Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 1 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Donald Trump
|
![]() |
|
![]() | A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 July 2024. | ![]() |
Titel
"Shooting" might be taken to imply that the attack was fatal. I propose moving to "2024 Donald Trump assassination attempt". Mårtensås (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- But we do not know yet if it was an actuall assasination attempt? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If/when it comes out that it was an assassination attempt (i doubt it wont), we should just call it Donald Trump assassination attempt. In the meantime, we should call it smthn like "Donald Trump PA rally incident/shooting"Nojus R (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes i agree. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I am not even sure "shooting" is appropriate at this point: none of the reliable sources state that unequivocally. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes i agree. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If/when it comes out that it was an assassination attempt (i doubt it wont), we should just call it Donald Trump assassination attempt. In the meantime, we should call it smthn like "Donald Trump PA rally incident/shooting"Nojus R (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree in principle but the current title "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" is a bit awkward. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I surely agree, maybe "incident" would be more appropriate Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Atleast until we have more information about the plot behind Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's the indefinite article I was talking about Pickle Mon (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- i mean getting shot at is by definition an "Assassination's attempt" especially when you're a high stake politician
- https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/trump-injured-pennsylvania-rally/index.html CViB (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- We don't know the alledged assassin's intentions, and therefore cannot yet rule it to be an assassination attempt. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- As of right now, the page title should stay as is, but I agree that the name could be changed to something more informational. Silaaaaaa (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I surely agree, maybe "incident" would be more appropriate Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Shooting" could also imply that it was a mass shooting so I think your title is better, though I do also think we should wait before moving in case it's labeled something else. Articles about mass shootings simply say "shooting" in their title. As it stands I believe both CNN and Fox report that there were multiple shots fired but only Donald Trump and one bystander are confirmed to be struck but both still alive and receiving urgent care. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- My last statement is wrong. Donald Trump and one bystander are hurt but in care; a second bystander was killed, as of right now. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - sounds more professional; current title sounds awkward Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mårtensås I'm not sure how "shooting" implies it was fatal. Shots were fired; it is a shooting. "Shooting of Donald Trump" would be the best title in my opinion as the media is most commonly referring to this as a shooting. Cobblebricks (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- But it looks as of now as he was not, in fact, shot (but hit by glass shrapnel). Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Shooting of Donald Trump" was the title when I wrote the comment above. Mårtensås (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The current title suggests Trump was not the target, that there was merely shooting at unspecified targets at the rally. Assuming this is not the case - TBD obviously, then a name change should occur. Note there is already at least one link to this article in a Trump assassination attempt paragraph. 人族 (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Rename
I think Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would be a better title, per example of Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. There's no reason why 2024 should be specified in this specific situation since it was the first to happen. Luunarr (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- agreed 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If and when the sources tell us it was unequivocally an assassination attempt, I agree. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unkown at this time if it was an attemted assasination. Give it a bit CitrusHemlock 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given reporting on his injury, as well as precedent for former presidents where an attempt was made made(See: Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt), the move to attempted assassination is appropriate. Foreheadman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed also. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given reporting on his injury, as well as precedent for former presidents where an attempt was made made(See: Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt), the move to attempted assassination is appropriate. Foreheadman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed 2605:8D80:5C0:E1D2:63CD:9DDB:B0CC:6683 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed SpringField23402 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. We do not yet know if this was an assassination attempt, much less if Trump was the actual target. It certainly seems likely, but the shooter may have, for example, been trying to kill someone else. Or he may have been trying to just wound Trump, rather than kill him. Stick with reliable information for now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is candidly absurd to suggest that the target wasn't Trump and that the bullet that seemingly struck his ear was intended merely to harm. This was clearly an assassination attempt. -- justdweezil (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's being investigated as an attempted assassination, so that feels like it's good enough evidence to rename the article Mccartneyac (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it is being also currently investigated as a assassination attempt. Rynoip (talk) 01:15, 14 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). Jcoolbro (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)
- Musk is the world’s wealthiest man; hardly random. Mårtensås (talk) 23:24, 13 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)
- Musk is undue. "Space man said something on Twitter" isn't worth being in the article about an assassination attempt. LilianaUwU (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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Aren't world leaders' reactions noteworthy, though? Isi96 (talk) 01:00, 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
Requested move 13 July 2024
It has been proposed in this section that Attempted assassination of Donald Trump be renamed and moved to 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally → 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump – High usage of the term attempted assassination. Prior to administrator protection, this was the article title and an administrator, without discussion, moved it to the current name. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- PLEASE WAIT until we get some non-breaking-news sources, its impossible to gauge a COMMONNAME this early. –
Hilst [talk]
23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to go with any "wait" ideas, given an administrator moved it away from that title with 0 discussion. It was the title prior to administrator protection, and a single person determined the current name. Nah, a discussion needs to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a move to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump since none of the other assassination attempts against him (such as the ricin one) were nearly as notable as this one. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)+1 Hilst, although "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" is probably better than current title. Queen of Hearts talk 23:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose- Not confirmed SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SimplyLouis27: WP:VNT. Do you have proof/sources that it was not confirmed or is not the common term? I listed 8 sources above using it. Sorry, but SNOWCLOSE isn't a valid thing for this, with a "not confirmed" reasoning because Wikipedia doesn't care about what is or isn't confirmed. Only what is verifiable, which "attempted assassination" is as presented above. If you wish to oppose, you can, but please provide a valid oppose reasoning via Wikipedia's policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RS SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The majority of those sources are low quality tabloids. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @SimplyLouis27: WP:VNT. Do you have proof/sources that it was not confirmed or is not the common term? I listed 8 sources above using it. Sorry, but SNOWCLOSE isn't a valid thing for this, with a "not confirmed" reasoning because Wikipedia doesn't care about what is or isn't confirmed. Only what is verifiable, which "attempted assassination" is as presented above. If you wish to oppose, you can, but please provide a valid oppose reasoning via Wikipedia's policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, let's wait until there is a general consensus in reliable sources. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and wait, we still do not know the motive of the perpetrator(s), It's possible it was not the goal to harm Trump but simply shoot at the rally. There is more information we should wait for. I believe we can move when it is confirmed an assassination was the goal. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Pennsylvania, and WikiProject United States History have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, with the amount of edits going through, it would not be good to move this early. ElusiveTaker(talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This article already says that it was an assignation attempt in the side bar. Others of list many sources calling it this, and here is one. CavDan24 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:NYPOST - There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Clearly was an assassination attempt, shots were fired and Donald Trump was injured. BigRed606 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No WP:RS has confirmed this, saying it was and assassination attempt is currently speculation. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying this with no disrespect, but you are either as blind as a bat or just being really ignorant. There is 8 RS listed in the proposal saying it was an assassination attempt. Since this is now the 2nd time your mentioned RS not using it, I'm specifically calling out the 8 sources above. If you still say RS as an oppose reasoning, take all eight sources to WP:RSN to get a consensus on their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, most of those are not RS, or should not be taken as RS on such matters when well-established political and national news media are not saying something. The rest are just repeating verbatim what the first lot said. But they're just hyperbolic for clicks, because until there is intelligence about the situation, it cannot be said conclusively, and no RS worth its salt is going to effectively influence the immediate intelligence-gathering by putting such a statement out there. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- the sources you listed aren't exactly well known media organisations. For example, the BBC make not mention of this being a assassination attempt. [9]. Also, please don't call other editors ignorant its quite rude and condescending. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:WeatherWriter, if you cannot recognize a bad source when you see it, or if you cannot list sources that qualify per RS, then maybe you should stay out of contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- what do you usually call a politician almost getting his fucking brains blown out? IsaacIdawg91 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying this with no disrespect, but you are either as blind as a bat or just being really ignorant. There is 8 RS listed in the proposal saying it was an assassination attempt. Since this is now the 2nd time your mentioned RS not using it, I'm specifically calling out the 8 sources above. If you still say RS as an oppose reasoning, take all eight sources to WP:RSN to get a consensus on their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- No WP:RS has confirmed this, saying it was and assassination attempt is currently speculation. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; however, I'm willing to wait for more reliable sources describing it as such. No objections, either, to calling it "2024 shooting of Donald Trump", or something simple in that respect; I strongly dislike the current name, which is wordy and falls flat on encyclopedic guidelines. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "2024 shooting of Donald Trump" implies that it would be fatal. "Attempted assassination" or "Assassination attempt" are more accurate descriptions. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why would shooting imply that it is fatal? People survive gunshots sometimes. JMM12345 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "2024 shooting of Donald Trump" implies that it would be fatal. "Attempted assassination" or "Assassination attempt" are more accurate descriptions. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait — No conclusions should be drawn at this time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support His ear was literally shot, and the shooter was clearly aiming for his head. Had the shooter succeeded and killed him it would have been referred to as an assassination. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait until we know more. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait until the motive of the attack becomes clear. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support But wait, clearly was an attempt to assasinate. MildLoser (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: County prosecutor has confirmed he was grazed by gunfire and the current title is not encyclopedic. natemup (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Multiple sources are now confirming that shots were fired and that the shooter is dead. 2001:569:6FFC:F901:8C20:E381:3B92:7FDC (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait I think most people can agree that's what it is but we need 1000% proof first. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for now, but we should wait. Almost every media source I can find explores the potential of "assassination attempt", even if they also refer to it as a shooting; though there is as of yet no official classification. Let's wait—but given current information, support is the way to go. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy support - Confirmed assassination attempt. Poxy4 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait even though signs point to assassination. Still wait. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait There are no official versions yet whether Trump was the main target of the assassination attempt or not, but it is obvious that he was. I suggest waiting for the official version of law enforcement agencies about whether Trump was the main target, and if they confirm that he was, then change the page name. PLATEL (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait. We are getting to a point where the media will say this is attempted, but I think there we should wait. However, shouldn't this be like "Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump" (omitting the year, to be in line with Reagan's article) 49p (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would in that case be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump based on the Ronald Reagan article (and many, many other articles). LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's what I meant to say. Year won't be relevant to the article's title unless something changes in the near future. 49p (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would in that case be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump based on the Ronald Reagan article (and many, many other articles). LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the East (talk | worse talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support and wait All information pointing to intentional shooting, but wait for more news NorthropChicken (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; according to sources i read, multiple shoots being witnessed. let's wait for now and not rush things up till things get a bit cleared out. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support and wait Everyone above has valid points on the necessity to wait for more information. GuardianH (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support — WP:BLUE. Barring any issues with the title, the Butler attorney general has confirmed gunfire and everything hints at it to be a politically-motivated assassinatiion attempt. Luunarr (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - all sources say assassination at this point, combined with pretty basic intuition. — Knightoftheswords 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, and oppose anything speedy No major media outlet (the proposal sources are dubious for political matters at best, some outright trash) is saying so, because they cannot confirm it, because police intelligence (while this is major and they will be working quickly) will not have yet told them so. The reason why no solid RS is running with "looks pretty obvious" is to not interfere, and Wikipedia absolutely does not lead the way on describing such incidents, especially if it would be applying a criminal motive that has not been reported by police yet. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support and wait for more information. Hume42 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support we literally see it happen in the video, there's no debate it was an attempt to assassinate him LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's NORUSH. You are still making assumptions. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- the infobox on this article lists "assassination attempt" under "Attack Type" LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's NORUSH. You are still making assumptions. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - we don't know who the target was. We've got years to change it. There's other issues with the title ... 2024? Have there been others? Was it a rally or a campaign event? Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd call a "rally" a campaign event. Potato potahto. And who else would the target have possibly been? Pickle Mon (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nfitz, eh you got sense about "2024? Have there been others? " —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait until more reliable sources call it that or change “shooting” to “political violence” as it is also being called that.[10] Wafflefrites (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support "Shooting of Donald Trump", pending further announcements of motive. The article title can be improved even before a motive is released, and the fact that Trump was shot appears to be the single most notable thing here. We don't need to circumlocute to "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" pending future announcements when we can make an incremental change to benefit the page. Status quo is not good enough, and also is not the sort of thing that we should default to in a WP:NOCON close, since the original page title was at 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If we do get motive, then I would support
Attempted assassination of Donald Trump
, since we don't need the year and it's better grammar-wise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)- Axiosreporting that he wasn't shot, so that title would be even more misleading. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, New York Magazine reports that he was struck by a bullet. And, apparently, so does The Associated Press (via South Florida Sun-Sentinel). Can you link to the Axios report that affirmatively denies that Trump was hit with a bullet? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Axiosreporting that he wasn't shot, so that title would be even more misleading. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait. We should make sure we have the fine details worked out before. There has been reports by reputable news sources about this topic, but there's definitely still some ambiguity that needs settling. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - It seems fairly clear that this was an assassination attempt, with some RS exploring the idea. We likely won't officially know until down the line, however, this should be moved back to its original title. A "shooting" understates the importance/severity of an assassination attempt, especially during an election cycle. 30Four (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - obviously what happened. Acting like it's not is useless pedantry TocMan (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Pretty obvious. TheBritinator (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note AP is now reporting that the Secret Service is investigating this as an attempted assassination (source).
Unless there's a good reason not to, I'm going to unilaterally implement this move in about 10 minutes (since that seems to have rough consensus and be supported by RSes). Please let me know below if there is a good reason not to.—Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Further comment - Unilaterally is the wrong word to have used, but consensus is becoming pretty clear here in this RM. I don't see the point in Wikipedia's article title being vague and imprecise. If (and there's about a 0.1% chance at this point) this turns out to have been something *other* than an attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the article can always be moved back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to get this dragged into a process discussion, so I won't be making any move myself. However, I do support the proposed move. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Further comment - Unilaterally is the wrong word to have used, but consensus is becoming pretty clear here in this RM. I don't see the point in Wikipedia's article title being vague and imprecise. If (and there's about a 0.1% chance at this point) this turns out to have been something *other* than an attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the article can always be moved back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't do anything unilaterally is my advice. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support that move IDKUggaBanga (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean... I see no reason not to implement it if it's exactly what it is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just as a note, the current title was unilaterally moved away from "2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump". Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, and? The move from it was a rushed move to a worse title. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just as a note, the current title was unilaterally moved away from "2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump". Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Investigating as an assassination attempt" is a far cry from "deciding it was an assassination attempt." Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- web link here [11] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Investigating =/= confirming. Let's slow it down here. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah there's a good reason, it's called WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, you don't Ganesha811. Out of process moves often end up at ANI. Fences&Windows 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
good reason not to
- you don't have consensus. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, because we don't know the motives of the perpetrator. We can't find out directly from the perpetrator because they're dead, but I imagine the Secret Service will find out what their motives were one way or the other. As I'm typing this, someone noted that the Secret Service is investigating this as an assassination attempt, so thanks in advance for that note. Ultimately, we'll have to see what they conclude. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It was clearly an assassination attempt. BrendonJH (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It was clearly an assassination attempt.--Excel23 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone that says wait will reach the same conclusion which is support Excel23 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose article shouldn't even exist yet but we shouldn't have an NPOV title until things have actually been confirmed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you serious? A former president is wounded in a shooting and we shouldn't have an article yet? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a shitty, shitty source for breaking news. 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're an encyclopaedia not breaking news. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, too late for that. Article exists and no way can we go through AfD for this. BlunanNation (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem with renaming the article based largely on original research/editors opinions on the event. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- As much as I agree that we're often way too fast on creating articles on events, this is one case where the article is warranted. Assassination attempts don't happen everyday, especially not in the case of candidates for the President of the most powerful nation in the world. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, too late for that. Article exists and no way can we go through AfD for this. BlunanNation (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I wouldn't say delete it but I see where they're coming from. It's a current event article about something so current we don't really know what's happen(ed/ing). If the very basis of the event's notability cannot be definitely said (i.e. is the event "someone tried to shoot Trump" or "someone tried to wreak havoc at Trump rally" or unlikely but possibly "Trump fan discharged gun in crowd at rally, oops") then it'd be hard to get it through AfC, for example. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you believe the article should not exist, you are free to nominate it for deletion. But I would advise against that at this point. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The article won't be deleted" and "the article should not exist" are different statements. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, not really. The whole point of deletion is to decide whether or not the article should exist. "The article won't be deleted" and "I don't think the article should exist" are different statements, rather. C F A 💬 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any deletion nominations as a note I will vote as speedy keep BlunanNation (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're admitting you're voting based on your opinions rather than policy as WP:SKCRIT wouldn't apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SKCRIT does apply, section 2, in this case. BlunanNation (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad you're admitting you're voting based on your opinions rather than policy as WP:SKCRIT wouldn't apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would never pass because no admin wants to deal with the flak from the 'Wikipedia should be breaking news' crowd. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The article won't be deleted" and "the article should not exist" are different statements. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you serious? A former president is wounded in a shooting and we shouldn't have an article yet? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- G10 Delete Would someone remind folks that this is an encyclopedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is obviously not a WP:G10. In what way is this page designed to
disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose
? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) - WP:AFD would be more suitable to state your case. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not a chance. This is the closest any president has gotten to being assassinated since Reagan. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is obviously not a WP:G10. In what way is this page designed to
- No, this is obviously just a prank.. Of course its a fucking assassination attempt, what else would it be 🤦--FMSky (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support The incident is now being investigated as an assassination attempt, according to the Associated Press. NorthropChicken (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait It is way too early to be discussing this, the current title of the article is fine. Until an official statement about what just happened comes out from a major official source confirming what possible motive was involved here. (Major official source being something like: President's office, District Attoerey, US Secret Service, FBI, CIA) BlunanNation (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait Obviously an assassination attempt, but I think we should wait for some more clarification before we can make a decision to change the title. Indiana6724 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, it is being investigated as an assassination attempt. NAADAAN (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: You're delusional if you think this was anything other than an assassination attempt. Scu ba (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The attempted assassination of President Reagan is described as such, even though it did not result in his death but did result in the death of another; this is no different. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Any logical mind assumes that firing bullets at someone is an attempt at their life, as a political figure it is entirely fair to assume a shooting at them at a political event is an assassination attempt.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This was clearly an attempt to take his life and this will likely lead to him being a martyr which could have election impacts. AlienChex (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait.' - We don't know what the shooter's motives were yet. It seems likely that it was an assassination attempt but it has not yet been confirmed. Shooting is neutral until authorities determine it was an assassination attempt. We should, however, add that this is being investigated as a potential assassination attempt in the lede. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Perpetrator is dead so we might never know the motive. We know who was shot though, and people usually shoot to kill. MonstoBusta2000 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It was clearly an attempt to wound and or seriously injure him. This is going to have major implications for the 2024 election. It is being investigated as an assassination attempt and the White House is making a statement related to the event. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support renaming brings more clarity, not less. The attempt was clearly to kill Trump, regardless of the specific motive. Bill Williams 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now as WP:V is not met, in spite of what all of these support comments think. There is a great likelihood this was an assassination attempt, but for all we know some yahoo started firing a gun into the air and some shrapnel nicked Trump. We need to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation and mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, no waiting Well, unless something funny comes out down the road, e.g. a false flag, then firing a gun at a politician is ipso facto an attempted assassination. Zaathras (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for reasons of common sense as stated above. Regardless, title should be changed in line with WP:NCWWW as the current one is very unwieldly. "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" would be more appropriate. CompassNNE (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an attempted assassination or not. We should absolutely not attempt to gun on this and frankly, the article was created too early as it is.}} Downerr2937 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Although I do not deny that Trump was purposefully targeted, we are not even sure quite yet what the downed shooter's motive was. Let's wait for the investigation to turn up any further information. FreeMediaKid$ 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support It's obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Killuminator (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support [12] — hako9 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait. I say it's highly likely it was an assassination attempt, but it's also possible that it was a random shooting with no political or religious motives, which doesn't constitute an assassination per its definition: murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. It might be better to wait until a motive for the suspect has been found. SilentExplorer (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Shinzo Abe attack was the result of a personal grudge and that is still referred to as an assassination attempt. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- In his testimonies and letters, Yamagami claimed that he was driven by a grudge against the Unification Church for ruining his family. Even though he originally planned to target Hak Ja Han, then president of the church, he was unable to approach her, so he switched to Shinzo Abe, whom he believed was "one of the most influential sympathisers" of the church. SilentExplorer (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Shinzo Abe attack was the result of a personal grudge and that is still referred to as an assassination attempt. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support AP news reports the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt. Discussion should be closed. https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5 LJF2019 talk 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support due to Associated Press calling it such as well as obviously that being the case. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- AP saying they have been told it is being investigated as such =/= AP saying it is such. We have to wait for the latter, whatever editors think is obvious. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article says: "The attack, by a shooter who law enforcement officials say was then killed by the Secret Service, was the first attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981." They are on-board with assassination attempt. -- GreenC 00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If that's an update to the previously linked AP article, it's not showing. If it's a new article, can you link it? Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article says: "The attack, by a shooter who law enforcement officials say was then killed by the Secret Service, was the first attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981." They are on-board with assassination attempt. -- GreenC 00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- AP saying they have been told it is being investigated as such =/= AP saying it is such. We have to wait for the latter, whatever editors think is obvious. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This was a clear cut assassination attempt. As someone else stated above, this was clearly an attempt to take his life and people usually shoot to kill their target. Anthonyd33331 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose it's WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an assassination attempt or not.Worstbull (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy support @ everyone going
ermmmm we don't know the motive of the shooter, actually 🤓
There is no reason for an audience member to fire a gun at a politician unless it is to assassinate them. Enough chicanery. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)- I advise you to strike/remove your insults. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I advise you use your eyes and see that Trump was shot. What other motive would the shooter have? Scu ba (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- May I introduce you to WP:V and WP:OR. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The government is treating it as an assassination attempt, and ABC has reported it as an assassination attempt. 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, they are investigating it and calling it an apparent assassination attempt, note their caution. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, exactly, Apparent: clearly visible or understood; obvious. Scu ba (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is your English this poor? The use of apparent implies a lack of decisiveness. ' : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid ' From your own source. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, exactly, Apparent: clearly visible or understood; obvious. Scu ba (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, they are investigating it and calling it an apparent assassination attempt, note their caution. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The government is treating it as an assassination attempt, and ABC has reported it as an assassination attempt. 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I advise you to strike/remove your insults. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. His right ear was bleeding so it's obvious that this was an attempted assassination on the former President. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- SNOW CLOSE This is textbook (kneejerk) WP:Original research. They haven't even really started the formal investigation yet, smh. Wait for 24 hours minimum and try again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- How is WP:SNOW relevant here? Most arguments support the move but there are also a significant number of oppose arguments. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sources have yet to identify it as an assassination attempt. "Shooting" is the predominant, even accounting for geographic and political bias, e.g. NYT:
"Trump ‘Safe’ After Shooting at Rally"
, Fox News:"Former President Clinton condemns shooting at Trump rally"
, The Guardian:"Trump rally shooting being investigated"
. "Support but wait" is a meaningless distinction here, as we don't have crystal balls and don't know that will definitely be the language this turns out on. Sure, I'd put money on it, but this is an encyclopedia, we wait for reliable reporting. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)- So uh... what do you call someone shooting a politician? Because I call that an attempted assassination. Scu ba (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I call it WP:Original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a reliable source, so it doesn't really matter what I'd call it. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. FWIW, we have seen a recent case where certitude something would be labeled an assassination attempt on a US politician was wrong, with Attack on Paul Pelosi. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- While we wait for reliable sources to concur here, I support the move to "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" others have suggested. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- So uh... what do you call someone shooting a politician? Because I call that an attempted assassination. Scu ba (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for above stated reasons.Spilia4 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support The shooting was planned and Trump was clearly targeted. This was an assassination attempt. Bowwow828 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The existing title is factual and accurate. Whether it was an assassination attempt is speculation, which Wikipedia should not do. The cited news reports couch things in terms like suspected, alleged, or possible. Unless and until what happened is investigated and confirmed by a formal investigation by competent authorities, and even then, the existing title is fine. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- are you seriously arguing someone went onto a roof overlooking a trump rally with a rifle and it was some sort of accidental misfire and that he wasn't trying to assassinate him? Scu ba (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Should we also change the title of the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” article to “1963 shooting at Dealey Plaza”? Catauro (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Warren Commission took 10 months to investigate Kennedy's assassination, before concluding it was one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The argument is that Wikipedia contains information from reliable secondary sources, and they do not say definitively either way. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- At present we don't know, for certain, what was going on, who the person on the roof was or what their motives for being there was. Second guessing in advance of a formal investigation is WP:SPECULATION. Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- ah right it could've been anything! people clamber onto roofs with a rifle overlooking a presidential candidates rally all the time! Maybe he was just there for a skeet event and got lost! Scu ba (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Scu ba on this one. The Oxford definition of assassination attempt is "an attempt to murder someone famous or important." Whether it was politically motivated or not doesn't really matter. C F A 💬 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Should we also change the title of the “Assassination of John F. Kennedy” article to “1963 shooting at Dealey Plaza”? Catauro (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- are you seriously arguing someone went onto a roof overlooking a trump rally with a rifle and it was some sort of accidental misfire and that he wasn't trying to assassinate him? Scu ba (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for further information and non-breaking sources, as stated above. Lordseriouspig 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but wait until further sources describe it as such, which I expect will happen over time as more info comes out. PersusjCP (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support for above stated reasons. The title as it stands is totally disingenuous misinformation.Tallard (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Confirmed assassination attempt by multiple law enforcement agencies including the Secret Service. -- GreenC 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Very clearly an attempted assassination on Trump, and it is also being referred to as such by law enforcement officials. IncompA 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Hishighness420 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, and immediately rename Donald Trump confirmed having been shot in the ear, cf. https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1812287100441833962 --Global Donald (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support This was obviously an assassination attempt, it's crazy the extent people are going to deny it just because the subject is controversial. Deathying (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - Oppose until investigation is complete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Wait (you know what I mean) —Ashley Y 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support The Associated Press is reporting it as such [[13]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The AP reports that their sources ("law enforcement officials") have said that the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt; they are not calling it one. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Media is reporting it as such: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/donald-trump-rally-shooting-assassination-attempt/?id=111916828. TheInevitables (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support and I don't see the point in waiting either. The AP clearly states its being investigated as an assassination attempt. If circumstances change, it can be moved again. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Can we PLEASE have the title match the "in the news" section which reflects the proposed name change? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wait for more reliable source reporting on what precisely has occurred. Though, I fully suspect it will be reported as an assassination attempt as more details emerge. Otherwise, the current title is a fine placeholder until then. R. G. Checkers talk 01:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait for more details and confirmation Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support In line with Attempted assassination of Ronald ReaganHeinzMaster (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: I agree that this is obviously an assassination attempt. However, the article title policy requires that we follow what reliable sources say. The sources cited in this discussion are: (1) unreliable (such as WP:NYPOST), (2) only calling it an assassination in the headline (for example, [14]), or (3) calling it an "apparent" or "possible" or "suspected" assassination attempt (such as [15]), not confirming that it is one. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support* There is no need to "wait for more reliable sources to confirm what happened." It is very evident in the video that as the popping sounds rang out, Trump holds his hand against his ear and swiftly ducks beneath his podium. Literally every reliable source that has reported on this has reported that Trump was shot in the earlobe, obviously by someone in the crowd who had an assault weapon, one accidental wrist-flinch away from having shot the president. This was literally an attempted assassination. The only argument in favor of waiting is for the amount of edits taking place being potentially disrupted, but other than that, there is no need to wait more than 2-3 days for a name move if you know for sure it's going to happen. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Currently being investigated as an attempted assassination, reported as such on the front page of NYT ("The Secret Service killed a gunman after Donald Trump was rushed off stage in what is being investigated as an assassination attempt.") DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Clear attempt at his life Munknjet1234 (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: The main page's In the News says assassination attempt now! LucasR muteacc (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support per reliable sources, [16][17][18][19] Personisinsterest (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would support moving it to 2024 Donald Trump rally shooting. More concise title, no information lost. gangplank galleon (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Confirmed reports of assassination attempt Fab1442006 (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. In what universe is this not an assassination attempt? Have you seen the video? Whatever guideline one is relying on to object, WP:IGNORE, as minimizing such an obvious title is clearly a silly idea. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, but if we wait, it should be clear in a couple days maximum and then it should be definitely changed to include "assassination attempt" in the title.Iljhgtn (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Several sources have stated that it was likely an assassination attempt. Benpiano800 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The fact that the attempted "plot" to kill Brett Kavanaugh is titled as an assassination, but a high-profile attempted assassination of Trump is not, is absolutely ridiculous. Almost every media network is reporting it as an assassination attempt, and it is being investigated as one. DocZach (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources now. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support but wait per WP:RECENT - Booyahhayoob (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Reliable sources make it clear that this was a dastardly assassination attempt. Winsalo (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It's obvious at this point. Devann (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. They shot directly at Trump and struck him. Pretty much all media sources are calling it an assassination attempt. To say that it wasn't an attempt on his life is frankly insanity. Luminism (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support. It is borderline absurd that this is being debated. justdweezil (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support More descriptive, not to mention factually correct, title. Kiwichris (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support and speedy move' This is not even debatable at this point of the evening. Just move the damn article already. Safiel (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support this was obviously an attempted assassination and is a more appropriate title. GramCanMineAway (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Support, and I suspect it will be called "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" later. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, the name "Assassination attempt of Donald Trump" reads as if Trump attempted to assassinate someone. The current name seems fine, if not renaming to "2024 Donald Trump Assassination Attempt" Vilo2023 (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why we would need a date in the title. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Reliable sources are already starting to refer to it as such.[1][2][3] JMM12345 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-disturbance-pennsylvania-rally/story?id=111913361
- ^ https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
- ^ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/07/13/assassination-attempt-florida-reacts-incident-donald-trump-rally/
- Comment As of 1:27 UTC, AP is still saying "investigated as assassination attempt". Can we have a moratorium on !votes until there's a substantial update in reporting? Kingsif (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Based on what news sources are saying and how it is being reported, this was a very clear attempted assassination. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support When was the last time a former President was shoot that wasn't an assassination attempt?--Trade (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: I sure think it was, but I'm with President Biden: let's have some facts, not opinions. We are not in a rush here. No one's giving out barnstars for the first edits on an "assassination" article. Ravenswing 01:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Number of victims
Currently there's no source on the number of victims (other than Donald Trump), despite it saying that there are two victims (one of which being Donald) and one death PikaCookies (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Guardian is reporting that the would-be assassin and an attendee at the rally are dead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- they is also talk another attendee is severely wounded Tdwizew (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024
This edit request to 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change {{Short description|Non-fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} to {{Short description|Fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} RidgelantRL (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RS for this? Donald Trump is confirmed as being safe [20]. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am hearing on CNN now that AP reported one attendee is dead Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your wording implies that trump was the one who was fatally shot. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- From media reports, it appears the dead attendee is the shooter. The shooter shot at Trump, law enforcement returned fire and killed the shooter. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Update: 2 dead, the shooter and one member of the audience. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your wording implies that trump was the one who was fatally shot. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am hearing on CNN now that AP reported one attendee is dead Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be left as "shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump." Cwater1 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to include 'former US president', Donald Trump is not going to be confused with anyone else, and a short description is supposed to be short. WhoAteMyButter (🌷talk│🌻contribs) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- That wording implies that Trump was killed. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry mate RidgelantRL (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
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 Political speech § Shooting metaphors 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. Thebiguglyalien (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. Thebiguglyalien (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)
- Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 13 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)
Single source: "Shooter and one audience member reportedly dead"
AP and Washington Post are reporting this, though it's from only one local DA, and not from the Secret Service or any federal government spokesperson. Take with a grain of salt:
- Washington Post reporter via Twitter - https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1812263916497506711
- Butler county district attorney Richard Goldinger tells me Trump was grazed by gunfire but is safe. An audience member was killed and the shooter is dead. Another person is in serious condition, the prosecutor said.
- Associated Press - https://apnews.com/live/election-biden-trump-campaign-updates-07-13-2024
If added, I would suggest it needs this context, and not simply be stated as a fact as of now. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/trump-biden-rnc-election-live-updates-rcna161404 NBC as well Gosh dern (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's the same source - Butler County's district attorney – so we should seek more corroboration. We've been down this 'fog of confusion' road before when reporting on breaking news in Wikipedia and need to be more discerning. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fuzheado AP News is a reliable source. Wikipedia is meant to mirror the facts of reliable sources. There is no reason to "take this as a grain of salt" Cobblebricks (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- One WP:RSP source reporting one utterance from one individual does not equal a verifiable fact. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- In fairness, this district attorney is the one for the county where the shooting took place. OCNative (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding that Trump also said a bullet hit his ear. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 00:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Three dead
Fox News has indicated that three, including the shooter and two others, are as of now dead. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Fox isn't reliable for politics on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Information on the number of casualties isn't political... but I do agree that further information is needed. NorthropChicken (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Something to keep an eye on, as Fox News is not a perennial reliable source. See what other news orgs report. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. Just something to keep an eye on. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should see if other news sources say that three are dead. Rynoip (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Watching CNN. They say one rally attendee died and two others were "critically injured". Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Attendance size
A better source that the Republican County Chairman is needed for the figure on the number of attendees. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree - added better source needed template. LucasR muteacc (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Michigan's governor is not a federal official
@Wikieism:, did you mean to move Gretchen Whitmer's statement from "state officials" to "federal officials" in this edit? If so, would you be willing to explain why? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, please join this discussion. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"Assassination"
Please, I beg of you all, do not add that this was an "assassination attempt", including in categories, until we know for sure that it was one. Mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- And WP:RSBREAKING... Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean given the hyperreality of the situation, I'm pretty sure the circumstances call to suggest this might be an assassination attempt. Woobab (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah you're right! it could've been anything! someone clambered onto a rooftop overlooking a trump rally with a rifle and shot him in the ear because he didnt wan't to assassinate him! It could've been anything! Scu ba (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to break journalistic standards by prematurely declaring something an assassination attempt before the investigating parties say it for certain, you can do it at a tabloid. Which us here who know about sourcing on Wikipedia wouldn't use as an RS while waiting for actual confirmation. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Journalistic? I thought we were not news? Regardless, I don't see what in the world this could be other than an assassination attempt, doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Kline • talk • contribs 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- You know what I mean. Which also answers your second sentence: Wikipedia is not here to figure it out, and anyone who claims they have before the people doing the investigating announce it, isn't an acceptable source. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Journalistic? I thought we were not news? Regardless, I don't see what in the world this could be other than an assassination attempt, doesn't take a genius to figure this one out. Kline • talk • contribs 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to break journalistic standards by prematurely declaring something an assassination attempt before the investigating parties say it for certain, you can do it at a tabloid. Which us here who know about sourcing on Wikipedia wouldn't use as an RS while waiting for actual confirmation. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- What would it be if not an assassination attempt? USA1855 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA
The Butler Farm Show Airport and Butler Farm Show fairground are both located just outside of Meridian, Pennsylvania in unincorporated Butler County, Pennsylvania. This article is currently too chaotic for me to try and clarify the incident did not actually happen in Butler, Pennsylvania but I wanted to make note of it. Raskuly (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pennsylvania does not have unincorporated areas. If it’s outside the city limits of Butler it’s likely part of a township. Dough4872 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled.
Butler County, Pennsylvania
- It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled.
Use of Live or Archived Sources
I noticed the archiving of some live sources. Should we not be simply linking live sources instead for higher accuracy and to prevent future confusion if the old sources report outdated information? Some people may update the content of this Wiki article and not change the outdated sources. Bill Williams 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The current infobox image is biased and inappropriate
File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp is already being cited in the context of political grandstanding.
- Photo of bloodied Trump fist pumping immediately spotlighted by his allies
- Trump Pumps Fist, Secret Service Says He Is Safe
I have doubts that it even passes WP:NFCC. Can we locate something better? Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It likely does not pass it. Removing for now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given how recent it is, no way it passes NFCC right now. Speedy tag it for basically any of the criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is fine, see Battle of Iwo Jima oder September 11 attacks (A firefighter requests assistance at World Trade Center site) both are common pcitures for propoganda. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I still think its a good picture if we can find a free verson. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Difference is those images have historical significance, which, yeah, something that just happened really doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The shooting of a former president and nominee for a second term to that office is not notable? NorthropChicken (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a completely - completely - different question to whether a photo is itself inherently so historically important to make it fair use. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The shooting of a former president and nominee for a second term to that office is not notable? NorthropChicken (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely doesn't pass NFCC, I've opened a discussion for the file on WP:FFD. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite, this is the image the media is using the most (all show different variations of him raising his fist) and therefore it is most informative to readers and most identifiable if this image is used. This image should displayed in the infobox. Bill Williams 00:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should not be using what is now a campaign photo in a Wikipedia infobox. That would be as daft as adorning every Barack Obama campaign page we have with the Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are bound to be other images from the event that aren't copyrighted, so yes there is a choice here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not on the main page? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I figured the ambiguity of my comment would confuse people. This photo is now iconic. It will be constantly added back. Go look at it on the main page. It's not going away. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are bound to be other images from the event that aren't copyrighted, so yes there is a choice here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we have a choice. And you're absolutely right, this image is now the equivalent of the "Hope" poster. I don't think there's anything we can do. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We should not be using what is now a campaign photo in a Wikipedia infobox. That would be as daft as adorning every Barack Obama campaign page we have with the Barack Obama "Hope" poster. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding Obama statement
Can someone add [former President Obama's statement](https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1812271849893442018) to the "Aftermath" section? Opportunity Rover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was added, but removed for some reason. I think it should be added. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This. Ultranuevo (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Image
Alternative image choices:
JOSHBLY (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Both are the property of the photographer, likely one from the NY Times. Review WP:NFCC before scraping images off a google search, please. Zaathras (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
RCP language use
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/13/trump_survives_assassination_attempt_at_pa_rally_shooter_dead.html I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:49, 14 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. Jcoolbro (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)
Witness claiming police did nothing when the gunman was spotted
Trump rally: Witness says he saw gunman on roof (bbc.com)
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c51yly4085lo
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We are in "fog of war" mode, so the pattern is that the first 24 hours of reporting are generally chaotic. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"Shooter" isn't plural
"The shooter did not undergo security screening as they were reportedly outside the security perimeter of the rally, and was killed by Secret Service snipers soon after the shooting."
Shooter isn't plural. "they were" should be changed to "he was". MisawaSakura (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do not know the shooter's identity. This is gender neutral. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the photos it is obvious that he is a male. Asigooo (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We'll get there once officials announce his name. This is Wikipedia, not a blog. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you asked them? Kingsif (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like WP:OR to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the photos it is obvious that he is a male. Asigooo (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do not know the shooter's identity. This is gender neutral. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Singular they - Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: They isn't singular. It's plural. The idea of they etc being gender neutral singular is utter nonsense. If people want something like that they need to come up with some new word not twist an existing word into something it isn't. As for it being a man, there's the photo and the fact that practically all gun assassins are male. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- [citation needed]
- And singular they is a real thing whether you like it or not. I even linked you to our article about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Singular they has been in use since the 14th century. Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be removed simply to avoid confusion. Since you two don't care what I think I don't care what you think. Bottom line, having a word be singular and plural is silly and confusing. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- My one sheep in that field and my ten sheep in this field all think that your ignorance of grammar is not helping anyone. If you want to wage a war on singular they, Wikipedia is not the place. Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be removed simply to avoid confusion. Since you two don't care what I think I don't care what you think. Bottom line, having a word be singular and plural is silly and confusing. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: They isn't singular. It's plural. The idea of they etc being gender neutral singular is utter nonsense. If people want something like that they need to come up with some new word not twist an existing word into something it isn't. As for it being a man, there's the photo and the fact that practically all gun assassins are male. MisawaSakura (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Sprache
The page feels like it’s written as a dramatic retelling of the “harrowing events of Donald Trump” being filled with flowery language which comes of as heavily biased towards Trump. The articles image description speaks perfectly to this with the unecessary usage of “Bloodied” coming off as a vanity piece more than an informative article, I think this should be reworded and should have higher levels of protection in place as many edit wars will likely be waged on such a hot topic here. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- InternetEnigma: For edit requests, you have to suggest alternate language for specific examples, not cite a general problem. For instance, not only is his face generally described as "bloodied," I also personally believe that such a description is accurate and representative. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are multiple above discussions on inclusion of the image. What do you think would be a good alternative to the image description? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't a higher level of protection other than full protection, which restricts editing to only administrators. C F A 💬 01:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested edit - add Australian PM and Apple CEO's responses
Under Responses - Others, add:
Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeted that his "thoughts are with him, the other victims and the Trump family", adding that he strongly condemns the violence.
Source: https://x.com/tim_cook/status/1812291847378600366
Under Responses - International, add:
Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese tweeted that the "incident at former President Trump’s campaign event in Pennsylvania today is concerning and confronting", stating that there is "no place for violence in the democratic process" and that he is relieved to hear that Trump is now safe.
Source: https://x.com/AlboMP/status/1812283047070642508 Luminism (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This is getting out of control. Response discussion is 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) 01:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Apple CEO one I understand, but is adding the response of the leader one of America's staunchest allies (i.e. Australia) really 'reaction farming'? Luminism (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Erledigt per other similar figures reactions being present. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Luminism (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Erledigt per other similar figures reactions being present. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Apple CEO one I understand, but is adding the response of the leader one of America's staunchest allies (i.e. Australia) really 'reaction farming'? Luminism (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done I don't beleive we should add random CEO's and all world leaders nessisarily. See Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- In reference to the above - I also want to note that the New Zealand PM's response was added, and considering the ties Australia has to the US (see AUKUS)... Luminism (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Forget about the Apple CEO one, that's fine if it's not added. But if New Zealand can be added, then I think Australia should be too, given how close Australia's ties are to the US. If your view is that New Zealand is more relevant to Trump and the US than Australia is, then I see no reason for me to waste my time on this point. Luminism (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No international leaders need to be here right now. You are not reading what either of us are writing. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- But many are. I think its fair to add it for the moment at least since similar leaders are present. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why are any of them here? Opening the door even more is not a reasonable solution. The article size is snowballing and it is mostly consolidated in this section, just to say "We hope Trump's okay" for every country on earth. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and think we should trim it down and maybe even just include a generic statement about how many leaders condemned it. I just thought it was a reasonable edit request considering the other figures that are present in the section. I see it was removed so I will let it remain how it is. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why are any of them here? Opening the door even more is not a reasonable solution. The article size is snowballing and it is mostly consolidated in this section, just to say "We hope Trump's okay" for every country on earth. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Someone tried to assassinate a former (and likely next) US President. Do you really think the reaction & response from other world leaders (in particular, America's greatest ally) isn't relevant?
- If you want precedent on this:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Imran_Khan#International
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Cristina_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_Kirchner#Aftermath
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie#Other_nations
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Barquisimeto_shooting#International
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Karsaz_bombing#Other_countries
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Robert_Fico#International
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Mustafa_Al-Kadhimi#International
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Caracas_drone_attack#International
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Bulawayo_bombing#International_reactions Luminism (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- But many are. I think its fair to add it for the moment at least since similar leaders are present. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- No international leaders need to be here right now. You are not reading what either of us are writing. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Forget about the Apple CEO one, that's fine if it's not added. But if New Zealand can be added, then I think Australia should be too, given how close Australia's ties are to the US. If your view is that New Zealand is more relevant to Trump and the US than Australia is, then I see no reason for me to waste my time on this point. Luminism (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- In reference to the above - I also want to note that the New Zealand PM's response was added, and considering the ties Australia has to the US (see AUKUS)... Luminism (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
AR-15 style rifle or other gun
We do not yet know what gun was used, so I think we should leave off any speculation until we know what was used in this shooting. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was confirmed by the Secret Service. C F A 💬 01:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cited now in article. I knew this would be confirmed fairly quickly. As more sources are found we can add those to the article too in order to solidify the reliability of that claim. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Please clarify the currently available information about the alleged shooter
It is clear that the shooter was male, of slim build, with light to fair skin complexion. There are already hundreds of sources confirming this.
For instance: [21]
Vitreology (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- and who shot the attendees? The assassin or the secret service snipers?MisawaSakura (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. I'm not aware of any current source offering this information, but I'm sure it will be available soon Vitreology (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Twitter is not a reliable source. C F A 💬 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, there are hundreds of reputable sources already. I'm planting the seed for further investigation, not the final solution Vitreology (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, link a reliable source then. No one is going to update it if you link to a Twitter video. C F A 💬 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I said, there are hundreds of reputable sources already. I'm planting the seed for further investigation, not the final solution Vitreology (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested edit
Remove the paragraph at the bottom of background, the one about the vote share in the 2020 election. Paragraph is irrelevant. guninvalid (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This one: "In 2020, Trump won 65 percent of the vote in Butler, Pennsylvania—the site of the rally—compared to Biden's 33%.[13]" guninvalid (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Guninvalid, can you explain why it's irrelevant? I personally think it is relevant, with the opportunity to build on background on the rally itself. Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it's not relevant to the shooting. At the end of the day, it would'nt've mattered whether this happened in a county that voted Trump or Biden or Santa Claus. It may speak to why Trump had the rally there in the first place, thus being relevant to the rally, but the shooting has almost nothing to do with it. guninvalid (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Logical error in lead
"The shooting is being investigated as an attempted assassination. It is the first time that a U.S. president or presidential candidate was injured in an attempted assassination since Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981."
The first sentence suggests that it is not definitive whether it was an attempted assassination ("investigated"). The second sentence implies that it was an attempted assassination as a matter of fact. JDiala (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"At least 3, including Donald Trump"
Can anyone find a quote in the article that explicitly confirms the number of injured as being greater than or equal to 3? I can't due to the paywall Trade (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)