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)
Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Minor details are often excluded unless they have significant coverage and lasting importance. See also WP:NOTNEWS. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Reactions
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). Jcoolbro (talk) (c)23:09, 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)
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)
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. Jcoolbro (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)
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. Thebiguglyalien (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)
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)
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. Jcoolbro (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)
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)
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 Williams03:49, 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. — ThatCopticGuyping 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)
This article is still just "Kennedy says that..." Nobody is lending weight to his speech besides. It's the same level as Musk. I have no doubt that it can get bigger, but it's not there now. Ornov Ganguly04:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
International reactions. Right now, it is at what I hope is the peak size. 17k bytes is excessive when nobody is doing anything more substantial than saying "sending love and prayers xoxo such tough times" Ornov GangulyTALK16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 GangulyTALK17:02, 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 Williams02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Bill Williams 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)
No it isn't. There will be thousands of reactions by famous and influential people condemming the shooting. It's not like anyone is going to actively support it. We do not need a mention of every person who reacts to the shooting. That would not be due weight at all. CFA💬02:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
I stand by that Musk and RFK Jr. belong in reactions since they were covered by the media and therefore notable, but I understand why some want to keep it out. Bill Williams04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. He has nothing to do with the shooting and nothing to do with the election. He doesn't even have anything to do with politics. » Braytalk07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'm sure there's a WP thing about how it's easier to keep adding to an article than to trim it. There's no discussion with them often because they don't go to the talk page, but if we remove it, it'll become a huge thing. Ornov GangulyTALK17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because I don't think believe his children's reactions are that needed. We should keep it generally to politicians. Jcoolbro (talk) (c)01:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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 GangulyTALK17:05, 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 GangulyTALK20:40, 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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
WPXI (11 News) in Pittsburgh reported at 4:50 p.m. on July 14, 2024 that "four Pittsburgh police officers assigned to the former president’s motorcade yesterday suffered minor injuries during the shooting." The piece adds:
"The four motorcycle officers were part of Donald Trump’s escort to and from the rally in Butler.
Sources tell Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets.
Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.
They were treated at the scene. They were okay to escort Trump back to the airport in Pittsburgh last night after he was treated at Butler Memorial Hospital."
I don't know if the source is considered reliable enough, or if the injuries would be considered severe enough, to mention, but I'm sure wiser and more experienced contributors here can decide that.
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.
WP:CALC doesn’t explicitly specify calculating injuries. This is a more nuanced and subjective topic that requires consensus by editors, regardless. It seems easier and far more reliable to leverage official reporting for these figures. This is a very notable event, so it’s not like it’ll be hard to find sources to cite.
Given that we’re here, discussing “how injured does one need to be to meet the criteria of being injured” is just going to result in multiple editors arguing about the criteria — pointlessly. This seems like something that lives right outside “almost always” clause. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. jp×g🗯️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. GMGtalk18:29, 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. jp×g🗯️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. GMGtalk23:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
that news outlets in Michigan have a bizarre fixation on this crime If this is referring to Oxford, then it is because the parents fled and were found miles away from the Canadian border and were later convicted for their actions that contributed to the shooting. If you want a source outside of Michigan though, here is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette talking about the shooter researching the Oxford shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that he looked the guy's name up once, not that they were astral-projection spirit pals or whatever. jp×g🗯️06:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
While I am not aware of the specific facts regarding the Pennsylvania shooting, the research is very clear that mass shooters often research previous mass shooters. Only seems to be that he was trying to take inspiration from another shooter. Nothing more. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do not merge, but restore redirect Blatant violation of WP:BLP1E and nothing relevant to merge. The existing blurb on him in the article is sufficient. Just roll back to the existing redirect. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Completing merge of Corey Comperatore
I have converted Corey Comperatore into a redirect as part of this merge. I do not see any part of that article that needs to be copied here. If others do, please feel free to add content from the latest revision here. Soni (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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 [[4]] - 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)
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 Williams06:12, 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🗯️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. jp×g🗯️06:21, 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)
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 [5], [6], [7], and [8], 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)
@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. jp×g🗯️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)
@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. CFA💬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. jp×g🗯️07:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA.Trump being escorted to his car by secret service after assassination attempt, footage provided by VOA. I've found some footage which is probably more illustrative of the assassination. It shows Trump being escorted to his car by the secret service right after the assassination attempt. The footage was provided by VOA (I found it on the Albanian channel so thats why the text is in Albanian) and was not attributed to an external source, so as far as I am aware it is the most illustrative free content recording of the event. Perhaps it should be placed at the top of the article instead?
Anybody is free to edit it and remove the watermark. But even with the watermark, it's still highly relevant to the article and should be included. ―Howard • 🌽3313:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The clip was used in the video without attribution in the form of a watermark, whereas every other clip in the video was attributed to the respective providers (AFP, Reuters, etc.), so I assumed it was created by VOA themselves. I will try and see if any original of this video can be found. ―Howard • 🌽3313:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I can restore it no problem. The YT video is under a CC license, but it also includes a boat load of obviously fair use content. The VOA thing only covers content that is the original creation of VOA. GMGtalk13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Howardcorn33: Yeah, you gotta be careful with YouTube. A lot of the stuff is just uploaded by some intern or something who doesn't necessarily take into account things like fair use or derivative works. GMGtalk14:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Removing raised-fist photo
Per WP:NFC#UUI number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image). Ergo, we should remove the image of Trump pumping his fist from this article right? TheWikiToby (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
Wouldn't there just need to be a second NFCC template at the image's information page? Fair-use images can be used in more than one page, can they not? jp×g🗯️06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, File:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp -- it looks like there IS a second NFCC, so I don't think there's a fair use basis to remove it from here. I am not familiar with the proper channel for disputing an improper NFCC rationale so I cannot give any guidance on that (I mean, maybe it is talk page consensus, who knows). jp×g🗯️06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem isn't that the image is used in another article, it's that it violates WP:NFC#UUI number six in the most straightforward and plainest of words possible. [Using a fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).TheWikiToby (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
..through a magical cocktail of chance and Vucci’s excellent eye, this scene with the close-knit human group under the stars and stripes echoes Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph of US Marines Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima in 1945. Both pictures portray an embattled collectivity with the stars and stripes triumphant above them. A similar scene was invented by Emanuel Leutze in his 1851 painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. This photograph joins those timeless patriotic images. It would not be the same without Old Glory. The American flag is the best-designed in the world, its abstract beauty striking and poignant in any setting. Here it is surrounded by violence and fear, as in the US national anthem: Trump makes his defiant call to fight on with the star-spangled banner perfectly situated parallel to his fist.
Presently, we don't explain why the images were praised, and a short explanation for why seems entirely WP: DUE for the article.
There should be some explanation for why the images were classified among the greatest works of political photography ever. Vox, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other news organizations have gone and made similar statements. Would you be okay with wording that gives an alternative description of the ideas portrayed in the paragraph? This is obviously a concept that deserves at least a brief mention and I'm open to suggestions. KlayCax (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
I restored the article to before 83d40m (talk·contribs)'s mass removal of text stating that Trump was hit by a bullet. Reliable sources state that Trump was shot. Unless and until that changes, don't reinsert such edits. This unfortunately undoes several intervening edits that will have to be redone. Ylee (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ylee I've reverted you, only because you also undid a number of other unchallenged edits. Next time, only undo the changes you're objecting to. —Locke Cole • t • c23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
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 • c23:22, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Already done: It's been in the article for the better part of two days now—to support the statement that the glass theory is false. —Alalch E.16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
You're doing your own research, which is out of the scope of what you/we should be doing here; please see: WP:NOR
The glass theory has been debunked many times. If you have new reliable sources with new evidence there was in fact glass, by all means post them. There isn't. Hella say hella (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Please add a few quotes from Cheatle's House deposition
For example:
"In her opening remarks, Cheatle called the shooting the “most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades.”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several days have passed since the Trump shooting. No-one other than Ronny Jackson has asserted that Crooks shot a fifth person, namely, the grazing of Jackson's nephew's neck by a bullet fired by Crooks. This assertion has been widely published in reliable sources, but the only source is Jackson. There is no independent confirmation by law enforcement, government, doctors or journalists. Even the nephew and his parents have remained silent. The four named shooting victims (Trump, Comperatore, Copenhaver and Dutch) have been confirmed extensively by independent sources. I am concerned that the nephew is being included as a victim on the slimmest of evidence. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
No (should not be counted among the wounded) and omit entirely from the article. The sourcing isn't there. The best we can say is: "According to Jackson, x maybe happened", because he himself says merely that "something" grazed his nephew's neck (a bullet or a fragment of a bullet or something grazed his neck ... very minor injury not a big deal), and that's not a noteworthy fact. Probably many people were injured in some way in the commotion. Someone maybe trip and fell and hurt their wrist, etc. These things are not worth mentioning irrespective of how certain and verifiable they are. —Alalch E.12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
All of those articles say that Jackson said his nephew was grazed by a bullet. They do not explicitly say that he was. That is the best we can say; anything else is speculation and certainly not appropriate in a WP:BLP context.. News articles are repeating what Jackson published himself. It is just a self-published source. CFA💬14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I may be reading too much into CommunityNotesContributor‘s edit summary, but on the claim that the “In the aftermath, there has been significant scrutiny on the security arrangements, with criticisms directed at the Secret Service for not adequately securing the rooftop from which the shooter fired”, CommunityNotesContributor stated, the U.S. congress (i.e. people literally asking for the director of the Secret Service’s resignation), “is not a reliable source for that claim, not by a long shot”. I really want this explained, since that seems very obvious that the U.S. Congress asking for resignations involve “significant scrutiny”. On top of that, CNC cited WP:RSTWITTER (valid usage), however, that also means CNC is arguing the U.S. Congress would not be a subject-matter expert on the topic…meaning their investigation is not a reliable source. This really needs to be solved and explained. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the edit, the source is the Twitter account @GOPoversight. While it is tied to the Oversight Committee, it is unclear to me if the account is considered a Government account or not. (Note that it is @GOPoversight. There is a similar handle, @OversightDems for the Democrats.)
That does seem to make it easier to use. But it does seem like there is still an objection to using it as a source. If there are other sources that can be used like CNC just suggested, then it might be easier to use them instead as a compromise. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The other reverts were for it being placed in the infobox, not even remotely associated with that sentence. You are the only editor who reverted me for the addition of the U.S. Congress to the security-related sentence. You just pinged two people who didn’t need to be pinged whatsoever. Given both had reverted that source addition for completely different reasons, it feels (to me) like unintentional canvassing, since it pinged only editors who had previously reverted me not for that addition. AboutSelf has absolutely no basis here…unless you want to argue this article is about the U.S. Congress, then by all means, go for it and try to make a consensus from that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It is about the oversight committee, it's about it's members grilling Kimberly Cheatle is it not? Moreover there is widespread coverage of this from reliable secondary source, why not just use them instead? [10][11]CNC (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I notice this is the exact same tweet that WeatherWriter already added, twice, to the infobox as a ref for the shooter's name (the first time also claiming it said there might be other shooters involved), which the tweet does not mention at all. Now they have added it a third time (awkward characters and all), to another statement in the article, of which there is absolutely no mention in the tweet? Forgetting the WP:SPS altogether, my question is, why are you pushing over and over and over to add this single meaningless tweet somewhere in the article as a ref, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the statement(s) you are citing with it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
In response to CNC’s statement about using RS above, I should have cited both the Tweet (primary source) and a news article for a secondary source. That said, now that Adolphus79 has also stated the tweet is “meaningless”, we still need this conversation as we now truly have a split consensus on whether the U.S. Congressional investigation actually has merit for this article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Canvassing or not, SPS or not, I would still be asking you this same question after you added it a third time, to another statement of which is it completely unrelated... my comment of "meaningless" is because, of the two statements you have added this same tweet to, neither of them are mentioned anywhere in the tweet... why is it so important you are willing to war over it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
“Another statement of which is it completely unrelated”. Excuse me??? LOL! So to you, the U.S. Congress saying and I quote, “While U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle refused to answer most of the questions asked of her today… She thinks that the assassination attempt was “the most significant operational failure at the Secret Service in decades,” yet she still believes she is the best person to lead the Secret Service… She ADMITS to multiple lapses in security under her leadership of the law enforcement agency” does not relate to “security scrutiny”? This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Just casually a situation mentions “multiple lapses in security” and you legit just stated it is unrelated to the security of the shooting. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was, given your replies here. With all respect for you as an editor, please drop out (WP:DTS) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Please feel free to explain where in the tweet the shooter's name is mentioned, or that there were "possibly others involved", or that it mentions Biden ordering an independent review? The three statements for which you have tried to use this exact tweet as a reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
If you're citing secondary sources, there is no need to use primary self-published. Also maybe we could come back to basis of WP:SUMMARY: include the content in the body and summarise it to the lead. As Adolphus79 pointed out, at present it's not necessary for inclusion, and that's why I pinged other editors who reverted you as it wasn't clear if they objected to the inclusion of the source beyond the specific use case. This otherwise has nothing to do with whether the congress investigation has merit for the article, so far this is only based on using the Twitter source and where it's being placed. CNC (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
On weather articles, it is standard to cite the primary source (typically the National Weather Service) followed by some RS statement. I guess that is different on these type of articles. Well nevermind then. The information and/or one of those RS sources linked above should really be cited and added. I’m going to go ahead and leave the discussion since my original reason for opening was solved now. I’m just going to ignore Adolphus79, since they accused me of bad-faith editing + got canvassed here. Either way, issue seems solved (finding RS for the U.S. Congressional stuff was key). I was just following what I normally did on weather-related articles, where the primary source (NOAA/National Weather Service stuff) is cited along with some RS. In this case, the primary source was being challenged entirely. But, it seems like the citation practices are different on these articles than historical weather articles. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Clearly, you need to re-read my first comment... I did not get canvassed here, I clearly stated that I was calling you out for edit warring with a tweet unrelated to the statements you keep adding it to as a reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Contentious topics are very different than weather articles for sure. Hopefully someone will add content regarding the hearings as does appear due and relevant, and doesn't require primary sources either. CNC (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adolphus79: You should probably use some WP:COMMONSSENSE, which we both needed. I made a mistake adding the citation for the “President Joe Biden ordered an independent review of security at the rally.” If you noticed what this discussion was about, you would have probably figured out it was meant for the sentence directly before that sentence: “In the aftermath, there has been significant scrutiny on the security arrangements, with criticisms directed at the Secret Service for not adequately securing the rooftop from which the shooter fired.” You know, the one regarding security concerns? Yeah, you probably should have figured that out. You also accused me of bad faith editing. (Personal attack removed) The discussion is already over. (Personal attack removed) Your revert of the tweet was not being questioned. For real, you should have figured that out from this discussion, given the sentence directly before that tiny sentence related to the tweet by the U.S. Congress…Just saying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Would you have preferred an edit warring warning template on your talk page instead? As for the bad faith editing, why else would you add a relevant tag to the statement about Biden ordering the Secret Service to reassess their protocols before Trump showed up at the RNC with the edit summary "...Discussion on TP seems to say the Congressional investigation is not relevant..." when NO ONE in this thread has even hinted at that, nor was the statement you tagged even related to the Congressional investigation? - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly resolved The 'living martyr' sentence has been removed from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Left guide (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
![[5]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/NHLDWBNYX6YDUFOP2L32TGXYHU.JPG&w=916){kind=link}
![[6]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24196166272311-1720933024.jpg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80){kind=link}
![[7]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/multimedia/13xp-mills2-gcjw/13xp-mills2-gcjw-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale){kind=link}
![[8]](https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/ap24195813259181.jpg?c=16x9&q=w_1280,c_fill){kind=link}
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Thomas Matthew Crooks—has been proposed for merging with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. C F A 💬 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Assassination of Donald Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Assassination of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)