from where I stand, this is open and shut. It does appear that Trump was hit by something, and it's safe to conclude it was likely a bullet or fragment of something the bullet hit based on what we know. I think it's perfectly reasonable to go into this kind of detail in the article, explaining that we have photos of the bullet, for example. That way the narrative isn't based solely on what Trump is saying, but is constructed by a multiplicity of converging data points. That's my position, at least. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not proof that Trump was shot with this projectile or any other. This photo shows a projectile in flight, nothing more!! And if you look, you will see that the projectile would hit below the ear, but Trump was wounded above the ear. Then there's the perspective. The projectile can fly one meter behind Trump in the photo. You can't see that in the photo (2D). If you were to compare the video of the assassination and look for the spot where Trump has exactly the same posture as in the photo, you would have proof of which shot (first, second, etc.) this photo was taken. As far as I know, Trump's ear injury was caused by the first shot. And since there is a piece of glass in Trump's ear, I would say that the assassin hit the TV screen with the first shot. According to the media, the assassin was a bad shot, so it is quite possible that he missed Trump by half a meter at 130m and hit the TV screen. Luckily, he was a very bad shot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.197.71 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broken glass doesn't travel that fast, it probably would crack absorbing most of the force and drop quite slowly. A bullet however, wasn't stopped and hence caused great damage to Trump's ear. Cormio (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done: It's been in the article for the better part of two days now—to support the statement that the glass theory is false. —Alalch E.16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, fact check, who wrote it, the guy who stitched up Trump's ear in the hospital? This doctor or the doctor's report is currently the only real fact check. The article claims that small pieces of glass were shot. But there are witness statements that say something different!! And we have this picture with a high pixel shot of Trump's ear directly after the assassination. And there is something in the ear and it looks like a piece of glass. And since this photo exists in high image quality, the question remains: is there a piece of glass in Trump's ear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.206.35 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image taken by I think a NYT reporter showing the bullet just before it hit Trump, it was travelling at a very high speed (as bullets do) and it looked nothing like glass. There is no glass involved, just a crazy leftist conspiracy theory. Cormio (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing your own research, which is out of the scope of what you/we should be doing here; please see: WP:NOR
The glass theory has been debunked many times. If you have new reliable sources with new evidence there was in fact glass, by all means post them. There isn't. Hella say hella (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Counting Jackson nephew among the wounded
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.
Several days have passed since the Trump shooting. No-one other than Ronny Jackson has asserted that Crooks shot a fifth person, namely, the grazing of Jackson's nephew's neck by a bullet fired by Crooks. This assertion has been widely published in reliable sources, but the only source is Jackson. There is no independent confirmation by law enforcement, government, doctors or journalists. Even the nephew and his parents have remained silent. The four named shooting victims (Trump, Comperatore, Copenhaver and Dutch) have been confirmed extensively by independent sources. I am concerned that the nephew is being included as a victim on the slimmest of evidence. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (should not be counted among the wounded) and omit entirely from the article. The sourcing isn't there. The best we can say is: "According to Jackson, x maybe happened", because he himself says merely that "something" grazed his nephew's neck (a bullet or a fragment of a bullet or something grazed his neck ... very minor injury not a big deal), and that's not a noteworthy fact. Probably many people were injured in some way in the commotion. Someone maybe trip and fell and hurt their wrist, etc. These things are not worth mentioning irrespective of how certain and verifiable they are. —Alalch E.12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. At best, we see Ronny as a self-published source, not usable for BLP information of other folks (such as his nephew); no one else has put it in their voice that I have seen. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those articles say that Jackson said his nephew was grazed by a bullet. They do not explicitly say that he was. That is the best we can say; anything else is speculation and certainly not appropriate in a WP:BLP context.. News articles are repeating what Jackson published himself. It is just a self-published source. CFA💬14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This has bothered me since its insertion. It's an unproven assertion from an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it's removal but I'm just curious what you mean by "an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor". Is Jackson the operative and Trump his benefactor? Raskuly (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I added this originally in the early "fog of war" and it has not been corroborated outside of claims by Jackson, even if the claim was published in respectable sources. Should the claim be included in the article as potentially have happened, yes in my opinion, but it should no longer be included in the total injury total for instance. Raskuly (talk) 18:18, 19 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.
Note four police officers among the victims?
WPXI (11 News) in Pittsburgh reported at 4:50 p.m. on July 14, 2024 that "four Pittsburgh police officers assigned to the former president’s motorcade yesterday suffered minor injuries during the shooting." The piece adds:
"The four motorcycle officers were part of Donald Trump’s escort to and from the rally in Butler.
Sources tell Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets.
Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.
They were treated at the scene. They were okay to escort Trump back to the airport in Pittsburgh last night after he was treated at Butler Memorial Hospital."
I don't know if the source is considered reliable enough, or if the injuries would be considered severe enough, to mention, but I'm sure wiser and more experienced contributors here can decide that.
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.
WP:CALC doesn’t explicitly specify calculating injuries. This is a more nuanced and subjective topic that requires consensus by editors, regardless. It seems easier and far more reliable to leverage official reporting for these figures. This is a very notable event, so it’s not like it’ll be hard to find sources to cite.
Given that we’re here, discussing “how injured does one need to be to meet the criteria of being injured” is just going to result in multiple editors arguing about the criteria — pointlessly. This seems like something that lives right outside “almost always” clause. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but a slight cut is not quite the same as being dead, so whist this can (maybe) be mentioned, I think losing them as victims along with fatalities or serious injuries is a bit much. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we mention the drone Crooks flew over the rally site hours prior to the rally (which was reported on July 19, 2024)? It was also reported that a drone and drone-related equipment was found in Crooks's vehicle. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per additional source: "The aerial surveillance appears to be another in a series of security failures that allowed the gunman to nearly kill the former president.
It’s common for the Secret Service to ban drones over areas they are securing, although it’s unclear if that happened with the Butler rally."
Or maybe wait for additional information to come out, possibly post House Oversight Committee hearing with the Secret Service Director on Monday. If it is important, it's likely to be mentioned then. Hella say hella (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better post current results of congress special team assebled with best investigators from states. Homeland Security rather can not investigate itself. 173.26.112.39 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless. Less falacy or "too slopy"? Make section independent ivestigation (II).
Independent Ivestigations
move folowing from conpiracy hipotheses to new section:
Following the attack, some people criticized a statement Biden had made earlier in the month[234] during a conversation with other Democrats: "I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump... It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."[255] More than two dozen Republicans blamed the shooting on Biden,[256] including[235] Texas representative Keith Self, who argued that his language had incited violence;[257][258] Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said "Democrats wanted this to happen";[235] and U.S. representative Mike Collins, who made the unsubstantiated claim that Biden "sent the orders".[259][260]
stop ridicule elected oficialas calling for independent investigations as 'conspirators'.
"Congress is moving quickly to launch investigations into the Trump assassination attempt" PBS. Elected Representatives has duty to oversight unelected gov. they can set set special investigators with special investigative teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfgyrus i reverted your changes because of the following reasons:
removing emphasis on Crook in opening statement.
Title of the article is attempted assassination. No need to repeat itself in opening statement.
Where trump is wounded needs to be clear in opening statement - plz do no bury it down the lead.
Please see [[7]] - other attempted assassination is also written in similar fashion Astropulse (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's an article about an attempted assassination—not an article about someone getting his ear hurt. Your edits entirely erase that reality. Nowhere in the lead is the phrase "assassination attempt" now used, which deliberately trivializes and downplays the incident, presumably for ideological reasons, because otherwise it might evoke sympathy or support for the target. The reality is that Crooks' goal was to murder a former president and current presidential candidate—but those who are repeatedly removing "attempted assassination" or "assassination attempt" from the lead wish to downplay that and make it about an injury to an ear. Selfgyrus (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about emphasizing the gravity of the situation, but the lead should balance clarity and conciseness. The title already states “attempted assassination,” and repeating it in the lead may not be necessary. Instead, detailing the nature of the injuries and the context of the attempt can highlight the seriousness without redundancy. Our goal should be to present a clear and factual account without losing focus on the event’s significance.
My intention is not to downplay the event. It is important to mention that Trump was shot and wounded, and it is crucial to specify where he was wounded. Please refer to the articles on the attempted assassinations of Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt for similar writing styles. As stated, the title of the article is “Attempted Assassination,” so there is no need to repeat it. Our focus should be on providing clarity, not glamorizing the incident. Astropulse (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Astropulse. I appreciate your reply. I did look at both the articles on Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt, and both do mention assassination attempt in the lead. Opening sentence of the Theodore Roosevelt article: "On October 14, 1912, former saloonkeeper John Schrank (1876–1943) attempted to assassinate former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt while he was campaigning for the presidency in Milwaukee, Wisconsin." I actually modeled my opening sentence of this article on that piece, but you reverted that, saying the emphasis should not be on Crooks in the opening sentence (as the emphasis is on Schrank in the Roosevelt article) and removing any reference to attempted assassination (despite other examples). Both situations are very similar in that both Roosevelt and Trump were shot while giving campaign speeches, so I don't understand why they need to be handled differently. Selfgyrus (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, calling this an assassination attempt is in no way "glamorizing the incident." It is simply a factual statement, widely reflected in numerous reputable sources. If someone takes multiple shots at the president, narrowly missing killing him by a couple of inches, that's the very definition of an assassination attempt—and refusing to describe it as such is downplaying the seriousness of the incident. Selfgyrus (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This invocation of WP:NOTFORUM is stupid and wrong. A source is expressly being discussed. That said, I would agree that while it may somewhat mix the motive of the shooter, it still describes an assassination attempt. I don't see why a crime couldn't be both a spree killing and an assassination attempt. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Slatersteven has been around long enough to know Wikipedia policy on sourcing, and if trying to start a debate based not on what the source actually says, but by directly contradicting it isn't using the talk page as a forum, I don't know what is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like what, it was just a coincidence that he happened to fire every shot specifically aimed at the one guy? I mean -- there is a reason linked article doesn't go so far as to say it, because it would be gobsmackingly stupid for them to do so, even in an article that's already making absurd bent-over-backwards contortions to find some reason to mention the Oxford guy. jp×g🗯️16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least the way it was reported last night by NBC Nightly, he was presumably trying to see if his parents could be charged with a crime the way that Crumbly's parents were.
Otherwise, a little bit of common sense. Why would you shoot at one isolated target if your intention was to inflict as many casualties as possible? The alternative would be shooting at a target the size of a football field, pretty much guaranteed to hit something with every shot regardless of his aim. GMGtalk18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth noting (a purely subjective observation and not something I'm prepared to substantiate with 900 sources) that news outlets in Michigan have a bizarre fixation on this crime, and are fond of finding excuses to bring it up -- presumably this is a pageviews thing -- I think any kind of specious claim that any event bears shocking similarities to that one is best understood as a fig-leaf to do yet another clickpiece about the Oxford sicko. jp×g🗯️20:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that the other guy was the first time a shooter's parents went to prison. I consider NBC Nightly to be among the most boringly neutral national newscasts. I don't expect they would have drawn that connection out of laziness, partisanship, or sensationalism. GMGtalk23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that news outlets in Michigan have a bizarre fixation on this crime If this is referring to Oxford, then it is because the parents fled and were found miles away from the Canadian border and were later convicted for their actions that contributed to the shooting. If you want a source outside of Michigan though, here is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette talking about the shooter researching the Oxford shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that he looked the guy's name up once, not that they were astral-projection spirit pals or whatever. jp×g🗯️06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not aware of the specific facts regarding the Pennsylvania shooting, the research is very clear that mass shooters often research previous mass shooters. Only seems to be that he was trying to take inspiration from another shooter. Nothing more. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also experienced enough to know that in an event like this it is too early to know or say what happened, and we need to keep our options open for when (a few months down the line) the investigation is over, and we actually know what happened. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it is too early to know or say what happened". It's not it's straightforward: we go by what RS say. If RS change their reporting on this based on new information, we change the content, and this wouldn't be an issue based on WP:TRUTH. If there were alternative theories as part of the investigation they would go to that section, but there aren't. It's real simple. CNC (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move this page from extended confirmed protected to semi protected
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.
Do not merge, but restore redirect Blatant violation of WP:BLP1E and nothing relevant to merge. The existing blurb on him in the article is sufficient. Just roll back to the existing redirect. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. There is nothing in the Comperatore article that cannot be covered in the AAoDT main article. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 21 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.
Completing merge of Corey Comperatore
I have converted Corey Comperatore into a redirect as part of this merge. I do not see any part of that article that needs to be copied here. If others do, please feel free to add content from the latest revision here. Soni (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there now is an article about him, www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/mPPd0v/trump-tilbake-i-valgkampen-uten-hvit-bandasje?utm_source=vgfront&utm_content=hovedlopet_row17_pos1&utm_medium=dre-669c3e06e3bad5949bd23852 , in the largest newspaper in my country.--In some countries he might be considered the most famous fireman in the world (but sources do not say that yet). 2001:2020:355:9920:5941:9E4:86E1:CA20 (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you put geo-location where CC was shot? In precisont this is diffrent location and in article is only one geo place? With geo one can see: TMC balistic or SST3 balistic line? Can it stay as window to conssideration (for now)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Minor details are often excluded unless they have significant coverage and lasting importance. See also WP:NOTNEWS. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Change
Secret Service snipers were likely obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[1]
to
Secret Service snipers on the northern roof were obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the southern roof snipers having to shoot instead.[1][2]
Extend the "staged" conspiracy theories and debunking them with ballistics data and sheer difficulty of replicating a shot to the ear with reproducible results as those were the main tenets of said conspiracy theory. An AR-15 with nothing but a red dot scope and an inexperienced shooter won't be able to chip the ear 100% of the time unless Thomas Matthew Crooks was a supersoldier which he clearly wasn't. Cormio (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We currently say ``He climbed onto the roof of a building around 400 feet (120 meters) north of the venue stage but PBS says ``Crooks was an estimated 147 yards (135 meters) from where Trump was speaking. What is the distance exactly? Forich (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but these facts don't necessarily contradict each other. He could have been 15 metres from the edge of the roof, or 15 metres from the corner that was closest to Trump. I'm not saying he was. The distances seem to be approximate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I guess we are having two ways to refer to the distance: stage to general area of roof, and stage to position where Crooks made the shot. The distance from stage to the general area of roof is around 400 feet (120 meters or 133 yards) and the second distance is, per PBS, an estimated 441 feet (135 meters or 147 yards). Since the exact position of Crooks includes the roof, and is more relevant for effect of the coming ballistic studies, I vote for using PBS' estimation of distance. Forich (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunate quite antisemantic wording. How he climbed 400 feet while usnig 5 feet ladder (according to investigators) he purchased at morning of Jul 13 ? Change the semantic to add 3D dimensions of vertical "climbing" and horizontal e.g. "crawl". Note the ladder on video is much taller than 5 feet and nobody seen him caring such big ladder. Mabe add dim of horizontal 'walking' since his van was towed from from location 12 mil away, as widow of firefighter who intercepted bulet shot at Trump saing. That person (CC) whos WP article were just deleted - see discussion above. Maybe he, more than SS saved Trump life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that a separate investigation section may be beneficial due to the number of calls for investigations into the actual event and the procedures/circumstances that helped lead up to it occurring, such as the case with the JFK page. Additionally, at this time the Investigation subsection is two paragraphs and will probably become more, which could make the Aftermath section too long. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes+.Add what the ivestigators saying on the open window facing Trump (less visible,(third E) on S side of tall Agr building, opened before shoting). soruce cnn youtu.be/5z84JvteJaE?t=129. Note cnn edited the video - ligtspot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath is that which happened afterwards and is causally related to the event. The investigation happened afterwards and is causally related, and so investigation is aftermath, not the whole of it, but a quintessential part of it. Putting it outside of the "Aftermath" section, as as an equal-level section, indicates semantically that the investigation is not among the things that happened after the event, and that is a false statement. It is illogical. An exception can be made for more remote phenomena such as reactions, legacy, historiography etc., but the investigation along with the immediate aftermath of Trump being evacuated is the next most proximate causally linked thing in the aftermath, and it is the prime and core element of the aftermath. So as long as we have the "Aftermath" section, it will be that the existence thereof is justified precisely by including coverage of the investigation, and when we remove the investigation from "Aftermath", then the "Aftermath" section is no longer justified and should be dismantled into constituent parts. So yes, we can also not have "Investigation" as a subsection of "Aftermath", but only if we do not have "Aftermath" in the first place as a discrete section. What we can't have is equal-level sections named "Afermath" and "Investigation". We could have "Immediate aftermath" and "Investigation" as equal level sections as in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, however. —Alalch E.14:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted 83d40m's removal of Trump being shot
I restored the article to before 83d40m (talk·contribs)'s mass removal of text stating that Trump was hit by a bullet. Reliable sources state that Trump was shot. Unless and until that changes, don't reinsert such edits. This unfortunately undoes several intervening edits that will have to be redone. Ylee (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ylee I've reverted you, only because you also undid a number of other unchallenged edits. Next time, only undo the changes you're objecting to. —Locke Cole • t • c23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing only one change was not possible because of the number of intervening edits, and the huge number of edits 83d40m did removing mentions of Trump being shot. Undoing the intervening edits was not what I wanted to do, but right now the article is in worse shape than otherwise because the edits 83d40m did are still there. Ylee (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is possible. If after twenty years of editing here you aren't aware of how to copy and paste selected text between two windows of revisions to achieve the edit you want, I don't know what I can offer to you. If someone else understands what edits you were taking issue with and wants to selectively restore a prior version, be my guest. —Locke Cole • t • c23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "practical", instead. The number of edits 83d40m made was so great and so scattered throughout the article that it would have been very, very difficult, especially given that because of the high activity level, most edits would clash with other editors' changes and thus need repeated redoings. Ylee (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge this with article of plans of Asian leader to adress congres or art of abandonnig her plan after TAA . That will also narow namespace to prevnet more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sloped Roof Claim by Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle as Reason why Secret Service Weren't on the Roof Used by Crooks During the Assassination Attempt, Manpower Shortages are Inaccurate, and Secret Service Have Primary Jurisdiction Over Their VIPs
Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said in a direct statement during an interview with ABC that the reason why Secret Service were not on the roof used by Crooks in the assassination attempt was due to it being "sloped":
"That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point, and so there's a safety factor that would be considered there, that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof, so the decision was made to secure the building from inside."
Why has this statement not been included yet? It's been 5 days since she's made this statement, and they still aren't included in the article? Can anyone explain why this critical information has not been included? It's literally the reasoning given by the leader of the Secret Service, stated in a mainstream media interview, as to why her personnel avoided securing the rooftop used by the shooter. This is absolutely crucial information.
Currently the article says that "manpower shortages" were the reason why Secret Service agents weren't on the roof, but that is only claimed by anonymous law enforcement sources, not Secret Service, in just one cited article.
It should also be noted that the Secret Service has ultimate jurisdiction over the protection of their VIPs, NOT local law enforcement, regardless of the location. This is established under Title 18, Section 3056 of the U.S. Code:
Therefore, local law enforcement's comments should be given less importance than the Secret Service director's comments, given the fact that they have primary jurisdiction over their VIPs.
Additionally, we should include the fact that the north sniper team were on a roof that had an even steeper slope than the one that Crooks shot from.
Furthermore, Cheatle admitted in a CNN interview that a “full advance” had indeed taken place at the venue, disproving theories that the Secret Service were undermanned and did not have enough resources to secure the area:
To be clear, here are the inaccurate parts of the article that still say that a manpower shortage, rather than the sloped roof, is the reason why Secret Service agents were not on the roof:
"The building housed three police snipers tasked with covering the rally, but none of them were positioned on the rooftop due to manpower shortages."
'This was attributed to "extremely poor planning" and manpower shortages.'
A week later, this information should reflect the Secret Service director's comments about why agents were not positioned on the roof to keep it secure. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are some rather large holes in the article, and that mention of her "sloped roof" defense is warranted (although citing the NY Post would be a problem... there's better sources like the Wall Street Journal). However, she is due to appear before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee tomorrow (Monday) and anything that is added tonight regarding her prior words will almost certainly be completely substituted tomorrow after she appears. I'm personally not going to invest my time on an edit which will be so short-lived, but that's just how I roll. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense, because even if she says something different tomorrow, her initial comments are totally relevant. A government official's comments, even if changed later, should be included.
Cheatle's comments about the sloped roof need to be included regardless of whether she gives a different reason tomorrow i.e. the edits shouldn't be short-lived, because it's literally her first reasoning as to why Secret Service agents weren't on the roof.
It's no different than any other government official or politician that contradicts themselves later. Both Cheatle's initial reasoning, and a hypothetical contradiction tomorrow, are relevant to include.
The reason why I included the New York Post article is because it's the only source where I can find the video of her making the sloped roof statement. No other articles, including the ABC one, include the actual video interview clip of her making those comments to ABC. If anything, the original ABC source should be used, since the Wall Street Journal is paywalled:
It's also important to include Cheatle's comments about a "full advance" taking place, meaning the venue was secured according to Secret Service standards, which contradicts any claims of manpower shortages leading to security lapses. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense, because even if she says something different tomorrow, her initial comments are totally relevant Yes, they are. But a person's got to pick their fights in this life, and inserting text like this would require, I would guess, about a half-hour to an hour of a good editor's time to find the sources, craft the sentence, and then defend their edit on the talk pages objections, and the reversion which would surely occur for an insertion which will last a half a day. There's much more important issues that need to be addressed on this work for anyone qualified to make that edit. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you this, though... if the phrase "sloped roof" does not appear in the article after the hearing today, I will work on inserting it myself. Because I agree with you, basically... I'm just giving you perspective, and maybe the inspiration to get to the point where you can make these changes you see which need to be made, yourself. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, the NY Post is not considered a reliable post, but here's one from today from a reliable source.
So was it the slope of the roof, manpower shortages, and/or confusion/disconnect over who between the Secret Service and local law enforcement had responsibility for what? Was the building actually outside of the Secret Service's perimeter? Was it the Secret Service who secured that building or local law enforcement? We don't know, there's A LOT of conflicting information coming out.
We could definitely include her "initial responses", but's it's not our responsibility to investigate, only to document what reliable sources have said.
Correction, it's not our responsibility to do our own investigations into whether the Secret Service is lying or if they're reasoning doesn't makes sense, only to document what reliable sources have said*.
Timeline, following the media, is at fault massively
The article currently follows media descriptions that Crooks had been on the roof for a long time and seen by the Secret Service Snipers already at 5:52, almost 20 minutes prior to the shooting. This raises the question why they did let Trump take the stage and why they did not do anything against Crooks - and this gives way to the (with that said, plausible!) conspiracy theory that the Secret Service had planned Trump's death. Also it raises the question why Crooks had a free sightline to Trump at the podium for some 8 minutes, and did not fire for no apparent reason.
See many conversations above about why and how this happened. By the way, that source says "Around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before the shooting — the same Beaver County cop spotted Crooks a second time, now on the roof", I find no mention of 6:09. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then scroll down to the (and within the) timeline. The article was apparently not updated in the same way as the timeline, which now says:
"5:45 Crooks spotted scoping out roof A cop... sees Crooks eyeballing the roof od the AGR International building, which had a clear sightline to the podium..."
"6:09 Crooks scales roof Right around this time, Crooks climbed up onto the roof...."
Unsurprisingly, also other and more prestigious media cover the correct timeline already, like the Financial Timeshere:
"6.05pm: As Trump began addressing the crowd, people outside the perimeter fence noticed Crooks. Greg Smith told the BBC he saw someone “bear-crawling up the roof” a few minutes into Trump’s speech and alerted police."
"6.09pm: Four minutes into the speech, Mike and Amber DiFrischia noticed Crooks and began recording him. DiFrischia told CNN his wife spoke to nearby police."
So let him be on the roof already a bit earlier than 6:09, but only minutes after Trump had opened his speech. Anyway our article does not cover at all yet that Crooks climbed onto the roof so closely before the shooting. --KnightMove (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that entitles you to ignore the source for what is written in their time line? Which sources now quoted in the timeline do give a "complete time line", from your point of view? --KnightMove (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When sources have published information on a confusing event which then turned out to be wrong by further research, it should be kindof our thing to get the facts straight. --KnightMove (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're making the strongest case when you lead off by saying you don't even really favor the reliability of the source you're referencing. GMGtalk15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the timeline table, our article currently states
"5:52 A member of the BCESU tactical team sees Crooks on a roof, notifies other security services, and photographs him, the second such incident. Secret Service snipers spot Crooks. Approximately a minute-and-a-half before the shooting, several members of the public report their own sightings to law enforcement officers."
There are six sources cited for this block of statements. The 5:52 time is written only on the ABC News source, which claims "5:52 p.m. Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service", and the WDSU, which explicitly quotes ABC News. So, that's one source. We have not taken over ABC's claim that Crooks had been spotted by the Secret Service. Further, WDSU already qualifies the ABC News statement by writing "on the roof of a building". As you see, our article also qualifies by writing "a roof", not "the roof".
Of the other sources, the older Washington Post article explicitly adresses witnesses "at least 86 seconds before gunfire", not at earlier times. The other Washington Post article states "Guglielmi said that about 20 to 30 minutes before the shooting, local police ... warned the Secret Service security team by radio of a suspicious person with a golf range finder and backpack.", and "WPXI television news reported that the officer called in around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before Crooks opened fire from the roof." The Washington Post does not write about Crooks being on "the roof" or "a roof" at an earlier time.
The BBC article states "A man with a rifle was seen on a rooftop minutes before shots..." based on an interview with witness Greg Smith. If you watch the video, Smith clearly says "...and probably five to seven minutes of Trump speaking, I'm estimating here, I've no idea, you know, but ... we noticed a guy crawling, erm, bear-crawling up the roof..." So, for over one week now we have the evidence reported by serious media that Crooks climbed on that roof only during the Trump speech, few minutes before firing.
I should not have written "following the media". My bad. Our timeline does not follow the media, it violates WP:SYNTHESIS, collecting different claims from different reports into what is a misleading and incomplete timeline.
PS: WDSU explicitly states "Around 6:10 p.m. — After rally-goers notice a man climbing on the top of the roof of a nearby building, a local law enforcement officer climbs to the roof, according to two law enforcement officials." So basically our timeline and the 5:52 claim is based on ONE outdated source, ABC News. --KnightMove (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a few quotes from Cheatle's House deposition
For example:
"In her opening remarks, Cheatle called the shooting the “most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades.”
I may be reading too much into CommunityNotesContributor‘s edit summary, but on the claim that the “In the aftermath, there has been significant scrutiny on the security arrangements, with criticisms directed at the Secret Service for not adequately securing the rooftop from which the shooter fired”, CommunityNotesContributor stated, the U.S. congress (i.e. people literally asking for the director of the Secret Service’s resignation), “is not a reliable source for that claim, not by a long shot”. I really want this explained, since that seems very obvious that the U.S. Congress asking for resignations involve “significant scrutiny”. On top of that, CNC cited WP:RSTWITTER (valid usage), however, that also means CNC is arguing the U.S. Congress would not be a subject-matter expert on the topic…meaning their investigation is not a reliable source. This really needs to be solved and explained. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit, the source is the Twitter account @GOPoversight. While it is tied to the Oversight Committee, it is unclear to me if the account is considered a Government account or not. (Note that it is @GOPoversight. There is a similar handle, @OversightDems for the Democrats.)
That does seem to make it easier to use. But it does seem like there is still an objection to using it as a source. If there are other sources that can be used like CNC just suggested, then it might be easier to use them instead as a compromise. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other reverts were for it being placed in the infobox, not even remotely associated with that sentence. You are the only editor who reverted me for the addition of the U.S. Congress to the security-related sentence. You just pinged two people who didn’t need to be pinged whatsoever. Given both had reverted that source addition for completely different reasons, it feels (to me) like unintentional canvassing, since it pinged only editors who had previously reverted me not for that addition. AboutSelf has absolutely no basis here…unless you want to argue this article is about the U.S. Congress, then by all means, go for it and try to make a consensus from that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the oversight committee, it's about it's members grilling Kimberly Cheatle is it not? Moreover there is widespread coverage of this from reliable secondary source, why not just use them instead? [10][11]CNC (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice this is the exact same tweet that WeatherWriter already added, twice, to the infobox as a ref for the shooter's name (the first time also claiming it said there might be other shooters involved), which the tweet does not mention at all. Now they have added it a third time (awkward characters and all), to another statement in the article, of which there is absolutely no mention in the tweet? Forgetting the WP:SPS altogether, my question is, why are you pushing over and over and over to add this single meaningless tweet somewhere in the article as a ref, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the statement(s) you are citing with it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to CNC’s statement about using RS above, I should have cited both the Tweet (primary source) and a news article for a secondary source. That said, now that Adolphus79 has also stated the tweet is “meaningless”, we still need this conversation as we now truly have a split consensus on whether the U.S. Congressional investigation actually has merit for this article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing or not, SPS or not, I would still be asking you this same question after you added it a third time, to another statement of which is it completely unrelated... my comment of "meaningless" is because, of the two statements you have added this same tweet to, neither of them are mentioned anywhere in the tweet... why is it so important you are willing to war over it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Another statement of which is it completely unrelated”. Excuse me??? LOL! So to you, the U.S. Congress saying and I quote, “While U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle refused to answer most of the questions asked of her today… She thinks that the assassination attempt was “the most significant operational failure at the Secret Service in decades,” yet she still believes she is the best person to lead the Secret Service… She ADMITS to multiple lapses in security under her leadership of the law enforcement agency” does not relate to “security scrutiny”? This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Just casually a situation mentions “multiple lapses in security” and you legit just stated it is unrelated to the security of the shooting. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was, given your replies here. With all respect for you as an editor, please drop out (WP:DTS) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly resolved The 'living martyr' sentence has been removed from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
![[3]](https://gamelow.netlify.app/host-https-www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[4]](https://gamelow.netlify.app/host-https-www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[5]](https://gamelow.netlify.app/host-https-static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[6]](https://gamelow.netlify.app/host-https-media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Thomas Matthew Crooks—has been proposed for merging with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. C F A 💬 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Assassination of Donald Trump 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 22 § Assassination of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)