Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

So tired of citing shooting metaphors.
The current article lede states:
 * Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".

This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks. Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If the sources specifically connect the phrase to the incident, then it should be included. If they don't, then including it violates our policies on original research and neutral point of view. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.
 * Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No all journalists are reliable. Just look at the comments here about Fox. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ... not to mention The Guardian 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6DF4:BA83:E068:136C (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Palin didn't say anything. A chart was published by her campaign using crosshair icons to designate political targets. In 20-20 hindsight not a good idea. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sources covering the incident that also mention the fuller quote, such as the AP:  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well some guy took that literally it seems. Reliable sources are important here but we have to find a good balance being Wikipedia and all... Woobab (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but half of my complaint is this is (was, it's gone now) in the lede of the article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting on evidence Crooks even head or read the "bullseye" quote. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can one give an example of this "long-standing" metaphor being used? Please enlighten my ignorance. Ronan.Iroha (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The statement made from the Joe Biden Twitter account. July 8th 2024 "It's time to put a Bullseye on Trump" Referencing a call to action for continued Political Violence. Bullseye is referenced in Webster Dicitionary as the center of a target for archery, shooting, and darts. 75.112.4.134 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No serious person thinks that Crooks saw that tweet and thought "yes sir Mr President" come on. The issue is the relentless demonization of Trump "He's a threat to democracy" "he's a threat to your rights" "he'll be a dictator" "he'll destroy the planet by ignoring climate change" and on and on and on and we're papering over that as "polarization". --24.125.98.89 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The idea for a new article might be good, but it highlights the issue with the rest of your position. Even if such an article were created, it wouldn't change the public's use of rhetoric, which can be controversial and be the very reason they end up in articles.This site is more about recording what happened, not injecting a desired redirect or correction, no matter how logical or well intended. We can say Biden's use of "bullseye" is normal political discource but then Palin's name appears 9 times in the Tucson article, entirely because her website had a bullseye. I wish I could point out what might be a majority of political discource is people intentionally or unintentionally misconstruing what other people say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting Californianin (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I largely agree. As I wrote, on reflection what really bothered me was the weight of this statement given by placing it in the article lede. It was a subject for a later section, not the lede. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Any evidence yet that Crooks was aware of Biden saying that? He would have to have been aware for it to have influenced his decision. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article should not be written in accordance with any particular Wikipedian's point of view vis-a-vis the remark. Both the news media and individuals have generated a large amount of attention and discussion around Biden's comments, so I think it meets the WP:NOTE benchmark for inclusion. Glass Snow (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk it's kinda corny we should probably take that stuff out DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "putting in the crosshairs", "putting your sights on" and "putting a bullseye on" are like "putting on a hot seat". Metamorphical or idiomatic use. Not meant by the user to be taken literally literally. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC).

Bullseye comment picked up by AP & others
https://apnews.com/article/biden-statement-trump-shooting-political-violence-6822e3147ffc68781ab3e60d62836cd9 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/ I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw0y9xljv2yo https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/biden-say-trump-shooting-bullseye/index.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/ duplicate https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-shooting-election-2024-704592d02c3421a767112f0bf6d25eb9 i am unable to add it due to the protection level and also because last time i tried, i got a nastygram from an administrator claiming i am an vandal, and a different admin claiming i am on thin ice so i will leave it to others to determine whether to add this material. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That really does seem conspiratorial at this stage.
 * As well as the bullseye comment, Trump's legal team were arguing to the Supreme Court just a few months ago that a sitting President could order his rival assassinated as an official act. I've yet to see any news site mention that in relation to this shooting, but it's something that was said and is arguably as related as the bullseye comment, in that it's pure conjecture and likely had no bearing on the shooter's motive. Just throwing it out there. Caesar35 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source and direct quote for this claim you just made up? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith before accusing someone of making something up. In this case, here is a source. When asked by Sotomayor "The president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?", Trump's attorney John Sauer responded "It would depend on the hypothetical. We could see that could well be an official act." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bidemade this comment, some republicans have highlighted it and it's well covered by the above reliable sources. That's it, what are you opining about "conjecture" and bringing up the Supreme Court? That is a distraction.  Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it's conspiracy to link it directly to the shooter's actions. There's no evidence he even heard of it - I didn't before - or that it in any way influenced him to carry it out. In short, it's conjecture to say Biden's bullseye comment and the shooting were directly related. The reason I threw the Supreme Court arguments in was to prove that point. Theres just as much evidence he could've been influenced by that than Biden's comment, in that there's no evidence for it.
 * Keep the quote for all I care. The amount of buzz it's received is probably relevant. But make sure to word it so it doesn't imply that's what tipped the shooter over into actually committing the attack.
 * My suggestion would be to have it under the Conspiracies section, in that some believe Biden's words were a call to literally shoot Trump, rather than a figure of speech, as they almost certainly were. Caesar35 (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It can go in the conspiracy theory and misinformation section, if justified at all. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it would be interesting to see what happens to anyone who tries. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which of those RS raises the "conspiracy" aspect? Please show us.  Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because as of right now this info is being viewed as conspiratorial. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which RS says it's a conspiracy? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I proposed this in a different thread. Basic and stick to the facts.
 * "On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please respond @Sir MemeGod @Zaathras @Caesar35. I'm not understanding how you substantiate "conspiracy". You dont seem to object to it going in the article. I'm debating where it goes and adding under "conspiracy" is not supported by RS.  Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My suggestion in a previous thread was having it in the conspiracy section, something to the effect of "During a call with donors on [whatever date], Biden said he wanted "Trump in a bullseye". In the aftermath of the assassination attempt, some members of the Republican party took this as a literal call for Trump to be harmed, with some blaming Biden directly for the attempt".
 * I don't know if it'd really fit in anywhere else. It's only really relevant in that people took Biden as literally saying he wanted Trump killed, which is almost certainly not the case and this speculation/a "conspiracy theory". Hmm, maybe under Republicans' reactions, in that Biden's words were later criticised/considered inflammatory? Or around the part talking about heightened political tension?
 * As I said, it's not that Biden said it in the first pace that's up for debate; my issue was with it implying that what he said directly contributed to the shooting. Unless it's proven that the shooter heard what Biden said, and that's what prompted him to commit the attack, such phrasing would be thus speculative. Caesar35 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, what source calls this a conspiracy? That is your judgement. I believe putting in conspiracy section is biased by wanting to de-legitimize what is reported by many RS. The two sentences I proposed are very clear. Shall we get an unbiased admin in here? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What section would you like to put it in?
 * Again, it's conspiracy/misinformation/whatever you want to call it to say Biden ordered the attack by using those words. That's my issue with how it was originally worded in the article. None of those sources above mention it in such a way; merely that various Republicans claim it was. It doesn't matter if a politician says so or thinks it's true, it's still not fact.
 * Johnson even says in the CNN article above: “President Biden himself said in recent days, ‘It’s time to put a bullseye on Trump.’ I know he didn’t mean what is being implied there, but that kind of language on either side should be called out,”
 * It seems he also doesn't believe Biden was actually, literally, calling for Trump to be shot by using a fairly common turn of phrase.
 * Like I said, put it under either Conspiracy Theories (which is no longer there, thankfully. The internet could do with less of that) or under Republicans' reactions. If you're so Hell bent on getting it in the article, then by all means I think an admin's opinion would be best. Caesar35 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Put under “reactions, domestic” in fact there is now a part noting that republicans accused Biden of inciting. Can just add the first sentence I had with the “bullseye” quote.  That's all that is incremental, not that the article has evolved.  Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven’t seen any objections to my proposal but i'll tag the following before suggesting we include it. @Caesar35@Daddyelectrolux@Sir MemeGod@Zaathras Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is still no RS to merit inclusion here in “conspiracy” these were Biden’s words and no RS dispute that.  Helpingtoclarify (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden statements before shooting belong in background
Reliable sources attributing the following statement to Biden on July 8th and associating his rhetoric with the shooting. This belongs in the article.

Biden statement:

"It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye"

The background should have a couple sentences like this:

"On a call with donors on July 8th, Presoent Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw0y9xljv2yo

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/politics/biden-say-trump-shooting-bullseye/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/13/biden-trump-bullseye-quote/74397121007/

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-rally-incident/card/biden-s-rhetoric-grew-heated-in-recent-days-6TJnS6JhvZnJ6uYwK6bH Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If any mention of this is warranted, it can be put into the section on conspiracy theories. Zaathras (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you seem very intent on relegating this information to the conspiracy theories section. do you have a reliable source that paints it as such? Daddyelectrolux (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Biden said those words, but it's a conspiracy theory to say the shooter acted on those words, because there's no evidence they had any bearing on his actions.
 * That's the angle I see it from. Caesar35 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * is there a reliable source that calls it a conspiracy theory? The reliable sources are attributing the quote to Biden. The reaction to the quote is also reported by reliable sources, It’s quite simple. The background section is for events proceeding. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * we're an encyclopedia, not news outlets/tabloids trying to get clicks. The link between that quote and the shooting are speculative at best.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you need to see more RS covering this or is the list of CNN, USA today, BBC and WSJ not enough? This legitimate reporting on a relevant fact that they have all covered in their articles. The link you dismissed is covered in the RS. Is it your opinion that the link is "speculative"? I don't see the RS uaing that language. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You aren't even able to properly interpret the sources you're mentioning. The sources aren't reporting that "Biden is responsible," they are reporting that "Republicans ACCUSE Biden for being responsible." You're trying to pass off the latter (an opinion) as the former (a factual claim). Zaathras (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Read my proposed language here and tell me what is not accurate as reported in RS. I slight revised what I put above.  Not interpreting anything, just summarizing numerous RS. I haven't proposed language that "Biden is responsible". Please read and be objective.
 * "On a call with donors on July 8, President Joe Biden noted "It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye" and the quote was sent around to journalists after the call. Citing this comment, Republican congressional leaders, including Mike Johnson, have accused Biden of inciting violence in advance of the shooting." Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this isn't an encyclopedia, it's a far left propaganda site 2600:1700:ADA0:5670:6CD1:2506:E45:F00A (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This belongs in official reactions, I don't see why it would be in conspiracy section; AFAIK nobody is claiming Biden ordered a hit. There's already crazier content there about Republican U.S. representative Mike Collins of Georgia called for a Republican prosecutor to charge Biden for inciting an assassination and very parallel content about Senators Vance and Scott + Leader Scalise generally criticizing rhetoric.
 * It's probably better to have an actual statement to link back to that's consistently covered in RS rather than vague "X accuses Y of supposedly infallamatory content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A little late to the conversation, but agreed that this belongs in the official reactions - as well as the fact that Biden later apologized for the remark, saying that it was "a mistake" to make the comment. That being said, I believe that Republican criticism of the remark is incredibly disingenuous, and that the odds that the shooter acted on Biden's remark was slim-to-none at best, but putting that in the article would be needlessly pontificating.
 * Source on Biden's apology: https://www.axios.com/2024/07/15/biden-mistake-trump-bullseye Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Bullseye section needs Biden's later response
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-interview-nbc-lester-holt-trump-assassination-attempt-debate-jd-vance/ I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It needs reduction as the original comment was made before the attack, and all we need is "republicans blamed the attack on a comment made by Biden months before the attack, a claim disputed by both the Bien campaign and others", this is all it deserves, its a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it was not "months", it was a few days, and Biden conceded it was a mistake to use the term. this concession should be included in the article, in my humble opinion. "It was a mistake to use the word," the president conceded, but added, "I meant focus on him. Focus on what he's doing." is the full quote from the link from I.am.a.qwerty above. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no? It's nonsense intended to distract from years of incendiary, violent rhetoric from Republicans calling for the deaths of their opponents.  It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the Democrats or Biden.  Trump was shot by a fellow Republican with a gun the Democrats have been trying to ban for years.  Of the 350 violent political attacks over the last several years, only three or so were made by leftists.  This is a phenomenon of right-wing extremism, and there's no debate over it, the facts speak for themselves. Full stop, end of discussion.  Enough with the distractions, the red herrings, the misdirections, and the lies. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * wow you seem really upset. maybe you should calm down. :^) Daddyelectrolux (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if on ly a few days, it was not a reaction to the shooting, it therefore has no place in an article about the shooting. Per wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * Absolutely agree. Keep to congressional leadership, world leaders, and Shapiro (and white house assuming they respond). J cool bro   (talk) (c) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I came here to say the same thing. This happens all the time with shooting articles. They get bloated with reactions from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Business people and fan/supporter reactions are not needed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's bar new additions besides Joe Biden, Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro. We can discuss other people here. I am removing Elon Musk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Musk is the world’s wealthiest man; hardly random. Mårtensås (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a matter of if he does anything with his wealth or power. Does his one sentence tweet of support matter? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be amazed if this is the last we see from him Trade (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Musk is undue. "Space man said something on Twitter" isn't worth being in the article about an assassination attempt.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Amending this with a recommendation to hold off on adding new reactions for another week. The Notre-Dame fire had an impossibly large reaction page for a long time. Save us all the effort. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support. I only suggest removing "universally". This section is getting way out of control now. Why do we care about Javier Milei's reaction? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't world leaders' reactions noteworthy, though? Isi96 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Good point. Isi96 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well it is rather significant event. One in which the reactions and responses should be recorded. At least in its own separate page. Declan Newton (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Anyone else think Whitmer is not needed in reactions? She seems kind of random considering she's from a completely different state. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it becomes too crowded on this article, we can always create a separate article detailing a list of reactions to the shooting. AmericanBaath (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Honestly just take it out. Throw in a line that says everyone condemed it. Saves on space DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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


 * Agreed. A few reactions throw the section off a little. Shapiro is relevant since its his state, but not Whitmer. Additionally, as we discussed below, I also believe the international section is beginning to get too long. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , please comment here. And, for the third time now, I do not believe any of the international reactions deserve mentioning. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * Elon Musk (richest man in the world and major political activist endorsing Trump immediately after) and RFK Jr. (especially with his father and uncle being shot and killed in assassinations) both belong in the reactions. The media has reported heavily on both. Bill Williams 03:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * They are not schmucks. These are people with heavy influence that have offered their sympathies to the former president and are denouncing it. Plenty notable for inclusion here. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * CNN is reporting on RFK Jr's reaction. If it is notable enough for CNN to expend several paragraphs on, why not notable enough for a brief (max one sentence) mention here? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly 04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Other major events like this have itemized reactions from heads of state, why shouldn't this? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We neutered that guff. The point is that other people are indiscriminately adding information and we should be cutting back. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What was indiscriminately added? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Ganguly TALK 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What's usually done for things like this is splitting to a dedicated reactions article. JDiala (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 Ganguly TALK 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per many above discussions including Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm, his reaction and endorsement is not that relevant in the article. It used to be in the reaction section but has since been removed. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 02:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added it back because it certainly belongs in the body along with other reactions. He is the richest man in the world and previously endorsed Democrats, it's certainly notable. Bill Williams 02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At this rate, it will become notable because journalists will read this article for beats. Now that the section is only 6k bytes I guess it's whatever for now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Ornov Ganguly that I still don't believe it needs to be included. Perhaps in Musk's own wiki page, sure. But I don't think all the Elon musk info is necessary here. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all.  C F A   💬  02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we take this as consensus? Bill has added it back numerous times and this shouldn't turn into an edit war. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I would. No one but Bill Williams has objected to the removal..  C F A   💬  03:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * how stupid Baratiiman (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams 04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose this. RFK Jr isn't relevant to this incident. Ms.britt (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. &raquo; Bray talk 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Merged sections. C F A  💬  06:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and why is this still in the article given the clear consensus. I've removed. Nfitz (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and why does how much money you have matter in the least? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Add more reactions
As a promiment political figure, and the only independent candidate with a chance of winning the 2024 elections, I feel like RFK Jr's reaction should be included to give a better picture of how Trump is viewed around the world. When the dust is all settled, any leaders of countries reactions should be included, with a direct quote of what they said. Additionally, individual people (politicians, prominent republicans, family of Donald Trump (if they react). Finally crowds/demonstrators/protestors should be included in the list. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I oppose as this isn't an appropriate time for campaigning through this incident's event page. Ms.britt (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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)


 * Oppose We have too many randos in the reaction section as is. Refer to the numerous discussions above, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose because he is not a notable politician in my opinion. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 02:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's please be mindful of the serious circumstances here, and not use this as a moment for political campaigning. Ms.britt (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

International Reactions
Few world leaders have commented onbthe incident latest being Narendra Modi Prime Minister of India his statement should be added and any other world leader that has comment on the incident. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Please_let's_not_turn_the_article_into_a_reaction_farm J cool bro   (talk) (c) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like a bunch of reactions have been added in the meanwhile. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Ganguly TALK 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should also be added that the Croatian prime minister condemned the incident: https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/plenkovic-osudio-pokusaj-atentata-na-trumpa/2582279.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2454:5 E1:F00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are 195 countries. Let's keep this article focused. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Objective3000 are you trying to imply that some countries are more important/relevant than others? Either reactions from all 195 countries should be posted, or none. 2A00:11B1:10C:29:485F:ED92:F1B2:EB22 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be added that Portugal's heads of state and government also condemned the attack: https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2024-07-14/marcelo-condemns-trump-attack/90615 / https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/politica/marcelo-e-montenegro-condenam-atentado-contra-trump_v1585954 / https://www.jn.pt/4734047418/a-violencia-politica-e-intoleravel-montenegro-e-marcelo-condenam-atentado-contra-trump/
 * Tdpascoaes (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


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

Olaf Scholz
Reaction by the chancellor of Germany as can be seen here: and  --Lothaeus (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup
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)


 * 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 Ganguly TALK 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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 Ganguly TALK 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * Together the reactions and conspiracy section are longer than the rest of the entire article. As of this moment. Nickalh (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

can the flags of the world leaders be re-added?
we had the flags previously, i feel this was a far cleaner approach NotQualified (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not cleaner. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed - not cleaner. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

'Nice' reactions only?
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)


 * 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)
 * I think you are deviating widely of what is expected of wikipedia and its editors.
 * I can only refer you to the five pillars of wikipedia, more particularly the second pillar, and  what wikipedia is not. Yvan Part (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Please read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * As previously mentioned to others here, Please read wp:soap
 * I understand your frustration/feelings, but Wikipedia is not the place to express them. Hella say hella (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am not a fan whatsoever of the man, but even I didn't want him to be shot & killed. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We go by what RS considers notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I suppose we could include a line about "however many social media posts were negative" or some such? Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Why should we care a flying flip about "social media" in the abstract?  G M G  talk  16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Social media is always a cesspool, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✔️ The 'living martyr' sentence has been removed from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained removal of the photo
I don't know why the photo keeps disappearing from the infobox -- there are some technical issues with edits getting messed up and repeatedly colliding with each other and destroying changes, but I feel like this picture has vanished like five or six times already. It is true that it's a fair-use image, and there is a FfD open for it due to copyright issues, but the procedure for ongoing FfDs is emphatically not "go through and rip images out of articles with a steak knife". Please do not remove the photo unless it is actually deleted at the FfD. jp×g🗯️ 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * As numerous editors have mentioned that is not how Wikipedia policy works. It isn't a non-neutral photo, it's respecting notability and showing what the vast majority of the media is covering. It is just like Battle of Iwo Jima showing a "non-neutral" pose, among plenty of other examples. Should we change Wikipedia precedent just for Trump? Bill Williams 06:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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🗯️</b> 06:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is that non-neutral? ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 06:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Its not a fair use image. It would be an entire valid Criteria_for_speedy_deletion deletion. The image as used in the infobox is a spectacular fair use fail. Its an AP image being used in the aftermath of a recent event to illustrate what is regardless of what policy says functionally a news article. That is in direct competition with AP's core commercial model leaving fair use with no real leg to stand on.©Geni (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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, , , and , all of which show Trump's injuries. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * Copyright is automatic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 10:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, my issue was with using it in the infobox specifically, I don't object to having it lower where its context and significance can be discussed. Chaotic Enby   (talk · contribs) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This image has been in and out of the infobox many times. RFC maybe needed. J cool bro   (talk) (c) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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.  C F A   💬  19:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trump_escorted_after_assassination_attempt.gif 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?
 * ― Howard • 🌽33 11:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has an ugly watermark tho. - Sebbog13 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 • 🌽33 13:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to find the original from the source in order to justify the free nature of this.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 • 🌽33 13:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Should I then re-upload the gif under a CC-BY license instead of PD? ― Howard • 🌽33 14:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @GreenMeansGo I have found the source of the clip in question. It appears to have been created by Reuters but was uncredited in the VOA report. https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/us-secret-service-react-after-shots-fired-at-trump-rally/video/23f019d545f3993784af2a01f4896e2b We cannot use it sadly. ― Howard • 🌽33 14:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing raised-fist photo
Per WP:NFC 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)


 * @TheWikiToby please see the ongoing discussions about the photo in the above sections  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir Which sections. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks. But since the image directly violates NFC so incredibly clearly, why is it still here? I find it really weird. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you haven't removed it yet. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was immediately reverted by without explanation  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This being a copyright situation, it should be removed until ruledotherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that the image is used in another article, it's that it violates WP:NFC 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)

Is it known if the said photograph is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize?"195.244.197.30 (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)"

British art critic Jonathan Jones from The Guardian's comments in the body
I recently added a short paragraph from British art critic Jonathan Jones explaining why the photographs were so praised. It reads:

"..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.

It was recently reverted by but in my mind it is a massive oversight to not include. What do other editors think? KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is given undue weight with the whole blockquote. A British art critic, huh. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Belongs in Trump raised-fist photographs, not here. Scu ba (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service / Law Enforcement knew about Thomas for 30 minutes
https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/thomas-matthew-crooks-was-spotted-on-roof-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-attempted-trump-assassination-report/

Possibly important info 2603:6011:A600:84B1:8561:ABEC:E11:FF03 (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding
 * https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/alleged-trump-shooter-spotted-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-shots-fired-sources-say/Q6GIK5RP6RBY5PHIMYBNXRTEBI/ 2603:6011:A600:84B1:8561:ABEC:E11:FF03 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's the archived WPXI source - there doesn't seem to be evidence for or against WPXI being reliable, but it's WP-notable. Boud (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Media Bias/Fact Check tends to be considered OK and rates WPXI fairly well. Boud (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate link is WP:MBFC (although, of course, this is for articlespace citations only). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that - I only searched on WP:RSP for WPXI, not MBFC. So the current consensus is that MB/FC is generally unreliable. The question of whether WPXI itself is reliable remains. I to at least be cited with attribution. (I incorrectly mixed up WMXI and WPXI; now corrected.) Boud (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, someone inserted another sentence into the info sourced to WPXI, so to be clear about what is sourced to WPXI. The fix seems to have been accidentally unfixed, and. WPXI also partly supports the CNN "Multiple sources..." sentence. Boud (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Should Ronny Jackson's nephew be included in the injury count?
Let me begin by stating that a "graze" is a much less severe injury than that of Comperatore, Dutch, and Copenhaver–but it is roughly equivalent to the injury Trump received in the attack. However, as has been noted in the article and under the victims section, Rep. Ronny Jackson's nephew had his neck grazed by a bullet when Crooks opened fire, so shouldn't the Jackson's nephew also be included in the total injury count? There is a possibility of course that Jackson could be lying, but unless that is proven I feel that the injury count should be adjusted accordingly. Raskuly (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have RS to support the updated injury counts? I don’t understand what’s so difficult with the policy concerning WP:OR. Wikipedia editors aren’t here to speculate or do our own WP:OR. If WP:RS are updating casualty / injury counts then we can update ours based on those reliable sources as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Kcmastrpc, I don't understand why you always bring up RS when there are RS, because the source mentioned in the article already that mentions the injury to Jackson's nephew (that I referenced) has been there for a long period of time. Raskuly (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump, which does not seem like a thing we can have certain knowledge of by reading a bunch of random stuff online that mentions it tangentially. If there was someone who actually knew what the hell they were talking about and said for sure that they were the same amount of injured, then yeah, it would be worth including; otherwise it would not.
 * It is not really an arithmetic issue: we do not need reliable sources to give us permission to add together numbers that total less than five. But the decision to call one thing an injury and some other thing an injury, I feel like involves more detailed knowledge than we can bring to bear from a Wikipedia talk page. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "I think the real issue is whether or not he was actually injured to the same extent as Trump" Trump was grazed and so was he. Why is one graze an injury and the other not? Raskuly (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason you stated, the decision to call one thing an injury… is precisely why we can’t just add up numbers here; imho we should depend on reliable sources to give us total injuries related to this event to use them in infoboxes/leads. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then remove the mention of Ronny Jackson's nephew being grazed. I was trying to fix an apparent error of omission. Raskuly (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, if it was unbelievably obvious it would be one thing, but this is not; it's a weird socially-constructed edge case where the intended victim of the attack suffered unusually minor injuries, but extremely visible ones. Any reasonably consistent application of principles ought to make this a lower bound on severity, rather than a stupidly disjunct carveout for the one guy. So, okay, how bad was the other guy grazed? But if we really follow the logic to this point, we are so far up the colon of poorly-defined and arbitrary distinctions, there is no reason to not just (at least for now) accept what the sources say. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that the definition of an injury is not clear enough? Raskuly (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As explained on the discussion you opened on my Talk page; we shouldn't be WP:SYNTHing here; let's defer to reliable sources for counts. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe a person can be grazed without being injured. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "grazed without being injured" doesn't make any sense. It is part of the definition of the word "graze" that it is a very minor injury that causes an abrasion of the skin and also consider that Trump was also grazed, this is not a good argument because if you want to include Trump and not Jackson's nephew by saying a graze can be considered not an injury then one can argue that Trump wasn't injured. According to Jackson there was blood associated with his nephew's "non-injury", if you are curious. Raskuly (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Several days have gone by and there is still no corroboration of Jackson's claim that his nephew was grazed. Surely, in such a momentous issue, there would be some kind of medical, legal, media or political corroboration that the injury was a consequence of the shooting. It remains the case that Jackson is the sole purveyor of this assertion. WWGB (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be the case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be the best argument against the inclusion imo, as I said when I opened the discussion people can lie. So, should the total injury count be reduced or should we wait until there is pushback from reliable sources about Jackson's claim or if he retracts it? Raskuly (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Details on the AR-15 ?
When it becomes available details on the configuration of the murder weapon should be added, especially whether the shooter was aiming over iron sights or if he was using a scope, and if so what kind. This is notable because it influences what kind of accuracy is attainable. Lklundin (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Such information can be added if or when it becomes prominent in reliable sources.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * here is one of such sources. Probably the most important detail is that "It’s unclear if he used any optics to magnify his perspective." According to other sources, he actually did NOT use any optics. That was the reason he missed, along with being a relatively poor/inexperienced shooter. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, without an optic, with this weapon, a 150-yard headshot is not something for which it can simply be said that an experienced shooter could do it, unqualifiedly. Not at all. You'll see that the quoted SEAL sniper presupposes that it wasn't iron sights. —Alalch E. 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It says: The shooter was obviously inexperienced and likely had a case of the shakes from nerves.. Yeh. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone posted a video yesterday that reconstructs the shooting, alleging that the bullet would have unalived Trump if he had not turned his head. People here are saying the shooter missed because he was inexperienced, but from the reconstructed video I saw, the bullet was on target, but Trump turned at the last moment, which seems incredible the more you think about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do RS say if there is a likelihood that the shooter had a clear field of view (for the 150-yard headshot)? 2001:2020:301:AB5D:C5CF:90CE:AC93:6308 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, they say he had a clear field of view, which they say would not happen if the Secret Service and police properly did their job. My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added the details: Special:Diff/1234938788. Do you really object to these details? —Alalch E. 22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. Honestly i fail to see why we need all the following details "He was carrying a DPMS Panther Arms-produced AR-15–style rifle with a 16" barrel (32" total length), chambered in 5.56×45mm NATO, described as an average rifle of its type and effective at the range intended by Crooks". This is not a shooters fan base forum where all those details matter. Are we going to list also what brand ammo was used? ammo grains and velocity? magazine manufacturer? where does it become fan material? Bohbye (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. however, listing the manufacturer in the infobox similar to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting would make sense but not weih every single detail. Bohbye (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If it makes sense in the infobox, it makes sense in the prose. I understand that this can be perceived as gun cruft, but I don't approach this from that angle, as I am not a gun enthusiast at all. This is a type of a "conventional fact", that is simply normal and expected by readers in an article with this subject matter. The information comes from reliable sources. I find it more encylopedic to say what something is exactly than to say that it's just a type of something and leave it at that. The Kennedy assassination rifle has an entire article at John F. Kennedy assassination rifle. AR-15 style rifles are often all described as average, popular, and standard, but they do have certain varieties. For example, they can be shorter than 32 inches and have a shorter barrel than 16 inches. They can also have different cartridges. I agree that technical detail such as ammo velocity would not belong in the article. —Alalch E. 22:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Its still gun cruft. ARs are like lego for gun enthusiast, and i know plenty about it, its endless when it comes to details what to list. Next will be irons, optics, grips, handles, flash hiders, stock, magazines, magazine capacity, ammo brand, ammo velocity, ammo grains, bullet type, store ammo vs remanufactured ammo, gun belt, and what not. DPMS Panther Arms AR-15–style rifle in the infobox is more than enough detail. Given that you added it back, i would ask other editors to add their opinion as i do not plan on edit wars. Bohbye (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't want any more detail about the gun and will be in total solidarity with you if someone adds more. So don't worry that this is some kind of trend. The detail I added is deliberately the exact detail about the gun that I think merits inclusion, but I'll oppose any extra detail as gun cruft just as you would. I find the model, the make, the length, the chamber as exactly the right information for this article. I'm also interested in what other editors have to say. Cheers. —Alalch E. 23:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose we institute one standard, and keep to it consistently across all guns that have spilled Presidential blood. Then, anybody who wants to add an additional technical spec to this guy's gun is required to first go buff up Burr–Hamilton duel. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 03:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Optics, should probably be mentioned.--Irons, probably mention if they were ready-for-use in the way the weapon was configured at the time of the attack.--Some (other) details should maybe be (in the infobox), under some "Expand" thingy. 2001:2020:337:9E1E:3940:1C6A:CE6E:B887 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on "left-wing conspiracy theories"
An entire paragraph and a half at the beginning of the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" emphasizes that most of it "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views", but without backing the claim up with anything specific. All the notable examples of misinformation and conspiracy theories come from the usual suspects in the far right. the claim that "the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right" is not supported by any of the evidence presented. Everything that follows shows that it is indeed very much the people on right who are responsible for the "communal warping of reality". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You will have to go take that up with the editorial board of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It is arguably true that our sourcing policies are overly deferential to the aesthetic and cultural mores of upper-class prestige media, but it seems to be somewhat like democracy, in that it is the worst system except for all the other ones which have been tried. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 11:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything in that section is properly attributed and reliably sourced; with examples of the conspiracy theories from left-leaning sources and personalities. If you feel like WP and NYT are no longer reliable sources, consider bringing that up at RSN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the relevant examples in the article itself come from far right sources, whereas the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory. That's natural skepticism based on first impressions of the suspiciously good campaign photo that came out of it, and lasted for a day or two. On the flipside, insane QAnon level speculations about an assassination ordered by Biden or orchestrated by "the Deep State" fit the definition of a "conspiracy theory", and also make up the overwhelming majority of the examples in the article. It's one thing to have all claims be attributed.
 * It's a whole other matter to cite NYT and WaPo on the claim that the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, only to completely contradict that when the time comes to present the actual examples. Wikipedia doesn't have to reference everything. If a single claim made by two outlets is contradicted by a wast amount of more detailed information, including concrete examples, it should be okay to simply leave that claim out. It wouldn't be the end of the world. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your point would be valid if a majority of political articles on here didn't exclusively have far far far far far left sources. 2600:1700:ADA0:5670:6CD1:2506:E45:F00A (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was surprised when I first saw the section focus initially/primarily on the left-wing conspiracy theories, but it does appear entirely due. It's not just a few outliers like the NYT or WaPo claiming this, but multiple sources including the BBC, Telegraph, even the left-leaning Guardian has acknowledged this. That's probably what makes the analysis in the first paragraph due also, as it documents the shift in the conspiracy landscape from right-wing to left-wing, that hasn't been documented before that I'm aware of. CNC (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * except there are also right wing ones as well. So there has been no shift from right to left. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * True, bad choice of words. I meant shift in popularity, or spread from right to left. CNC (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neitehr of which is (also) true, right-wing conspiracies about this are also popular. It's just that now the left has something they can make a conspiracy out of as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the content: much of the the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users" . CNC (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, the section covers right-wing theories and topics as well, but I believe what CNC was referring to is the landscape shift being so well covered by sources that have, historically speaking, been accused of being partisan by those who don't always agree with what they say. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate quote "Lots of the most viral posts, including this, came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views. ". Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Content should be amended if deemed not accurate. CNC (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNC referenced the source that quote came from; so I'm genuinely confused as to what remedy you're proposing here, be WP:BOLD if you think there should be a change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Slater, but I recommend that the section focuses on actual tangible conspiracy theories and misinformation, and just skip the imprecise and subjective speculations about alleged shifts in the conspiracy theory landscape. As well as to avoid giving undue weight to certain "left wing conspiracy theories" that went viral once when the story first broke, and died down a few hours afterwards, and only focus on actual conspiracy theories that are properly covered and prominently and enduringly promulgated by individuals who are influential voices within their own political circles. If by any chance this will eliminate all of the so called "left wing conspiracy theories", that just means that the claims about landscape-shifts were poorly informed. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From the Lorenz piece (subhed is Researchers who track online conspiracies say liberals are increasingly vulnerable to — and generating — QAnon-like bursts of misinformation) we have a bunch of stuff like:
 * As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of BlueAnon conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is spreading well beyond the right.
 * I do agree that there are some systemic issues at play here, where our sourcing guidelines are prone to uncritically representing opinion as fact purely because it were said in a newspaper, but inasmuch as this is the general consensus-supported practice on Wikipedia, it does seem like this is what the article says. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 13:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I should urge caution when it comes to any use of the term "BlueAnon". The word describes a thing that doesn't actually, and originates from self proclaimed centrists (which I can only assume cefers to the center between Far Right and Liberal Right) engaging in what's called "bothsidesism". 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a great point, I heard that after this article Taylor Lorenz was given an offer to go be executive editor at Breitbart, and she's taking it, and Ezra Klein will be anchoring for Newsmax, and Nancy Pelosi is switching her party affiliation to Alternative für Deutschland. Come on. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that's not true. Sources that claim the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left, cannot present any examples besides famous left-leaning people being slightly skeptical in the first few hours following the event. To take that claim and assert that the left now became the side of conspiracy theorists is not only dishonest, it's straight up false. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "the word “staged” became the second-highest trending topic immediately after “Trump,” with over 228,000 posts on the platform using the word" . I've added that to the article as it was missing. It clearly documents that the "stages" conspiracy theories were overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) from the left. It's presented as is, it's not intended to suggest "the majority of conspiracy theories come from the left", only that in aftermath the most popular conspiracies were. The right have been more "creative" with their theories from antifa, secret service, to joe biden, and assume the majority. I don't think anyone is questioning that. CNC (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "staged" trended for about all of a few hours. Because of the microphone readjusting to avoid the loud sound of the gunshots from clipping/peaking the microphone, people initially suspected it to be a BB gun. The word "staged" quickly fell off trending once it was confirmed an audience member and the shooter died at the time. Namealreadytak (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting the theory that left-wing conspiracies trended "first" with most popularly, followed by right-wing conspiracies (in fact it's entirely what appears to be the case). However from all the RS I read on this I couldn't find any context to support this, even if ideally the section would clarify something along these lines. I just had another search based on the "top conspiracies", but even these fail to document any chronological ordering or relevance. CNC (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So because a bunch of people on social media were initially skeptical about the official presentation of the event, we're just going to take that as evidence that the so called "left" is now just as big on conspiracy theories as the right is? That is preposterous. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources say. You're comment above "...the so called "left wing conspiracy theories" don't extend beyond speculation that the event was staged. That's not even a conspiracy theory." shows that you're not willing to accept the interpretation from RS, that spreading misinformation about the event being staged is a conspiracy theory, it's not merely "speculation" and "skeptisim". CNC (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How am I not accepting the interpretation by RS? That comment is based entirely on what's written in the article itself. This is what's evident from the reliable sources.
 * The claim that the event was staged was speculation based on incomplete information, and died down completely in a few hours after more information was made public. Just because one journalist decides to label that a conspiracy theory, doesn't make it one, especially when the facts she herself presents don't support the use of the label.
 * Taylor Lorenz's theory about alleged left wing "conspiracy theories" that went around for a few hours, should not take precedence over the very real and much more widely covered right wing conspiracy theories that are being spread by prominent right wing figures even in this very moment, reliable sources or otherwise. WP:UNDUE is still a consideration. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources described them as conspiracy theories per content. CNC (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the section above that's been aggregating this topic? Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems like it would definitely make more sense there, there but I am too lazy to do it myself. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're done with that topic and it's due for archiving, unless JPxg wants to keep it alive. CNC (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Recollections about Crooks political views etc (thread-start: July 17)
Can one "sew" together, or write, a paragraph based on speculation by 5 or 50 'nobodies' or classmates? Difficult, but nothing is impossible, one might say.--How many students would be necessary to indicate that he took on a role in history class debates (at community college), and the role was regarded as conservative in (some) debates about pro-life and/or gun-control and/or ... ?--For now I am against stuff about he had conservative friends and some of those had 'Trump hats' [a type of hat that has c. no meaning to people who do not live in America].--There actually is no hurry, in that we are not required to be able to lable his political views - this week, or any time soon!--If RS do not give specific cases about his political views, then i think that wikipedia probably should not say that he was conservative, even if RS says so. Thoughts (about all of this thread)? 2001:2020:315:BF09:7004:6012:67CC:9A8D (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. He was a registered republican. That's a matter of public record widely reported on, and the only piece of information that ultimately matters. And considering how much misinformation is being circulated by the right about his possible motives, I say this detail is important enough to be included in the lede. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not just a registered Republican, but as I predicted, it was up to the foreign, in this case the British news media, to break the story that the shooter’s family had been in a Republican database since 2016 as targeted GOP voters. The US media once again drops the ball when it comes to reporting about the GOP on their home turf. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to discuss the US media's persistent failure to properly report on the GOP, as big a problem as that is (and far right conspiracy theorists say there's a "left wing media bias", lol). I was proposing a specific change to the article, namely to change "The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old man from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania" in the lede to "The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old registered republican from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania" for the sake of clarity and accuracy. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Shooter Access of Roof
Current article says he accessed roof “through” air conditioning unit. No cite at end of this sentence. All news sources and video state/show he climbed “on” to an air conditioning unit on ground then hoisted himself up onto a lower section of the roof before again hoisting himself onto the top of roof. This distinction is not insignificant as “through” gives the impression the shooter was concealed from view while accessing the roof, when he was in fact visible. Tek619 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am unsure what you think is the issue is, as until he opened fired he was not a threat, is it illegal to be on roofs? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the article says he went through an air conditioning unit, which he did not. That's all the issue it takes. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Forbes ref says he went through an air conditioning unit. I've changed the article to say "by means of" which covers both possibilities (through or climbing onto). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 👍“by means of” 2600:1005:B023:546F:288B:9C6F:AA39:EA34 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * until he opened fired he was not a threat, is it illegal to be on roofs?
 * That's a pretty silly statement. The shooter was visible to the public and to police and security for several minutes as a threat while holding a rifle aimed at the stage before he opened fire.  There is public video from the scene before the shooting that was released yesterday that shows the public warning people about the shooter and trying to get the attention of the police many minutes before he took the shots.  It's frankly unbelievable that the the shooter wasn't immediately taken out by the snipers, so this might be one of the greatest security failures of all time.  There's really no other way to explain it.  Some critics have described it as security theater run by a platoon of Barney Fifes. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not of all time. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely one of the worst of all time – not the worst. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 13:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is 100% silly navelgazing, but the Praetorian Guard ganked thirteen emperors; while this is obviously a gigantic screwup, I would consider it a substantial improvement on the historical status quo. Most assassination attempts since the invention of decent guns seem to have consisted of a guy carrying one directly up to the target and not being stopped or questioned or anything until he's already gotten halfway through a mag dump. In America alone, Hamilton was literally in a prearranged duel where he and Aaron Burr shot at each other; Jackson got shot at by some random guy who ran up to him outside the Capitol with two pistols, and even after the guy attempted to fire twice, Jackson had to personally beat the snot out of the guy with his cane; Lincoln was watching a play in a theater where they let some random dude walk in with a loaded gun and saunter all the way up to the President's box seat; et cetera. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe its an open carry state, may be in any other nation this would be true, this is the USA where you are allowed to carry guns into shops and the street. Slatersteven (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re not making any sense, friend. The shooter was visibly laying on the roof aiming a rifle at Trump, and if you watch the video that was released yesterday, something like four minutes passed with neither the police nor the snipers doing anything, while the public on the ground was repeatedly telling them there was a guy on the roof with a gun. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Was it illegal for him to have a rifle at that location? Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. This occurred at the Butler Farm Show Grounds.  The TOS on their web page for their "Farm Show" prohibits firearms, which would make anyone carrying one on their property a trespasser and subject to arrest.  I am sure there were similar limitations for the Trump event being held there. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But was he inside the Showground, I do not believe he was []. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * CNN also shows as outside the grounds. Images: This first image shows the Butler Farm Show Grounds with the buildings to the North not part of it, this second image shows the shooter was on the buildings to the North, this third image shows the same area from a drone.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See image of ladder
 * https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/07/15/16/87356625-13635887-Chillingly_some_images_show_a_ladder_hidden_by_dense_shrubbery_p-a-23_1721057746495.jpg
 * at the bottom of
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13635887/trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks-images-roof.html
 * Quote from https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/us/thomas-crooks-trump-rally-shooting-invs/index.html
 * "investigators believe, he used his newly-bought ladder to scale a nearby building,"
 * Uwappa (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This troublesome lead
There are a couple things in the lead which seem a little silly. Here's one:
 * No specific political views are indicated in his social media posts or other writings, and authorities have stated that it is unknown whether the assassination attempt was related to any. Experts considered the shooting a sign of political polarization in the United States

First of all, experts of what? Second of all, the way this is written is self-satirical: there's a giant sentence which says very clearly that there's no evidence that he had strong political beliefs, there's no evidence they were a motivation or that this was a consequence of political polarization, et cetera -- then we have "experts" chiming in to randomly claim the exact opposite.

I don't know how it got this way (maybe someone was trying to prove a point, or the different parts got written at different times and then mashed together). Personally, I don't think it makes a difference which way it ends up: if the guy really did go out of his gourd over politics and the experts are right, then we can say that. If the guy had no discernable political motivations, then the experts are simply wrong. It would by no means be the first time immediately after some big occurrence, a bunch of pundits ran their mouths off about how this clearly shows blah blah blah, and a couple days later it turned out everybody was wrong about basic detail, meaning all the "expert analysis" was a bunch of hot air.

But either way, the lead should definitely not be saying both of these things at the same time. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree this is contradictory. The "experts" statement needs some qualifiers. Suggestions: 1) Don't call them "experts," clarify who they are, at least generally, and make clear it not all "experts," as the current version implies. Some political science professors? Some politicians? Some political pundits? 2) Clarify the time frame, as speculation shortly afterward, when there is no information on a possible political motive. 3) Remove this from the lead since these opinions are unsupported by facts and make these clarifications in the body of the article, in the reactions section. Elspea756 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence fom the lead section describing about "experts" spoeculation that was contradicted by the previous two sentences. Elspea756 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the speculation and fixing the dissonance! Uhoj (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

ear injury: projectile or glass ?
Is Trump's ear injury from an assassin's projectile or is it a piece of glass from the broken TV teleporter screen? Look here, see you a piece of glass in Trump's ear? https://berliner-zeitung.imgix.net/2024/07/16/b498dbe3-81dc-4f75-ad63-9fa13349c2e3.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.42.219 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not the editors' job to analyze and make conclusions. See WP:NOR. Yvan Part (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s for reliable sources to figure out. If they amend to say it was glass, we’ll follow. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is outside the scope of editing decisions (as already noted, WP:NOR), but some sources such as https://www.insideedition.com/will-donald-trump-get-reconstructive-surgery-on-his-right-ear-88244 state it likely there was "superficial damage to [the] cartilage" of his ear. WP's Cartilage article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartilage) states that "Hyaline cartilage is found in the nose, ears..." while WP's Hyaline Cartilage article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyaline_cartilage) describes it as "glass-like (hyaline) and translucent cartilage".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.185.17 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As discussed in an earlier discussion, there was consensus to say that he was injured by the bullet due to reliable sources. As noted by Zanahary, if sources report the injury was from a non-bullet projectile, then we can update the article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See edit: Special:Diff/1235151601 —Alalch E. 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RS state it was a bullet. It also helps we have a photo of the thing. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 14:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/glass-from-teleprompter/ Some1 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✔️: 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024
In the introduction, please change "counter sniper team" to "counter-sniper team". It's a compound modifier, not a sniper team that happens to be "counter". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding "mass shooting" to attack type
In this incident, the total amount of victims with gunshot wounds comes down to 4 in total (excluding the prep). If we look at what Wikipedia defines as mass shootings in America, (see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024) the consensus was at least four victims whether dead or alive. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per, a consensus was reached not to include mass shooting to parts of the article at this time. Editing the attack type would be editing the infobox, which is restricted in this situation.  If you still wish to have the infobox adjusted, then please review the closing statement above.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

first fix the events sequence
 * ... he crawled into a firing position due to the slant (too sloped for SS[1]) of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[59] <but two nothern snipers on video[2], at least 40s, pointing guns in his direction while Trump was talking, and openning fire, withouth rescaning for target or reaiming, not before but only after Trump was hit [ALD 0]. (some report for 10 min but I didnt foud video)

... Which refs[[0-9] are new and nedded for the content? 1 youtu.be/IN6OUBDfIzI?t=92
 * There is already consensus to not add this tag from a day or two ago. Refer to Super Goku's comment if you disagree with the consensus. -  AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Spelling needs improvement
In the section called "Aftermath", under the heading "Investigation", the word "etail" appears. This seems to be a mistake for "entail". Hm56fg78sd (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Counting Jackson nephew among the wounded
Should the nephew of Ronny Jackson be counted among the wounded? WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * Note For those stating self-published, I don't think Ronny Jackson owns Politico, USA Today, The Texas Tribune, or Reuters/Fox News. I don't have an opinion on whether this should be included or not, but I don't think WP:SPS is a strong argument for it. - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  C F A   💬  14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No w/ Comment We shouldn't be counting anything per WP:SYNTH. We can use reliable sources to give us accurate injury counts related to this incident. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No As others have said, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Sloped roof comment by Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle
"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."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

Many media sources have asked why there wasn't a Secret Service person on the roof of a building that was so close to Trump and had a direct line of sight to Trump. This reliable source verifies that this is the explanation that was given by the head of the Secret Service. This does not prove that the statement itself is reliable, but it does prove that she said it. Therefore, her statement should be included.

G928614bdpd45 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This is important and should be added to the article. Currently the article incorrectly states that no agents were on the roof because of manpower shortages. When in fact, the absence of rooftop agents was a deliberate decision. Jozsefs (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. There is clear information on why no Secret Service agent was up on that particular roof, so close to the stage.  ABC News is clearly a reliable source, and the rationale for no SS agent up there was provided by the agency head, so it should clearly be included. N2e (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Include this in the article, and also include the statement about manpower shortage, if it has a reliable source. If different people said different things, we can report who said what. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The current version of this article says "none of them were positioned on the rooftop due to manpower shortages," but I think sources indicate that this decision had been made mainly because the roof was sloped, and thus dangerous. Why hasn't this article been updated with this information? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Of course it should be included. That quote will go down in history as one of the all-time biggest bone-headed blunders ever given by a person of authority in an interview in American history.  Sorry for editorializing, but the fact that there is any question about its includability is ridiculous.   Marcus Markup (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * •Support.I mean, of course it has to be included. We'll receive more information come Monday when she testifies to the House Oversight Committee, but regardless what she says, it definitely still needs to be included. Hella say hella (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service spotted Trump rally shooter on roof 20 minutes before gunfire erupted
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-assassination-attempt-investigation-continues-new-details/story?id=112020474

This is extremely important and notable information from a very highly reliable source. It should be included.

G928614bdpd45 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Had he broken any laws? Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires municipal infractions being observed before we can document what RS are reporting. This material certainly seems WP:DUE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is what could they have done, as he had broken no laws, and so they could not search him, or size his weapons or arrest him (per numerous laws and constitutional amendments). So I fail to see what just saying they did nothing adds, as we would also need analysis as to what they could have done. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, we obviously can't make any of our own conclusions on what should have happened, but reporting what actually happened seems appropriate here. My 2c (and editors, feel free to reign me in here if we're wandering into NOTFORUM) this is only going to develop further because while it's not illegal to possess and carry a long gun in most US jurisdictions; it's another matter entirely to take up a position with a rifle in a place that is supposed to be "cleared of all threats" where it's obvious that life and limb is being threatened. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The info in the timeline on events that are known to have happened from this source can be integrated into the #Shooting section, maybe even splitting into paragraphs or a list per individual minute, giving the sources such as and the ABC-US source here that make specific enough claims. Boud (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This was included in the #Shooting section roughly fifteen hours ago, but seems to have been removed shortly after by an edit conflict. I have readded the content. – Gluonz  talk contribs 18:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We already mentioned this " Crooks was photographed twice by security officers prior to the shooting. Prior to 5:45 p.m. EDT, a police officer saw Crooks on the ground and reported him, with a photograph, as a suspicious person. An officer searched for Crooks but did not find him" "At 5:45 p.m., a member of the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit tactical team saw Crooks on a roof, notified other security services, and photographed Crooks". Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)
add the following section to the international reactions or online reactions Part:

German comedian El Hotzo loses job over Trump joke and Elon Musk
The Comedian El Hotzo lost his Job as host of a radio show for the public broadcaster RBB because he posted a joke on the attempted assassination and also made a post which stated, "absolutely fantastic when fascists die" which led to a shitstorm by German right-wing activists and Elon Musk. Elon Musk contacted the German Chancellor asking for a clarification if German state media is supporting people who want Trump to die. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not react to Musks Post. In the Bundespressekonferenz, Stateofficals stated that the chancellor will not reply because fighting disinformation is not the job of the governance but of the media. German Media than criticized elon musk for Cancel Culture and double standards. The Austrian newspaper der Standart reported on the incidents and emphasized that elon musk probably did not understand the concept of public broadcasters. Aberlin2 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

❌ Obscure comedian. Not needed even if he was more high profile. Safiel (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel that it is fine to mention the incident; the incident is not obscure. Getting fired (instead of re-assigned) from a state-financed radio, adds something to the incident (however i am not sure if it makes this barely wiki-notable incident, more notable). 2001:2020:30D:DE09:50DB:9B92:C4D7:AC3 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. It should be fine to mention this.  Let's remember that this kind of cancel culture was invented by Republicans, who have tried to make it seem like it was a liberal idea against all evidence.  The Phil Donahue Show was canceled after criticizing the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. Bill Maher was cancelled by ABC due to his comments about 9/11.  NBC attempted to cancel Keith Olbermann after he apologized to viewers for the Republican Party's 9/11 "snuff film" which they used to try to sway voters against Obama. The Dixie Chicks were cancelled by country radio after criticizing George Bush. There is a huge list of people who Republicans cancelled, beginning in the early 20th century. It is also said that Ronald Reagan helped institutionalize cancel culture by surreptitiously working as an informant for the FBI in 1940s Hollywood, helping to destroy the careers of anyone perceived as a "leftist".  Before that, the FBI went after jazz musicians like Billie Holiday and was notorious for targeting civil rights agitators.  Cancel culture is deeply embedded in conservative history, yet they would have people believe otherwise.  Don't believe what they say, watch what they do. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas maybe as a compromise the mention of this incident could be shortened to 3 sentences and then Link on a fitting section of the article about the comedian. how about this? Aberlin2 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That might work. Now, as far as "posted a joke on the attempted assassination and also made a post ...".--If possible, the wiki-article should eventually say that the post was on SoMe (or whatever the case).--Also, eventually the wiki-article should maybe say if the post was on a private account of his (or on his employer's account). 2001:2020:337:C10F:912B:CB07:1793:70D2 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal: Conspiracy theories
With constant discussions and theories on the left and right, plus with how this could be a significant moment in American history, it needs its own article. Vinnylospo (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Let us also make a seperate article for the reactions to the assassination attempt for the same reason Trade (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the broader #Reactions section (which includes the #Misinformation and conspiracy theories subsection) could be split. – Gluonz  talk contribs 19:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest that we add public and celebrity reactions to every major event/disaster? This will all blow over soon. Plenty of other assassination attempts have occurred and been forgotten about. I’m not denying that this could become a major event in American history, but see no point in splitting it just yet Catriona Moore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had simply been suggesting an alternative proposal. I think that splitting off the entire #Reactions section would make more sense than splitting off the smaller #Misinformation and conspiracy theories subsection, should a split occur at all, but I am not specifically supporting either action. – Gluonz  talk contribs 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They have no informational value and shouldn't even be acknowledged. "Random people on social media believe a thing," do we need to state this after every major event? Give it some time. Swinub (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lean to Wait I agree with @Swinub on this one, I think we should give it a little more time before making a separate article for the Misinformation and conspiracy theories seeing as its unclear if these theories will last any span of time yet. I wouldn't be opposed to, however, and could see the use for splitting the Reactions section into its own article as there's plenty of them, and that time won't make them more notable as like the former. Cheers!  Johnson  524  20:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or I should say IF there are enough of them, if there isn't an abundance of reliably sourced and notable reactions yet there's no use to split those either.  Johnson  524  20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose split. Article size is 32 kB, neither the whole article or the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" is too large nor is the material inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope. The material is better treated in-context. This WP:SPINOFF idea concerns a subtopic which is given enough focus in this article and does not need to receive more detailed coverage at this time, and even if it would benefit from some more detail, this article can still accommodate that additional detail. Some time in the future when it might seem that too much detail is given to the conspiracy theories in this article, but the information is due and needs to be included in the encyclopedia, a spinoff will become a good idea. To stress: I oppose removing any significant amount of information from this article in its current shape. (Splitting means removing most of the detail and leaving a summary, and I oppose that; I like the article the way it is now.)—Alalch E. 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose split. Too soon. All information is relevant in context. Article is long but not excessive. Wait. Ocaasit &#124; c 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose split. The main article should not focus too much on these theories, another page can take care of this. At any rate, it should not trigger a split of the main article per se. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose split. Based on WP:SIZERULE and current article size of 5,080 words: "Length alone does not justify division or trimming." I don't doubt the section is notable enough in itself, with over 20 sources and SIGCOV, but for now there is no need for a split. Given time, and reaching 9,000 words, I'd agree that it's a section that would be betters split off. CNC (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose split The current section already covers all the notable conspiracy theories and it's is not large enough to warrant a split. Some1 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose split  Frankly, quite a bit of the content in the reactions section, especially the "conspiracy theories" section seems non-notable / recency bias / non-encyclopedic, and should be removed. User:WoodElf 23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose split  Way too soon.Bohbye (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose for just conspiracy crap, I think it could potentially be justified for all of the reactions and discourse coverage together, but it is currently too early to say either way. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Aborted Timeline
I've just lost three hours of work on a stand-alone timeline of this event. Never saw the error message before, either:

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [e56b2026-d920-46dc-a5e2-08d08125ebaf] 2024-07-19 00:13:12: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBUnexpectedError"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

This was what I was folding in: https://www.wdsu.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-timeline/61592902

Good luck.

kencf0618 (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you refresh the page and resend the data, it should work with that error (probably not possible now sadly). I have gotten it a few times randomly on Wikipedia the last couple days, it is a very new and bizarre type. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 01:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That always hurts. Best thing I can suggest is to type it up in a text editor like Word or Notepad, which can sometimes restore the text when something goes wrong.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I should mention that CBS News has a detailed timeline as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, guy. Having undergone the grieving process, I've realized that I'd made too much work for myself. Best to work with timelines and not from the article, now that things have settled. kencf0618 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Kee-rap. The article was published! I'd had no idea... What is going on with Wikipedia? kencf0618 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am glad that your progress had not been lost after all. This issue has affected many people (including myself) over the past few days. – Gluonz  talk contribs 16:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Figured as much. As for the timeline itself, the various investigations shall have events pinpointed to the second, and in case of the high-speed photo showing the displacement of the air, millisecond. The chronological narrative here on the main article I'm leaving alone.kencf0618 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we add what Trump said at the RNC today to a quotebox or something like it regarding the assassination attempt?
He said it will be the last he will speak on the attempt on his life. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Source? ?
 * HiLo48 here https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/g-s1-12143/trump-assassination-attempt-speech-rnc Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Politico has a great transcription: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/19/trump-speech-shooting-transcript-00169706. I would say its a definitive yes on including it as he says something to the effect of "its to painful to talk about it and I wont mention it again." He gives a very detailed description of his reaction that I think would be important to have on the record.
 * It is rather long so I dont know about including the whole thing. Babanaeb (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of people were arguing that the photo had to go because it was propaganda, which I didn't really buy, because it wasn't meant to be campaign material, it just happened to be a good photo (e.g. the Associated Press isn't run by the GOP). But I think an actual speech by Trump given at the RNC pretty clearly is, so if we excerpt from it we should do so carefully and minimally, and definitely try to avoid any kind of big ol blockquote. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 08:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A picture cannot be, in and of itself, "propaganda".  It is how a picture is used which would make it, or make it not, "propaganda". Using a thing strictly for encyclopedic purposes of course is not "propaganda" and there's a whole lot of  WP:IDONTLIKEIT sentiment here masquerading as "it's propaganda and it's got to go!" Marcus Markup (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would be one thing if it were a staged photo, but this was an improvised photo in the moment. The fact that Evan Vucci's photo has "propaganda" vibes to me just shows how good of a photographer he is (imo). Will this photo likely be used to further Trump? Probably and while I'm not entirely sure how to source this, I think it already has. Raskuly (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Butler County PD
Saw this tweet from BCPD that might be of some use for this article, either directly or to aid researching a better source. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:9BB0 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but Wikipedia doesn't consider social media posts as reliable sources in articles about living people. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong choice of words: "wounded Trump in his right ear"
Wrong choice of words: "wounded Trump in his right ear". This statement could mean that the bullet entered the ear canal as some point. The right way to say it would be: "wounded Trump on his right ear lobe or pavilion." 205.193.170.4 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have added the word "upper" for clarification. – Gluonz  talk contribs 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The word 'in' has so many different uses besides being a synonym for 'inside'... I encourage you to have a look: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in. In this case (no pun inteded) the most pertinant definition would be the very first:  used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits  Marcus Markup (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles with mention of the attack
I'm posting this here to draw editor's attention towards the issue. These articles Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, Connoquenessing Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, Meridian, Pennsylvania, and Butler, Pennsylvania mention the assassination attempt in the article. The first three are the location of the property in which the attack took place in. The property intersects Butler Township, Connoquenessing Township, and Meridian, however shots were fired from inside Meridian/Butler Township at Trump who was inside Meridian/Butler Township. While the attack did not take place inside the city of Butler sources reported it as having taken place there even though that is not technically correct.

So, should mention of the attempted assassination of Trump be mentioned in all of these articles? Raskuly (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That complex of questions, does not seem to belong on this talk-page (and anyone can write on those other pages, as they see fit, within Wikipedia's guidelines). 2001:2020:337:C10F:2C35:78DC:6289:B6FA (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with adding the mention of the attempt on those articles as things can be added with good intention and understandable reasoning and then later removed with good intention and understandable reasoning. The purpose of this topic was just to draw attention to these articles that now have relation to this article and whether the mention is appropriate. In my opinion, the least justifiable one is the article on the city of Butler. Raskuly (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly it makes no sense to list the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump at most locations you mentioned besides the actual site. Why stop there? why not at the state level? country lavel? a good example is is the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, is it listed on the page of Washington, D.C.? no, it is listed at the actual site Washington Hilton. Bohbye (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you bring up the much longer and much more expansive Washington D.C. article it is mentioned in the Timeline of Washington, D.C.. The capital was also the location of the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield. For such a major site such as the capital it makes sense, but the location of the incident, Butler Farm Show fairgrounds, does not have an article.
 * Other assassinations of presidents, such as John F. Kennedy and William McKinley, are featured in the associated "History of" articles, while Kennedy's assassination is actually mentioned on the Dallas, Texas article itself. The only attempted or successful assassination of a President that was not mentioned in an article like that was of James A. Garfield, and I just added it to the Timeline of Washington, D.C. article since Lincoln and Reagan's assassination incidents were both mentioned.
 * No other assassination or attempted assassination has happened in such a small place, whether that be Meridian or Butler Township, so I think it would deserve a mention in at least the Meridian article. Raskuly (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Small correction: the assassination attempts that are mentioned also wounded the targeted President. Raskuly (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

John Hinckley Jr.
"John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981, said "violence is not the way to go" Why is this here? WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bohbye (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Gotta balloon up the size of the section so we can justify making a seperate article dedicated to reactions Trade (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Source: https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/shots-fired-trump-rally-donald-trump-rushed-off-stage/GRXLQ67PEVDPDKDPNNE3AEGMGU/ NME Frigate (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't do math here. we need RS showing the total count and with details. Bohbye (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We actually can do math, if needed. WP:CALC says ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  02:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Regarding the no-math-involved source: Thanks user:NME Frigate, i feel that the information is barely enough to mention in the article. 2001:2020:337:C10F:10CE:C9EC:FE78:37AD (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, WPXI is a reliable source, and police officers injured in a shooting belongs in this article on that shooting. Elspea756 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine to include, but we do have a consensus against calling this a mass shooting. (Bringing that up due to prior discussions on injuries.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Drone
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)
 * Sources, please? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 04:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * it looks like drone video www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6hTbo6IKSI 173.26.112.39 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's a reliable source, but I did find this Wall Street Journal article about it: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/trump-gunman-flew-drone-over-rally-site-hours-before-attempted-assassination-2d0e2e1a Hella say hella (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Other sources confirming drone flight, hours or days prior to the event:
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gunmans-high-school-says-it-has-no-record-of-him-trying-out-for-rifle-team/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0xj5w3nx7yo
 * Uwappa (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And what relevance does this have? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Congressional committee hearings lately have been completely meaningless, political posturing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Lead changes WP:NPOV
@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 [] - other attempted assassination is also written in similar fashion Astropulse (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Ah i was looking at Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan, as a compromise why dont we mention assassination attempt and where he was wounded in opening sentence? Astropulse (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Selfgyrusi added "survived an assassination attempt" - hope this is ok Astropulse (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is perfect, @Astropulse, thank you so much. I also just linked the term. Selfgyrus (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Back to was this an assasination
This [] implies it was a spree killing, and the target may not have been Trump at all. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, "tried to kill former President Donald Trump" by a "would-be assassin" doesn't equate to 'spree killing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But the point is, was that what he was attempting? Is there any actual evidence (outside of Trump was there) he was the target? Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. We go by what the sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 20:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yeah, that he looked the guy's name up once, not that they were astral-projection spirit pals or whatever. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)

Can we move this page from extended confirmed protected to semi protected
Edits have calmed down quite a bit Amthisguy (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * yes, because it is extended confirmed protected, it should stay the same. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, edits have calmed down since yesterday Amthisguy (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * well, that doesn't mean that vandals won't try to destroy this article. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The EC protection was a WP:ARBAP enforcement so it's a bit more complicated to lower.  C F A   💬  16:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Corey Comperatore into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump
Corey Comperatore was previously a redirect to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. This is a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT, not warranting a spinoff obituary article per WP:NOTWHOSWHO. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I think he should have a standalone article and has had a large impact on the 2024 election. cookie monster   755  20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that it would hard to discern the impact of his death on the election only a week out from the shooting. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge but keep information. cookie monster   755  01:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge - Subject of the article is indeed not notable beyond this single, tragic event. It absolutely merits its own section in this article, but I am not convinced he merits a standalone article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here also. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * merge- He does not really need an own article. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge, per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Merge WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. RIP to Comperatore, but this is not a memorial site Raskuly (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge this is a pretty ridiculous standalone Jackwagsy (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per Safiel, as in restore redirect. Clearly BLP1E, there is nothing else notable. CNC (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per Safiel, nothing notable other than his death at the rally --Chicken4War (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge: Per nom. Not notable enough for it's own article. TheBritinator (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge: Not notable enough, as the rules dictate. George Mucus (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge: Not to be rude to Corey, but he's really only notable enough for mention due to this one event. --Aabicus (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * SNOW merge. WP:BLP1E is very clear, Comperatore is not a notable person. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong merge. Non-notable except in context of the assassination. User:WoodElf 03:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * DELETE article Astropulse (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Merge whatever negligible useful content there is. Redirect too, of course. This is a WP:BIO1E. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom, and redirect. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * and in other places he might not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Geo-location
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)

This CC article should to have section worldwide reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

aftermath section
Wouldn't it be better if we add Trump's photo with ear bandage to aftermath section? Asigooo (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but the copyright status of such an image would be in question. If taken from the media, it almost certainly wouldn't qualify for Fair Use or anything like that. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot
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."

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."

CBS article confirms with federal officials that northern sniper team did not shoot. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024
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)
 * Anyone who claims that the killer was somehow "assigned" to only graze Trump's ear is completely deluded. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Distance from roof to venue stage
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * New York Times says 450 feet for distance general-roof/stage here. Forich (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Separate investigation section
Would it be beneficial to remove the Investigation "sub section" out of the Aftermath section and make its own section, @Alalch E. has suggested that this be a talk page discussion. In the page Assassination of John F. Kennedy the investigation is a separate section. While in the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan there is no specific investigation section, instead its aftermath based on specific people, and similarly with the Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt. However, other pages due to gun violence in the US such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting have an investigation section and the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting page focuses more on legal proceedings.

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)
 * 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)

Reverted 83d40m's removal of Trump being shot
I restored the article to before '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)


 * @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 • c 23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 • c 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Merger discussion for Thomas Matthew Crooks
An article which may be of interest to members of this project&mdash; Thomas Matthew Crooks&mdash;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)
 * 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)

== 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."

- USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle

https://nypost.com/2024/07/16/us-news/secret-service-boss-kimberly-cheatle-says-the-buck-stops-with-me-calls-trump-rally-shooting-response-unacceptable-but-still-wont-resign

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:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056

This is also stated on the Secret Service government website:

"The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees."

https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

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.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.7264065.1721067194!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/election-2024-trump.jpg

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A48a056d0-35a9-419f-bcc4-f8ecbf44a8de?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=1

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZqk85yvKk&t=129s

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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I guarantee though that what's said in the hearing tomorrow will take front and center in the article though. Hella say hella (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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*.
 * BTW, not saying we shouldn't include that her initial response about the sloped roof or anything :). A source said it, feel free to add it. Hella say hella (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)