Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Trump statement

Should we quote Trump's full statement of Truth Social immediately after the shooting in the aftermath section? Link User:WoodElf 16:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should. The current citation only supports the part of the quote currently in the article. This MSNBC article has the whole post. C F A 💬 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I see where you're coming from, obviously his reaction is very important. But I think its better to take out the most important quotes and put those excerpts in the article. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. KlayCax (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be there. There are multiple reliable sources quoting Trump's statement. It is not a long statement. I think that it is giving it due weight to include it in full. JMM12345 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. It's more relevant than reactions from basically anyone else — with the exception of Biden — and far more significant than talking about reactions from Anthony Albanese, Narendra Modi, or Cyril Ramaphosa. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the original statement should be cited. Sroth0616 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Sroth0616 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the full statement.

User:WoodElf 01:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fist image in the article twice

Folks can we at least remove the duplicate? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian: It's already done. The info-box image was just changed. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That was quick! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is back. I agree we should not display the same image twice. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC) The image now appears once, in the infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"2024 assassination attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 assassination attempt 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 15 § 2024 assassination attempt until a consensus is reached. MSMST1543 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of bystanders

So far I've seen news organizations list that the fireman who died took a bullet from the shooter; the other two critically injured are only ever noted as having been shot. Do we have a map showing the locations of the bystanders, and how many bullets were fired into the crowd? I heard quite a few on the video. We're going to get another magic bullet incident where people decide the SS shot the other two bystanders and somehow claim trained SS agents don't know how to handle guns or shoot at a roof. John Moser (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree a map should be created showing all positions, not just trump, ss, and shooter. Joellaser (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders fired a staff member

She had posted negative comments/inappropriate comments about the assassin missing - many RS's reported ... 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6DF4:BA83:E068:136C (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

First off, you should link those RSes. Secondly, that would be undue no matter how much it's covered. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not for taxpayer-paid gov't staff positions - and a simple Google looksee will turn up plenty of links - littering the TP's with that sort of thing is bothersome. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6DF4:BA83:E068:136C (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You were either wrong or you lied, another user below already correct you. Bennie, not Bernie. Zaathras (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was a Bennie Thompson staffer, not Bernie Sanders, and it doesn't seem notable either way. Jamedeus (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume a good faith error and move on to something current. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this the second "attempt at violence" at a DJT rally?

The source for this sentence doesn't say that: "This was the second attempt at violence during one of his rallies: the first was in 2016, when a man attempted to disarm a security officer at a rally in Las Vegas." Is appropriate? Or delete? I feel this statement is too broad. There's no way to know how many incidents of violence have occurred at Trump rallies, let alone attempts at violence. It depends on how you define violence. Seananony (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it could probably use some workshopping. Presumably, over hundreds of rallies in the last decade, there have been a few instances in which two guys in the back slapped each other around a bit, and other such things nobody cares about, so we might want to say something that excludes that. jp×g🗯️ 00:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This was not the second attempt. Just a quick google pulls up more

here’s one

https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-dakota-man-reportedly-admits-stealing-forklift-planning-to-flip-trumps-limousine-to-kill-the-president 2600:1012:B312:5257:5D94:F0E3:E11C:47DE (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. There's a link to the page about that incident right at the top of the page. Seananony (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

International reactions to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump

The International leaders section only includes a list of countries. It seems like it would be better to create a separate article that covers different world leaders and politicians reaction to the attempted assassination. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Either we specify what the actual reaction was, or we don't mention it at all. Simply saying "x number of countries condemned the shooting" without at all specifying what the reaction was (as the section is currently structured) is very suboptimal. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The section originally spoke of foreign leaders expressing "solidarity" with Trump. I changed it to wording about condemning the attack. Even at that stage only on of the five sources said "solidarity". The word didn't belong. It's too political. ut right now, the section is useless. What does a giant list of countries tell anyone? The only notable thing would be if a leader said something unexpected, such as things I've seen on social media, like "Shame he missed". I would drop the section entirely. It serves no purpose. 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The only thing notable about the reaction would either be if the reaction was something unexpected, or if the reaction included more detail than just saying "I condemn this." Gödel2200 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hence why we should remove it and leave a generic sentence in its place. The section is a tumour on the article that does nothing because we have difficulty accepting that everyone has a singular reaction to this event. Ornov Ganguly TALK 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I totally agree with that too. I'd see some better reactions rather than the list of countries. I'd recommend finding some reliable sources that show some politicians' reactions rather than the whole list of countries. PEPSI697 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I updated the section to only include a couple of the more interesting international responses. User:WoodElf 04:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The perpetrator is not a death

The info box should say 2 deaths “including that of the perpetrator”, not “including the perpetrator”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It doesn't even make sense at all to me. According to reliable sources in this article, the perpetrator was killed by the FBI shortly after he opened fire at Trump and failed to assassinate him. PEPSI697 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@PEPSI697 I think they're just arguing about the semantics. "Two people died, including the preparator." Seananony (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Seananony: Ah ok, I see now. PEPSI697 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can whoever's archiving stuff from this talk page please stop for a bit

I have been trying to close old requests and respond to questions on here and every time I click on a section-edit link I am ending up at wildly different sections. This has been going on for like five minutes straight. I've got blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my whatever. Some of these archivers are messing things up and putting sections on the wrong archive page! Can we just calm down for a minute. jp×g🗯️ 04:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@CFA:, can you explain why you archived this section? It seems liked discussion was still ongoing, but it got caught up in this set of manual archives. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: The latest comment was an hour and a half prior to archiving and it seemed most discussion had moved to other sections, like #Trimming down the reactions section, #Musk endorsement, etc. Feel free to move it back if you think it was archived prematurely. C F A 💬 05:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One hour is an extremely short time for that sort of thing. It's about how the page will be structured broadly, and that will have impacts on the future of the page. I think it's probably better to have one thread where editors can discuss that for the long term rather than have a bunch that sporadically pop up. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: I think you might be going a little too hard, there are a bunch of things getting duplicate sections because stuff's being archived while still under discussion. jp×g🗯️ 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have examples? I'd prefer to close newer section and redirect to older if that's the case. CNC (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop with the manual archiving. Close sections that need to be closed. But leave the archiving to the automatic archiver which is currently set to 1 day archiving. I tried to clean up a couple of messes in the 2 archives, but the sections were archived WAY too fast. Also, whoever is doing it, please stop with the unnecessary collapsing. I undid some occurrences of that. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree here -- the page being really long isn't that big of an issue, but it is very annoying to deal with stuff randomly disappearing (or with issues ending up duplicated because somebody unilaterally decided it wasn't needed anymore, and then it was). jp×g🗯️ 05:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for a sketch

A courtroom sketch.

Another courtroom sketch.

There's currently much debate going on about the fair use of copyrighted images of the event. Until such debates are resolved, and in case things are resolved in the 'we can't use images of the event' direction, it would be great if we could get some Wikipedian's artistic representation of the event, a la a courtroom sketch.

I'm afraid I don't have the talent for it myself. If some bold Wikipedian out there felt like making a realistic but artistic sketch of the event, using whatever angle he or she felt represented the thing best, and posted it to the Commons for free use, that would be immensely appreciated. Any Wikipedian out there who feels that he or she has the artistic chops for it, please give it a shot! Such a sketch will probably never be better than a photo, but if we end up unable to use photos, it might just be the next best thing. Joe (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because it seems clunky and a little odd to do so. Also such a sketch would not be notable publicly. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 22:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If a sketch arises... Sure? Interesting input. But we will probably have at least a few CC pictures to use.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. That would rule. Plus it saves us the trouble of copyright. Undue weight however... Perhaps if they take the angle of him checking his ear? ~~~~ Ornov Ganguly TALK 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Teyumbaita sulcognathus.jpg

A Wikipedian's own artwork of Teyumbaita sulcognathus, an extinct animal, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for free use.

Such a sketch would not need to be notable in itself, just representative of the event. See, for example, this Wikipedian-generated image of Teyumbaita sulcognathus: the image is not notable in itself, but it is representative of the subject. I agree that such a sketch would not be perfectly ideal, but it would certainly be superior to nothing at all if the consensus ends up being that we can use no real images of the event whatsoever, as some users (much to my bizarre amazement) seem to be arguing.

Thanks in advance to any Wikiartists who throw their hats into the ring. Joe (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That image is a copyright violation. (Link provided predates upload date). Bremps... 05:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We've had discussions in the past about hand-drawn images used to adorn BLPs, and the problem is that there are WP:OR issues. This is not a good idea. Zaathras (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We'll be bogged down in 20,000 word discussions on whether Trump looks too ugly or handsome in the depiction. Best to leave Pandora's box sealed. Bremps... 01:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of Trump pumping his fist after being shot in the ear

Photograph of Trump pumping his fist after being shot in the ear.

The lead parahraph photograph of Trump should be titled like this . Photograph of Trump pumping his fist after escaping assassination.

Referance

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-rally-shooting-07-14-24/index.html.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd172rp02e0o

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-shooting-raises-questions-about-security-lapses-2024-07-14/

Thanks ND61F (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm not sure this is better than the current caption. "After escaping assassination" is a bit awkward, and stating that he was shot in the ear in the caption adds context for those who look at the image before reading the lede. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@ZLEA "After escaping assassination" is a concise and impactful phrase that immediately grabs the reader's attention and conveys the gravity of the situation. It foreshadows the danger the subject faced, creating intrigue and prompting the reader to delve further into the article. While it might be considered slightly dramatic, the phrase effectively sets the tone for the story and establishes a sense of urgency.

Additionally, including the detail about the ear injury in the caption serves a dual purpose. It not only provides context for those who view the image first, but it also adds a layer of visceral detail that enhances the narrative's impact. This detail reinforces the seriousness of the assassination attempt and helps the reader connect with the human element of the story.

While there might be alternative ways to phrase the lede or caption, the current choices are not inherently "awkward." They serve a specific purpose in engaging the reader and establishing the story's tone. ND61F (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Escaping" suggests Trump did something that kept him from being killed. In no way is that visibly the case. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The focus should be on the fact that Trump was shot at all rather than him not dying. Bremps... 05:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

He ducked. Eight shots are fired, and he might get hit fatally. ND61F (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a reaction. Escaping is like ejecting from a jet as its' crashing. Ducking isn't escaping, it's a reaction to an obviously life-threatening situation in the moment. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Ducking isn't escaping"?. It can be instinctive to duck away from a gunshot in order to shield oneself from possible injury. The most common way to escape is to duck; other options include shielding, running, etc. Ducking is a crucial—and frequently the first—part of fleeing ND61F (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Also what Nat Gertler said below. There's no point in arguing about this (and I don't want to have a debate at 2:50 in the morning), so I'm dropping the stick and stepping back. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 06:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Have a great day ahead ND61F (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I know of no source yet indicating that the bullets hit space he would've occupied had he not ducked, much less been fatal. So, no. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news article. The point isn't to "captivate and hook the reader", it's to provide info across the world in an encyclopedic tone. No need to engage a reader if they are willingly here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Was this text generated by AI? Genuinely asking. Bremps... 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As MemeGod notes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We don't try to "immediately grab the reader's attention" with "impactful phrases". Also, if you need ChatGPT to tell you why your preferred wording is better, maybe you should reevaluate your stance. - ZLEA _T\^C 08:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Section on the photo of Trump either needs to be seriously adjusted or removed entirely.

First off, the whole section feels extremely long winded and tangential, exasperated more so by the fact that this is still a developing article. Secondly, the opinion pieces are not only unnecessary but also heavily skewed in a left-wing point-of-view. What I suggest is either the removal of the opinion paragraph entirely, which would not only present a neutral view of the photo but also more than half the length of that section, or an attempt to politically balance said paragraph.

As of now, all five sources cited in this section are left to left-leaning and have a combined political bias of -14.40 to the left according to measurements done by the leading media bias focused website, AllSides. This is an unacceptable bias for a Wikipedia article. Either we need to remedy this by removing further leaning political pieces and adding more centrist takes or we need to balance the political leaning of the story by removing some of the left-leaning op-eds and adding some right-leaning pieces to the article. This much of a political bias appearing on the article of a tragic shooting in which one innocent civilian lost their life and two others are fighting for theirs is an oversight the lengths of which I seriously cannot comprehend.

In short, I suggest for the complete removal or heavy, heavy, modification of the referenced paragraph. Firestorm0718 (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not remove sources simply because they are biased, see WP:BIASED for more information on how we treat reliable sources when adding content. Whether the section is WP:DUE or not, is a different story. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Both the photo in particular, as well as the general optics of the event, have been the subject of significant coverage from a very wide range of reliable sources. Currently, I find the space devoted to the topic to be adequately proportional. Joe (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't the reliability of the sources. Every source mentioned and cited from in the paragraph is extremely reliable. The problem is that all of these reliable sources are clearly touting a left-leaning bias which isn't present in much of if not the rest of the entire page. Firestorm0718 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

How does it concretely manifest? What's the problem with what the article says? —Alalch E. 09:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Clothing brand of perpetrator

Does the shirt brand of the perpetrator (in this case, a gun YouTuber) need to be specifically mentioned? Has any reliable source made a connection between the shirt and the act? Much is unclear about affiliations and this seem biased and could needlessly cause backlash against an unrelated third party. Joellaser (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We should definitely wait, @Joellaser:. Editors are right now adding any scraps and details that come out. Unless there's a link shown it should be left out. KlayCax (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I added this information and I agree with you, I'll change it to not name the channel. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Newzild added it back for some reason. Can we remove the name again? Joellaser (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joellaser: I'd say yes, we wait for little while to add the clothing brand of the perpetrator. I think you're referring to this diff here. Does anyone else have any thoughts or agree on this? PEPSI697 (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s it. There hasn’t been any new conversation about it. Last it was talked about, it was decided to, at least, leave the name out for now. Joellaser (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Just gone ahead and removed the clothing brand in the article. PEPSI697 (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. It's certainly an interesting factoid, but it might end up being relevant or it might not. As you say, in the meantime it has the potential to make the YouTube guy look like a giant asshole. I think that this stuff should probably be kept to a minimum until there's some more proper analysis. jp×g🗯️ 00:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If people are curious to know the channel I suppose they can open the articles cited. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it should not be mentioned per WP:RSBREAKING, which the NBC News source is - All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. And Sky News is just regurgitating what NBC reported. This is trivial information that has no encyclopedic value and should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There's more sources reporting on it now including Texan news outlets (where the channel is based). I added one to the article in response to your comment. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But what is the encyclopedic value of including this? We have no idea why he is wearing the t-shirt in the first place. Not everything being reported is suitable for inclusion, especially when it is breaking news. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought the encyclopedic value of mentioning a fact that count hint that a shooter was possibly a gun enthusiast would be obvious. He was also in some gun club. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a gun enthusiast, if he even was, has no bearing on the act as a matter of fact. There is nothing liking this YouTube channel as a motive of an assassination. Same as mentioning his shoe brand and somehow linking it to this act. There is no information stating this. He could have just as easily picked this shirt off the ground. Unless you have sources conflating the two. Joellaser (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

By that standard you could remove the entire section about the perpetrator other than just about two sentences. VintageVernacular (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would argue a majority of that section lists facts about him that are irrefutable. Naming a YouTube channel, while a fact, implies something that is nothing more than conjecture and could cause irreparable harm to a third party that, more than most likely, has nothing to do with this in any capacity. If there are sources released about a connection, then that’s a different matter. Joellaser (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The exact brand was already removed, what was retained was a description of what the channel is about. It's intrinsically linked to this by the fact he was wearing it during. People can make their own judgments about it. The brand owner himself already seemed to draw the connection anyway (that is to say he recognized it was from his own merch). VintageVernacular (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

He saw his merch being conflated in the news with no factual connection between him and an attempted assassination and his “drawing of a connection” was confusion and disbelief. I just don’t see the value added as not even the secret service have released a motive or mentioned it in any capacity. I’m for at least keeping it nameless, but leaning towards outright removal until any connections are confirmed. Joellaser (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I took away from this: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9YthvPuybM/ VintageVernacular (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s post is exactly what I was referencing. Joellaser (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So in other words, we have no idea why he was wearing the t-shirt. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do we need to? VintageVernacular (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@VintageVernacular: Exactly, we don't really need to mention the clothing brand of the perpetrator in this article. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my point: do I need to know his reasoning behind gun brand choice to mention which gun he used either? VintageVernacular (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. We probably don't need to mention which type of gun he used too. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because if no RS are making a direction connection between him wearing a particular brand of t-shirt and how it's related to the shooting, then it is just trivial. From what I've read in sources, they go into more detail about the YouTube channel and it's owner, rather than why this kid was wearing it. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Well, a young adult, like an older teenager, but the perpetrator is a 20 year old man. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I know what this age is, and I know what my age is, which is why I referred to him as a kid. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough PEPSI697 (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it specifically needs to be mentioned in the Perpetrator section. So I'd say remove it for now. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If RS give it weight, for now, it can be included, for now. Maybe in the future RS will not give it weight, at which point, it should be removed. A connection insofar as what RS explicitly say can be made. No connection should be SYNTH'd in. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the MSM want the reader to draw that conclusion in lieu of an official statement from the investigators. I believe it could be relevant, I don’t think someone would just throw on any shirt to commit an assassination knowing they are going to be publicized and three named in history books. He didn’t have an ID and had explosives in his car. This was not a spur of the moment decision to pick a random shirt. I'll hold off on speculating further. But until RS make that connection? It’s all conjecture. HoadRog (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NYimes editorial

I reverted this edit:[1] adding an editorial mentioning a poll indicating 10 percent of those surveyed said that the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”. Actually, I think it is an important point, albeit an editorial. But if added, it must be added in context and neutrally. See: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zacwill: Courtesy ping.O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that my edit was biased and presented the information out of context. Can you elaborate on why you think this? What would be an "in context and neutral" way of presenting the information, in your view? Zacwill (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We have been living for six years with a torrent of violent speech and some violent actions, including an insurrection resulting in 140 police injured. I'm afraid mentioning this one editorial alone, which suggests Democrats are violent, is not neutral. I'm not saying the poll is not useful, although it is one poll mentioned in an editorial. I am looking for input on an in context and neutral phrasing that encompasses the entirety of the atmosphere in which the US finds itself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The source does not "suggest that Democrats are violent". It suggests that, based on polling, there is a small but significant segment of the US population that believes that the use of force against Trump is justified. Given that this is an article about the use of force against Trump, this is highly relevant background info. Zacwill (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what that one poll says. And if you read the articles I cited, you will see there is a significant segment of the US population that believes force to elect Trump is justified. Indeed, it has already occurred resulting in death and injuries to 140 police. But only one way is mentioned. This incident did not occur in a vacuum and we have yet to discover anything about the shooter's motivation. Just looking for some input from the community. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And if this were an article about the use of force on Trump's behalf, then that would be relevant background info. Zacwill (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We have no idea about the shooter's motivation or what drove him to this specific act on this day. Let us not add assumptions based on a poll. And let us remain neutral in presenting poll information. It's a quiet time of day in Wikipedia and I will wait for input from others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Shoes

The article says "he rose with blood on his ear and face and told Secret Service agents that he needed his shoes" and news reports say that he repeatedly asked for his shoes. Why would he not be wearing shoes? Does he take them off to speak or what? This seems to need explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

i wondered about this also Elinruby (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe shock? I'm not exactly sure. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 08:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, now that you mention it, this is kind of weird. I will co-ask this question. jp×g🗯️ 09:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

One can hear Trump say "let me get my shoes" in video recordings of the event, just as the secret service agents are telling him they need to move him. It's possible that they came off when he ducked to the ground, or when the secret service agents piled onto him, or when they lifted him back up. Joe (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the most likely explanation is that his shoes got knocked off when multiple Secret Service agents leaped on him to protect him from more bullets, and he was just trying to recover them for the walk down the stairs to the armored limo. People in general (not just Trump) immediately after a trauma often fixate on something later seen as of little importance. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess that makes enough sense for me. jp×g🗯️ 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

When I did a course on workplace safety a while back, we were told if someone's badly injured you' Caesar35 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

My comment didn't seem to post correctly.

I Was was taught in a safety course that if someone's badly injured in a work accident, you remove their neck tie, belt, and shoes to improve air and blood flow. I think it had something to do with reducing shock too. Not 100% as it was a while ago, but might help you all find a better source. Caesar35 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• There's a transcript of what was said, including

  Agents start to stand up, lifting Trump.

18:12:33: Trump: “Let me get my shoes, let me get my shoes.”

18:12:35: Male agent 2: “I got you sir, I got you sir.”

18:12:36: Trump: “Let me get my shoes on.”

18:12:37: Another male agent: “hold on, your head is bloody.”

18:12:39: Male agent 2: “Sir we’ve got to move to the car sir.”

18:12:42: Trump: “Let me get my shoes.”

18:12:43: Female agent: “OK, [inaudible].”

18:12:47: Trump: “Wait, wait, wait” then fist pumps to crowd. He mouths “fight” three times – a move met with cheers by the crowd.

This confirms that the shoes were an issue but still doesn't explain why. My best guess is that he may have fancy dress shoes which are not comfortable for long periods of standing so maybe he slips into something more comfortable. As Trump is quite image-conscious, he may have wanted to change back before moving out. But this is all speculation. I'll be looking out for more sources which clarify this ...

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a picture of one of the shoes here: "Trump’s shoe was left on the stage on the spot where it come off as his Secret Service detail rushed to cover him. He was taken to a local medical facility." -- Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post. This looks to be a black Oxford dress shoe and still seems to be laced up. I wouldn't have thought this would come off so easily but that's what they seem to be saying. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Few things could be less relevant to a Wikipedia article. We can speculate all day. Maybe he took them off while speaking. Maybe they were knocked off. Maybe shoes was codeword for something. Irrelevant. His quotes are relevant. All the discussion is relevant. I'm guessing someone will ask him anyway, and then that could be put in. Californianin (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue has "prompted plenty of commentary" and so seems quite relevant. Michael Goodwin has asked him now and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• See Donald Trump Clears Up 'Get My Shoes' Comment During Assassination Attempt : The former president explained why he repeatedly told Secret Service agents to "let me get my shoes.". “The agents hit me so hard that my shoes fell off, and my shoes are tight”. So now we know.

With the candidates being so old now, it seems unwise to tackle them so hard. Is there an exact protocol for this, I wonder? The interview says Trump "marveled at how the agents came flying in like “linebackers” as soon as the shooting started, and he unbuttoned his long-sleeve white shirt to show a large bruise on his right forearm."

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Omission of calls for civil war

Omitted Context: The article does not mention recent calls for civil war from right-wing sources or their trending on social media, which is a significant aspect of the current political climate. Ms.britt (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could show some reliable sources reporting on this, so we can evaluate if it is DUE for the article. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like totally WP:FRINGE 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6DF4:BA83:E068:136C (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/14/trump-shooting-conspiracy-theories/ https://www.wired.com/story/trump-shooting-far-right-calling-for-violence-war/

sign your posts with four tildas! and, because they reported it does not change that they were reporting possible WP:FRINGE

The right call for civil war after almost anything happening they do not like, this is now new. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Act Blue donation appears to be misinformation

Yes, I'm aware that it is in multiple sources, but they all appear to be repeating misinformation from each other.

The Act Blue donation: [7] address is different from the voter registration address: [8]. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Either that or he moved. I suspect that we will know a lot more about it and be able to know for sure what the deal is a day from now. Until then, who knows. You might be right: it may be worth just taking out the bleeding-edge conjecture about political affiliation stuff entirely and revisiting it in a few hours. jp×g🗯️ 10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The ActBlue donation has been shown to be another Thomas Crooks, aged 69. Same name, different birth years, different address. Ms.britt (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Shown by whom? Is that what reliable sources are saying? Otherwise, this seems like original research. JMM12345 (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you look up the address listed under the FEC filing, it's listed as associated with people listed as his parents here. Possible they moved. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The FEC filing only provides a large zip code... in which another Thomas Crooks who is a YMCA volunteer lives. 2603:6011:A600:84B1:B196:E0F:2E48:A108 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the full address is listed here: https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/728/202102049425215728/202102049425215728_189746.pdf

Ownership records of the address match his parents names. 24.159.244.249 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT, WP:V. When WP:RS update their reporting so will we. Digging through FEC filings is WP:OR. Remote the "disputed" tag immediately. Thanks. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this IP and JMM12345 above – there appears to be a lot of amateur detective work going on here. We say what the sources say; we don't engage in WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 09:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

$15? Who cares? Why the reach to associate to any group for such a paltry sum? Matzoballer (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately it's being widely reported by reliable sources – it's not us saying that it's notable, it's them. — Czello ^(music) 14:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Admins can we get the "disputed" tag removed from the $15 dono to Act Blue per the above the dispute is driven by WP:OR and is inconsistent with the diverse WP:RS covering this item. Thanks. 24.125.98.89 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done In this revision – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We need some kind of picture

Currently the Vucci photo of Trump is under discussion regarding its inclusion and deletion, in the meantime, it would be great if we could get some kind of image to go in the infobox, like what we've got for the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan page. How would editors feel about including a low-res crop of one of the many news-feeds that captured the event? It wouldn't have the same commercial overlap concerns as the Vucci photo. Thoughts? Suggestions? Joe (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The only way I see around the commercial issue is either extremely obscure but still quality photos or photos without Trump in them e.g. photos from after Trump left the rally or, better yet, potentially photos in which Trump is so obscured by the Secret Service whether head-on or side view that their is almost zero concern of any possible commercial use.

A few examples:

https://e3.365dm.com/24/07/768x432/skynews-donald-trump-shooting_6625848.jpg

https://cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/Y2YPBQBWGJIIFKO7GL4JSFMCKY.jpg

https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_avif,q_auto:eco,dpr_2/rockcms/2024-07/240714-donald-trump-shooting-butler-mn-1125-da1f30.jpg Firestorm0718 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

[9] doesn't have the fist pump but is still useful and recognizable. Cremastra (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Any of these would be superior to the current nothing we've got in the infobox. Joe (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not how the usage of non-free content works. If you sub in another image with the same status as the other one, we're just in the same boat. Zaathras (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We use copyrighted images (albums, novel covers, video game promotional material, etc.) under fair use, because they represent the thing and don't impinge on the commercial viability of the work. There's a debate as to whether our use of the Vucci photo may impinge on its commercial success, because it's becoming iconic, but that isn't true of every frame of every shot taken that day. We're dearly wanting for something to visually represent the event in the infobox. Joe (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Barring a fair-use picture of the event itself, our best options are a) a bird-eye svg diagram or b) a photograph of the premises. Bremps... 01:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a Commons aerial photo of the event itself, in the article, that should probably be moved to the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif: you're probably referring to that image here:

File:Butler Farm Show Airport Trump Rally 2024 03 (cropped).jpg

It's already being changed in for the info-box image just a few minutes ago. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, now asking @WoodElf: why they removed it (a free image) in favour of a non-free image at deletion discussion? Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you asked: the "raised fist" image is a better illustration of the article. As and when the image discussion is concluded, we may change to a different image - let's avoid the back and forth we have already seen. User:WoodElf 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I disagree with that assessment, but even if I agreed, that's a matter of personal preference i.e. not an objective article improvement, and is apparently getting pushback, viz BRD. In such cases, it is better to start a discussion over which image is more representative of the entire event. I have a feeling many would agree with you, but recommend discussing if there is the back and forth you said. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is about an attempted assassination. The "raised fist" image shows the immediate aftermath of said attempt. Therefore it is objectively a better illustration than the proposed alternative. Of course, the fair use of the image is currently under discussion, and if it is eventually removed, or it's use is restricted to the article about the photo itself, then the venue photo can be use as the alternative illustration lacking anything better (but suggest not before then). User:WoodElf 02:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere on the talkpage with a consensus not to use the image in the infobox, so I've removed it again. As and when the NFCC rational is altered to allow it to be used where the image isn't under discussion, I'm happy for it to go back into the lede. Mdann52 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There were thousands of people present, many of them with their phones taking pictures. Search the social media sites. It shouldn't be too hard to find someone willing to freely license their image. Having your image be the Wikipedia illustration is a big bragging point. Rmhermen (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If anyone can get us some kind of fair or free use alternative, just in case the Vucci photo gets deleted, it would be great to have that as a backup. Who knows, we might end up using it elsewhere in the article, or instead of the Vucci photo, if users preferred it to the Vucci photo for some reason. Joe (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Historical Parallels

A previous version of this page mentioned the attempted assassination of President Ronald Wilson Reagan (I don’t know if this is still on the page). In my opinion, a closer historical parallel whose inclusion would make more sense than Reagan’s is the attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt, as this event is more similar to that one than it is to the incident with Reagan. Both the Trump and Roosevelt assassination attempts targeted a former president who was shot during an event for their reelection campaign after about three-and-a-half years out of office. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the historical parallels are fine [10], but including all of them to this page would be undue. I could name one more, the Attempted assassination of Leonid Brezhnev, but one would need a secondary source that directly makes such comparison to avoid WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of the incident

I'm creating this section in response to the repeated changing of the location of this incident. The shooting happened at the Butler Farm Show fairground which is located in Butler County outside of Butler. However, the state of Pennsylvania, as pointed out to me earlier by @Dough4872 and @JWilz12345, is divided into townships. This fairground is located in Connoquenessing Township, Butler County just west of Meridian.

Therefore it seems inappropriate to refer to this as happening within the city of Butler, despite many sources saying it happened in Butler, which is simply because the fairground is located within the Butler metro. So, should we refer to it as have happened west of Meridian, in Connoquenessing Township, or perhaps even just in Butler County? I prefer something along the lines of "Connoquenessing Township west of Meridian" personally although that is a mouthful. Raskuly (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing should be mentioned but Butler because the media almost entirely only mentions Butler. I made it say "near Butler" in the opening sentence for clarity but that is the most that should be done because otherwise it is OR. Bill Williams 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

A local newspaper stated the specific township, so hopefully this should satisfy any concerns with sourcing. (I used a website to get past the paywall) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that the exact location on the fairground is actually within Meridian. My apologies for the mistake. Raskuly (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems the fairground straddles the township line. The issue though is which part would it be in? Unless there's something solid, it may be best to defer to what the local newspapers say WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Both the perpetrator as well as Trump were in Meridian when this took place. Calle Widmann (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The correct location is "near Butler". Townships in Pennsylvania are mainly for administrative purposes and unless you're conducting a census or working for the post office, no one cares that much about them. Nosferattus (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Butler County school districts

Seriously? A township (Pennsylvania) is used for administrative purposes, to be sure, but it's far more significant than merely that. Your township determines your school district (districts being based on municipal borders; see map), your fire department, your roads, your local elected officials, and so much more. Pretty much all adults will know in which municipality they live; townships are vastly different from, say, counties in New England or magisterial districts in Virginia. Unless we can get a precise location, best to go with "near Butler", since we know it's not in the city, and the border makes it awkward. (Also, it's irrelevant for the post office. My relatives in Lawrence County have New Castle addresses, despite living multiple townships away from the city.) Plus, while Meridian has specific Census boundaries, it's not a municipality, so the Census boundaries don't always match popular perceptions of what is or isn't Meridian, and some people may disagree with "west of Meridian". I've been there — I took the image that illustrates the Meridian article. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I found a secondary source states specifically about the venue: Grubbs, Paula (July 13, 2024). "Meridian neighborhood awaits impact of Trump rally". Butler Eagle. Archived from the original on July 14, 2024. Retrieved July 14, 2024. [...] as most of the Farm Show Grounds is in Connoquenessing Township, which is covered by state police. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Also: Tomasic, Megan; Cheuk, Kinnia; Anderson, Jordan (2024-07-14). "'Why Butler?': Community grapples with the aftermath of the Trump rally shooting". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The rally was held just outside the city limits,[...] , from a local source. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

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

Title to be changed to the 2024 Atempted assasination of Donald Trump Lufthansa24 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Have there been others? GMG^talk 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No need for a modifier. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There was a Requested Move yesterday proposing this. The result was not moved. CNC (talk) 17:39, 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.

"Effects on Trump's public image" section should be removed

The Effects on Trump's public image section is entirely about one photo and is UNDUE and COATRACK. The article is about the assassination attempt, not people's opinions of the photo. If the photo gets sustained attention, then it might warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a more nuanced view. We are using a non free image and the relevant policy language about "Images with iconic status or historical importance" says Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. However, if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test. In this case, the image is from the Associated Press, and if we are going to use this image, the article needs to include sourced commentary from reliable sources making the case that it is iconic or historical. I believe that it is both. The passage of time will show that more clearly, but it is hard for me to visualize some future analysis by historians that concludes, "No, that is neither an iconic nor a historical photo of Trump". Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Too soon at a minimum Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem; some people were saying the photo had to come out because there wasn't enough sourcing about that photo specifically to meet WP:NFCC, then somebody found a bunch of sources talking about the photo, then someone else was like "Why is there so much crap in the article about this one photo, this is WP:UNDUE" and removed them all. It has been oscillating between these two fairly regularly; I think both ends of the pendulum produce a noticeably worse article, so hopefully it will end up in some stable arrangement between them. jp×g🗯️ 09:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone elsewhere on this talk page had the brilliant idea of putting the damn image somewhere else, further down the article, and by this part which is about it, which seems like a stupendous idea. jp×g🗯️ 10:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and @JPxG, the problem to me is that this photo isn't even being used by many media sources. In the articles I read, I've seen a number of other images instead. Why don't we have details on the photos from Rebecca Droke, Anne Moneymaker, or Brendan McDermid? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

95% of the section is regarding the Nucci photograph. Propose to rename to "Nucci photograph of injured Trump" or something similar and move to separate new section below everything else. User:WoodElf 16:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Alt suggestion: a new section called "In visual media" which discusses Evan Vucci's widely circulated photograph(s) and any other notable photo/video from the incident. User:WoodElf 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s not just about the photo; some people view Trump as a martyr because of the attempt, not because of the photo of the attempt. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)

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.

---

This should be added to [[Category:Political violence in the United States]] AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, because Category:Attempted assassinations of presidents of the United States is a more specific subcategory. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

: Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@A. Randomdude0000 I agree with this removal. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your earlier comment when I replied. I agree as well. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@A. Randomdude0000: Great! No problem, and thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 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.

The current infobox image is biased and inappropriate

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

• Photo of bloodied Trump fist pumping immediately spotlighted by his allies
• Trump Pumps Fist, Secret Service Says He Is Safe

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

It likely does not pass it. Removing for now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Given how recent it is, no way it passes NFCC right now. Speedy tag it for basically any of the criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine, see Battle of Iwo Jima or September 11 attacks (A firefighter requests assistance at World Trade Center site) both are common pcitures for propoganda. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I still think its a good picture if we can find a free verson. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Difference is those images have historical significance, which, yeah, something that just happened really doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The shooting of a former president and nominee for a second term to that office is not notable? NorthropChicken (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a completely - completely - different question to whether a photo is itself inherently so historically important to make it fair use. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't pass NFCC, I've opened a discussion for the file on WP:FFD. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, this is the image the media is using the most (all show different variations of him raising his fist) and therefore it is most informative to readers and most identifiable if this image is used. This image should displayed in the infobox. Bill Williams 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We should not be using what is now a campaign photo in a Wikipedia infobox. That would be as daft as adorning every Barack Obama campaign page we have with the Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are bound to be other images from the event that aren't copyrighted, so yes there is a choice here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not on the main page? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again for the ambiguity. The main article. However, it is on the main page of every newspaper at this moment. I don't think it is going to go away. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

PSA, the discussion is here. Bremps... 04:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If NFCC can be satisfied then of course it should be used, as it's the photo the world's entire media is using. Saying it shouldn't be used just because the GOP likes it, is absurd and partisan in itself. Fig (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This image is being used all over the press reporting and is becoming the marquee image of the event. Many believe it is biased but it is becoming the representative image. The MSM has decided this. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I am seeing a lot of MSM have stopped using this as their lead photo (you can still find that photo inside the article). It would be good to change it once there are more neutral photos available that pass NFCC. Frankserafini87 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not biased or inappropriate.* The image is of high concern in the media regarding the event.

I also think it's a cool photo. (Not a Trump supporter or anything, it's just kinda sick.)

It's the most American photo I've ever seen. The only thing missing is a bald eagle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:5816:A833:1:DD88:8B9B:21FD:110E (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

*However, it doesn't seem to abide by Wikipedia's policies.

I insist that it remains off the page until its associated discussion is closed and an action is taken...
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

NFCC is a completely different subject from OP's topic and they don't intersect. This makes this entire talk section confusing. Californianin (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it biased just because it’s being widely used to represent the event? That’s like saying that including the “Liberty Leading the People” painting in a French Revolution article is biased. LordOfWalruses (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean Liberty Leading the People is an allegorical depiction of the July Revolution of 1830, not the French Revolution. So it would be incorrect to use that image for that article. I think the photo is fine in the "aftermath" section but as there are other photos/images that depict the attempt actually occurring those would be more representative of the event itself, rather than the minutes following the event. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Map removal

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

Two locations in the map are backed up by this source; I don't know where the Secret Service locations are from. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a reference about a Secret Service sniper neutralizing the alleged attacker, but no location or position information is included in that material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This is synthesis and hence I believe it is original research and should remain out of the article at this time. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

New Updated Map!! - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2024_Trump_Assassination_Attempt_Map.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The licensing that image was released under BY-NC-ND, which it not compatible with the Wikipedia as it is too restrictive. That will be deleted shortly. Zaathras (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am learning that the author made an error with that. an updated version will be submitted shortly! MediaGuy768 (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I was able to upload a new map that I created and has no copyright/licensing issues.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_Trump_Rally_Map.jpg MediaGuy768 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Demolition Ranch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:SNOW. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

---

The redirect Demolition Ranch 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 15 § Demolition Ranch until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 18:43, 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (2)

Just wanted to add a source to the Mark Violets affair: the exclusive interview released by the guy that set up the fake news about the alleged terrorist (moussolinho) to an Italian monthly newspaper: https://rifrazioneprismag.substack.com/p/violigate-parla-moussolinho-la-cosa Loziocold (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Substack is user-generated content and is not considered reliable. C F A 💬 16:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

Please remove the names of the surviving injured victims per WP:BLPNAME. Inclusion of their full names isn't necessary. Estreyeria (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

Please change this sentence:

Crooks made a donation of $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project (a voter turnout group) through ActBlue (a donation platform for Democrats and progressive organizations).

to:

Crooks gave $15 to a voter turnout group, the Progressive Turnout Project, through a donation platform known as ActBlue, which is used by Democrats and progressive organizations.

Half the sentence is parenthetical phrases; that just seems too much. Also, "made a donation of" is much wordier than "gave". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done though I've tweaked "gave" to "donated" (removing the therefore redundant "donation" later in the sentence) and replaced "known as" with "called". Tollens (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor Technical Change

In the paragraph that starts with "Public figures from the Democratic and Republican parties have called for an increase in security for the major candidates in the election. There are no known posts on social media websites or writings indicating his ideology,"

use of "his" is somewhat unclear. I'd recommend changing that pronoun to "the shooter's." Snideology (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done. You can use this template in the future to request edits. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Info-box image frequently changing

It seems like they keep changing the image back to Vucci's image of Trump. I know it's because of copyright issues. However, I recommend that we soon agree on an image for the info-box we all agree on and like and keep. I'd recommend uploading some images to Wikimedia Commons if possible. But unfortunately, most images of this incident are subjected to copyright. PEPSI697 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

See #Repeated unexplained removal of the photo. this has been discussed with a consensus not to include the non-free image in the infobox. I agree there may still be free images that can be used there instead. Mdann52 (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I see those consequences there as well at that discussion. Hopefully we can find a free image to use here and upload it to Wikimedia Commons sometime soon if it could be found. PEPSI697 (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone could reach out to the photographer and ask if he's willing to put a low-res version under a free license. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That could be one option, for someone to reach out to the photographer. Good idea. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference format

Recently, an edit was made that added list-defined references, which broke much of the referencing on the page. I oppose converting this to LDR for this reason and, per MOS:CITEVAR, we should continue using the inline template references. I will work to try to restore the content added between the LDR-inserting edit and the reverting edit. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gotten more edit conflicts in the last two hours than in the last two months and I'm not even trying to do any politics stuff I'm just fixing the formatting 😔

@Red-tailed hawk: The reference formatting script has an option to remove LDR, if it is that big of a deal as to warrant a gigantic revert, but I don't know why it would be helpful to put them all inline -- the source code for this page with all the refs inlined was completely unreadable. jp×g🗯️ 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

When people use the visual editor, as most editors do, list defined references are utterly broken. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If it were all bare URLs or light citation templates it'd be one thing, but with the archive URLs (which is the only way for people to verify the (subscription required)s) it's a total disaster. Like, this is the source for a three-sentence passage:

According to Butler County district attorney Richard Goldinger, an alleged perpetrator and an audience member were killed.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger said two people are dead, including an apparent shooter. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713232323/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/13/2024-election-campaign-updates-biden-trump-rally/ |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |access-date=July 13, 2024 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> At least one other person is in critical condition.<ref name="casualties">{{Cite news |last1=Stein |first1=Chris |last2=Lawther |first2=Fran |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Donald Trump is 'fine' after being rushed off stage at rally amid possible gunshots – latest updates |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |access-date=July 13, 2024 |work=the Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=July 14, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714015033/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/13/trump-rally-gun-shots-pennsylvania-latest-updates |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=PowellShelton>{{Cite web|last1=Powell|first1=Tori B.|last2=Shelton|first2=Shania|last3=Meyer|first3=Matt|last4=D'Antonio|first4=Isabelle|last5=Tucker|first5=Emma|last6=Yeung|first6=Jessie|date=July 13, 2024|title=Live updates: Trump injured in shooting at Pennsylvania rally that left at least 1 dead {{!}} CNN Politics|url=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|access-date=July 13, 2024|website=CNN|language=en|archive-date=July 13, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713222828/https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-biden-trump-07-13-24/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Rep. [[Ronny Jackson]] (R-Texas) told Fox News that his nephew was shot in the neck.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>

I mean, there's probably a solid month of edit wars already booked for this article, so I don't know if there is space here for a reference format argument. I guess my screed here is that it's extremely stupid that we have to deal with unreadable shit like this when there's a perfectly-functional alternative because nobody can be arsed to fix basic functionality in VE. It's especially dumb because it's not like LDR is some newfangled thing -- it was already four years old when VisualEditor was introduced, and VisualEditor itself is now eleven years old. jp×g🗯️ 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies about my edit reverting to the broken version - I got caught in an edit conflict. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic question, but is this why the reference section was like 40k bytes 10 minutes ago? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That is why, yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No -- it had nothing to do with that. The byte difference was because the templates were vertically spaced, e.g. instead of

<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGraw |first=Meridith |last2=Allison |first2=Natalie |date=July 13, 2024 |title=Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 |url-status=live |access-date=July 13, 2024 |website=Politico |archive-date=July 13, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977 }}</ref>

they were formatted like

<ref>{{Cite web
 |last         = McGraw
 |first        = Meridith
 |last2        = Allison
 |first2       = Natalie
 |date         = July 13, 2024
 |title        = Trump ‘felt the bullet ripping through the skin’ during campaign rally shooting
 |url          = https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
 |url-status   = live
 |access-date  = July 13, 2024
 |website      = Politico
 |archive-date = July 13, 2024
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20240713235642/https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-pennsylvania-rally-after-possible-gunfire-00167977
 }}</ref>

. So that the vertical space increase didn't make the source code even more impossible to read or modify, I reformatted it to use WP:LDR, so that all the references would be moved to the bottom of the article instead of being plopped directly between the sentences of prose text. The reason this doesn't work in Visual Editor is because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided it doesn't matter if the default editor on Wikipedia can work without breaking when used to edit Wikipedia articles. jp×g🗯️ 03:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I just switched only one section to list-defined (international reactions), which section was literally impossible to edit and the highlighter was broken. @Red-tailed hawk WP:CITEVAR does not apply to selectively switching some of the references to list-defined. CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored. List-defined is commonly done for tables, infoboxes etc. —Alalch E. 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR, under the "To be avoided" subheader, does include changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. As such, I don't think that CITEVAR is about what is rendered, not about how the markup is factored holds here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Yeah, alright. I will move them back, which should be fine now because of the particular cosmetic formatting I've added to that section in the meantime making it easier to see what's going on. —Alalch E. 14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

But I have to note here that that part of CITEVAR is not good. It indirectly means that list-defined references should never be used, because articles are basically always created not using them, and suggests completely unnecessary uniformity (either all are defined in the body or in the reflist -- bit of a dichotomous thinking moment). It is not consistent with how, sometimes, very justifiably, ibx, table and list cites are list-defined to make the content more humanly editable (while the prose cites are left alone). The result for the reader is the same, so this is just about making our lives easier. —Alalch E. 15:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Forsooth! jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

All that part of CITEVAR does is ask people to go to the talk page and get consensus to change the citation style. Per the guidance, if you think that a particular citation style is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Secret Service is investigating how a man who shot and injured Trump was able to get so close

The Secret Service is investigating how a man who shot and injured Trump was able to get so close

https://apnews.com/article/secret-service-trump-rally-4e3415b1461f5acefbc8e1fadad0375b

'A fundamental security failure': How did a gunman open fire on a Trump rally?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/gunman-open-fire-trump-rally-rcna161746

New videos, witness accounts of Trump assassination attempt raise questions about security

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-07-13/shooting-at-trump-rally-raised-red-flags-for-secret-service-over-security

Trump security was warned about gunman four minutes before shooting, witness claims

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/07/14/donald-trump-witness-warned-security-police-gunman-roof/

What went wrong? How did Secret Service allow shooter to get so close to Trump?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/14/was-trump-shooting-secret-service-fail/74400138007/

Rooftop where gunman shot at Trump was identified as a security vulnerability before rally: sources

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-rally-shooting-secret-service-identified-rooftop-security-flaw-rcna161783

Secret Service faces serious questions about security footprint and rooftop access at Trump event

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/secret-service-faces-serious-questions-about-security-footprint-and-rooftop-access-at-trump-event/index.html

Witness says he saw gunman on roof near Trump rally

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4v7v2g5l1o

Secret Service under pressure for shooter who got clear shot at Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/14/secret-service-trump-rally-shooting/

‘Massive security breach’: Secret Service under fire after gunman got clear shot at Trump

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/14/secret-service-trump-shooting-rally-00168158

Step aside, Butch (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A section about the opinions on failures of the Secret Service should be added. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Now let's see if Trump will "walk the Earth" like Caine in Kung Fu. Bremps... 01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Relevancy of so-called Global War Party

I saw the end of the article:

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze and other Georgian government officials blamed the attack on the "Global War Party", a recurring conspiracy theory of the Georgian Dream party alleging a mysterious international organization that exerts influence on the Western world from the shadows.

Is this relevant to the article? Or just some kind mixing fact with fantastic conspiracy thingy? Mmnashrullah (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is just some sort of delusion specific to that guy and his political party. I don't see this text in the article currently, meaning someone probably saw it had nothing to do with anything and took it out already. jp×g🗯️ 10:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't get how you are dismissing the position of the government of a close US ally as just being "delusion specific to that guy (Kobakhidze)". It's the position of the entire government and the country's de-facto leader - oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. The way it connects to Trump and why it is even being mentioned is that Georgian government since 2022 has claimed that the world is under the influence of GWP and is pushing countries into war, attempting to overthrow governments / assassinate leaders which are not "pro-war" (aka pro-helping Ukraine). The party officials have claimed this and attempted assassination of Robert Fico as prime examples GWP being real and of its violent actions. Kobakhidze, after Fico's shooting, even claimed that they were gonna go after him next. The party is basically claiming that Trump was punished because of his anti-war stance.

Yes its a silly conspiracy, but it's an actual response by a government of a country whose closest ally is possibly US. I don't get what "mixing fact with fantastic conspiracy thingy" means. If a government of a country claims that this assassination is a part of a big plot to prolong Ukraine war, I don't see why it should be left out. Zlad! (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You quoted the phrase "that guy and his political party", removed the words "and his political party", and then complained that I didn't mention his political party? jp×g🗯️ 00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I see... So, it's somewhat related. Well, that part may remain in the article. Mmnashrullah (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Turning his head at, or around, the time of shooting?

Should the article say if Trump was turning his head (and/or body) clockwise (or counterclockwise, whatever the case), toward a chart that Trump was pointing at.--Another thing: the article should maybe (also?) say if Trump was "twisting"/turning his head, away from the direction of the shooter.--Please imagine that many of the readers of the wiki-article, (largely) only have access to stills (photographs), but not relevant video clips. Some readers depend on wiki-articles for details! Thanks, 2001:2020:355:9EBD:A520:1AE7:A49C:5216 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are we to base this on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't really have the need for sources in this scenario, because the people that are able to watch the video can see how Donald Trump moves with his head, so that he does not gets hit. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Consider WP:OR and WP:RELY.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 20:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the video would be a pretty darn reliable source on which direction he turns his head in during the video. jp×g🗯️ 02:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump turned his head towards the shooter, towards his right, which narrowed his head profile from a wider side profile to a narrower front-facing profile. Details all in Telegraph article. Added in the article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)