Jump to content

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Removal of Trump from the stage

I changed the text "escorted him..." to "hoisted him..." My edit summary was "escorted" sounds like the debutantes' ball. He was in shock and hauled off by half a dozen strong men. "escorted" trivializes the extent of his impairment at that moment.

I believe that "escorted" sounds like the First Lady being taken to her seat by the West Point Honor Guard at graduation ceremonies. But Trump was in shock and was dragged from the stage in uncertain condition by many agents carefully supporting his weight. We need to reflect that by appropriate language. It is not "puffery" to convey the gravity of the moment. If not "hoisted" it could be "carried" "supported" or some other word. But see the definition of "hoist"

[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hoist hoisted; hoisting; hoists

transitive verb

lift, raise

especially : to raise into position

SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is a sample: (NBC) "rush him off the stage," (Axios) "escorted off stage," (The Independent) "rushed from the stage," (ABC News - United States) "hustled off the stage," (CNN) "rushed off the stage," (USA Today) "rushed off stage," (PBS) "escorted off stage." Might need a review of sources to confirm which is primarily used, but rush(ed) appears the most often from what I found. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
That's helpful. Certainly none conveys the genteel escorting of a distinguished speaker from the stage. In fact we could see that he was limp and in shock and was hoisted and then dragged by the torso, his legs possibly not even in continuity with the ground beneath them. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
"hoisted" just seemed a bit too boisterous, and I share similar concerns with "escorted". I was going to suggest "carried", but it sounds like "rushed" is used by most RS and I am ok with that too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
"Escort" is actually a very serious job description in military and paramilitary contexts, which is what this case involves... it in no way "trivializes" anything. The term is used to classify the protection and support of an asset, in both noun and verb forms. "Police escort", for example. Entire classes of ships are referred to as "Escorts" (e.g. Escort destroyers, Escort vehicles, Escort fighters. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that wikipedia isn't written from a military perspective so the average user probably would not make the connection between "escort" and a military maneuver, as evidenced by this very talkpage section. I do think "rush off" would give the appropriate context to any reader. Yvan Part (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The text in question literally describes a paramilitary operation by the Secret Service. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia... reliable sources are comfortable assuming a level of sophistication in their readers and are comfortable using that term... I don't think we need to do otherwise. Also, he was not immediately "rushed off". Besides the delay while he was crouching, he literally told them to stop so he could go "Fight!"... they were only "rushing" at the very end. Categorizing what the SS did as "escorting" him is the most precise option of describing it. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Presidential protection is not a function of the military in the USA, and this analysis is pretty much off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The Secret Service is a paramilitary organization. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That will require multiple Reliable Sources, otherwise...no. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Marcus Markup: Not fully sure if you intended to reply to me, but if you did I don't believe saying that rush(ed) appears the most often from what I found is trivializing anything. I will say that escort(ed) does appear to be either the second most or most popular description. For additional sources that I just checked: (NYT) "After agents escort Mr. Trump off the stage," (NPR) "escorted offstage by Secret Service," (Washington Post) "Agents escort Trump down the stairs from the stage," "as Secret Service agents escort him offstage," (CBS) "As Secret Service surrounded Trump to escort him off the stage," (USA Today) "and escort him off stage into a vehicle," (ABC News - Australian) "but as his Secret Service detail begins to escort him off stage," (SBS) "surrounded by US Secret Service agents trying to escort him off the stage" I do think we might need a review of sources as some use escort(ed) or rush(ed) and some use both. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "rushed off stage" seems to be fine. Hoisted seems off and it doesn't appear in reliable sources. Carried doesn't seem exactly accurate since Trump appeared to have mostly supported himself. R. G. Checkers talk 03:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    There was no rush. Don't use same-day accounts. If you're going to do word counts, you would need the most recent RS usage and not news media quickies. And why pivot from literal repetition of immediate newspaper wording to your opinion as to whether he was supporting himself? And why Australia of all places? SPECIFICO talk 11:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    Based on the RS provided by folks above "carried" is not supported. Rushed off and escorted are what RS use predominantly. R. G. Checkers talk 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    You're not addressing the issue I raised above. We need the most recent credible RS, not Aussie overnight reporting. We wouldn't use USA today for a kangaroo story. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    We need the most recent credible RS What reliable source supports your assertion that "hoisted" should be the verb we should use? Why are you insisting on impeccable sourcing for others work, when your suggestion is completely unsourced? Marcus Markup (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? Last I checked WaPo and NYT aren't based in Melbourne or Sydney. R. G. Checkers talk 05:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    @SPECIFICO: I believe you have an issue with my comment, but I am unsure since you did not directly reply to me. If so, I did two quick surveys through Google search of reliable sources and listed what I found, with the exception that I didn't cover anything in the second comment that was already covered in the first. I will go and make a small change to my first comment to keep that clearer, but I don't see why a global viewpoint should be restricted. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
'Escorted' is used by a large number of RSes, and I don't pick up any inappropriate connotations. If you want to replace it with carried or hoisted, you should be able to find at least a few RSes that use those words, considering how many RSes other people have already linked. Hi! (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Either escorted or rushed off would work. Both appear to be the primary way to describe what happened and it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in a full survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"DEI" criticism of female Secret Service agents

Hi all. There's a section in the article that addresses criticism from Republican politicians of Secret Service hiring, specifically noting criticism of female secret service agents. This seemed to me to be pretty obviously rooted in sexism -- the implication that women cannot do their job as well as men solely because they are women. Of the two sources, Wired explicitly labels these claims as sexist, while the Telegraph article more obliquely notes that "critics claim females make less effective agents than men". Both sources mention an explicit claim from a right-wing commentator, Matt Walsh, who explicitly argues that all women are not qualified to be in the Secret Service, because men will always be better at that specific job.

I added that these criticisms were rooted in sexism -- because, well, they obviously were, this was supported by the evidence, and I felt the article as it stood led undue credence to the idea that these female Secret Service agents had been criticised for any reason beyond sexism. This was reverted by another editor, @Marcus Markup: who felt that I was making an inflammatory claim in an inappropriate way.

Quite honestly, I am not sure how else to represent these claims. Clearly some of the criticism is explicitly grounded in sexism, and even aside from the ones who don't say "only men can be a Secret Service agent", how can the implication that hiring women led to someone taking a shot at a former President be anything but misogynist? I truly am not trying to enforce my own viewpoint here, but I feel it is dishonest to merely say "female agents faced scrutiny" when this "scrutiny" is not because of anything they have done but because certain politicians and commentators don't think there should be women -- or at the very least, as many women -- in the Secret Service. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If there are two sources, and one of them calls the scrutiny sexist, I would attribute: Female agents have faced increased scrutiny from Republicans, which some have called sexist or which Wired has called sexist.
If there were 5+ sources and they all or almost all agreed on this, I would just put it in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The women faced scrutiny because they were a foot shorter than their VIP (making it impossible to fully shield them), and because one could barely holster their gun.
On average, women are shorter and have much less testosterone than men, so it's not surprising that they will be criticized when they're put into jobs that are physically demanding, and where slight errors can result in catastrophe.
The average American man is about 5 ft 9 in, with women being even shorter (5 ft 4 in). It seems unlikely that this criticism is sexist, since it's simply rooted in reality. The average man is not qualified for securing the most important figure in the world, let alone the average woman.
There's plenty of articles that describe legitimate criticisms of short women in the Secret Service who run direct security for 6 ft 3 in+ VIPs. It's not sexist to describe these physical realities. MightyLebowski (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot

Change

Secret Service snipers were likely obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[1]

to

Secret Service snipers on the northern roof were obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the southern roof snipers having to shoot instead.[1][2]


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

Bumping thread. Left guide (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
 Partially implemented; the paragraph has changed significantly since this request was made, but I have added the source included in the request and updated some of the information in the article based on it. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Oakford, Samuel; Steckelberg, Aaron; Hill, Evan; Ley, Jarrett; Baran, Jonathan; Horton, Alex; Granados, Samuel (July 16, 2024). "Obstructed view may have delayed sniper response at Trump rally". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 17, 2024. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-rally-shooting-tree-snipers-analysis-video-satellite-imagery-cbs-news/

A failure to communicate

Forgotten radios and missed warnings: New details emerge about communication failures before Trump rally shooting, CNN (Aug 23, 2024)

"The day before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, a tactical team of local police officers set aside radios for their Secret Service partners so the two agencies could communicate during the former president’s July 13 campaign rally.
But those radios were never picked up.
The next day, three minutes before shots were fired toward Trump, local police radioed that a man was on a nearby roof. That warning never made it to the Secret Service, whose snipers didn’t know the would-be assassin was on the roof until shots rang out. In the 15 seconds it took for snipers to lock onto and kill the shooter, he was able to fire off eight shots."

Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested summary, for Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Security_arrangements.
"Local police set aside radios for the Secret Service, who did not pick them up." Uwappa (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Best description of shot in relation to Trump's ear

We have been under a multiple edit thing over the wording regarding how the shot affected Trump's ear. Let's settle the matter here. I propose a procedure that I think will be helpful. As a first step, lets produce a comprehensive list of all the verbs used (injured, grazed, etc). When we feel the list is ready, let's qualify each verb by Reliability of source, popularity (number of google search results), and discarding early reports which had incomplete information.

  • abrazed
  • grazed
  • hit
  • planed
  • scraped
  • shot in the ear
  • continue here

Let's go.Forich (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Uwappa (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

lets go by what RS say. or we can add uninjured, faked and god knows what else. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
"Grazed"[1] is a well-sourced description that seems to fit what happened. It was just enough to draw blood, yet to heal within a few days. "Pierced" (which I just deleted, forgetting that edit wasn't to the article, so sorry about that) is Trump's own description, which is already in the article. As it's a quote, we can't do much about it, even though it's misleading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Valjean, did you just deleted a Talk Page edit of mine? As I explained in the introito of the section, we are listing verbs to later discuss their pros and cons, so keep and open mind as long as the verbs are verifiable. In stage two we will greatly appreciate your comments on each decision and your opinion favoring "grazed" will hopefully show up.Forich (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Forich, yes, I did do that by mistake, as I mention above: "(which I just deleted, forgetting that edit wasn't to the article, so sorry about that)" I apologize again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies accepted @Valjean:Forich (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's not overdo this. Grazed, nicked, scratched, or cut are all OK. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support Grazed. It's sourced and is an accurate description of what happened. R. G. Checkers talk 04:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion, work with a table with a list of sources per word and a supported by:
Caption text
Word Sources Supported by
abrazed
grazed
  1. CNN, 10 Aug 2024 ("grazed")
  2. Neurosurgeon, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, 19 July 2024 ("barely injured")
  1. R. G. Checkers talk 04:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  2. Uwappa (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  3. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  4. Zefr (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
hit
planed
scraped
shot in the ear
continue here
We can use "grazed", provided this table exercise we initiated does not end up exposing Wikipedia:Cherrypicking#Multiple_sources, and I don't expect otherwise, given that you guys seem to be experienced editors.Forich (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Browne, Malachy; Lum, Devon; Cardia, Alexander (July 26, 2024). "Speculation Swirls About What Hit Trump. An Analysis Suggests It was a Bullet". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on July 28, 2024. Retrieved July 29, 2024.

FBI: videos show Crooks scaled building at 6:05, walked on roof from 6:05-6:08

See chapter timeline in https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/fbi-pittsburgh-special-agent-in-charge-s-remarks-to-media-on-updates-to-the-butler-pennsyvlania-assassination-attempt-investigation Uwappa (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Claim that Secret Service counter snipers saw Crooks at 5:52

Much has been clarified and corrected in the last weeks. But the claim that the Secret Service counter-snipers first spotted Crooks at 5:52 persists in the table. This was only reported by ABC News (and WDSU, explicitly quoting them). It does not make sense in context of the verified events. Where did they spot him, when he climbed onto the roofs not before 6:06? Did they spot him in the crowd? How? This appears to be a synthesis and misunderstanding from the much better verified facts "(other) snipers spotted Crooks" and "Secret Service was informed about suspect". The claim should be removed from the article as dubious at least. --KnightMove (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this needs a correction. ABC news mixed up the 'hidden' local snipers in the AGR building and secret snipers on a remote roof. Uwappa (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
 Resolved Looks like it has been removed from the timeline's table. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

Change the short description of the article from "2024 shooting the former US President in Pennsylvania, U.S." to "2024 shooting of the former US President in Pennsylvania, U.S." Scs52 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The FBI announced that they found “no definitive motive or definite ideology” for the shooter to attempt to assassinate Donald Trump. [1]

 Not done, ask in the correct "Change X to Y" format, and someone will consider. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/28/trump-rally-shooting-motive-unknown-thomas-matthew-crooks/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2024 (2)

Change the Motive section from “Under investigation” to “Unknown”. [1] Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, the articles do not make it clear weather or not the investigation has concluded.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/28/trump-rally-shooting-motive-unknown-thomas-matthew-crooks/

This article uses the term "AGR" without first explaining what it refers to

That's as of the time I'm making this post. Maybe I'll find the spell-out as I read further down, but it's customary to give the spell-out upon first use of the acronym or initialism, as in 'at the Agitated Grumbling Reader ("AGR") Building'. When things aren't where they're expected to be it makes it difficult to come here and get some little factlet quickly without having to read the entire article, as I'm sure many people will desire to do.

If you don't know what "AGR" stands for, perhaps you can find out rather than leaving me to. One thing that would help would be using a more Google-Satellite type picture for the map, or at least explaining what the colors mean, and LABELING what the AGR Building is. Or label it in the photo. More maps would help. What I think readers will want to do figure out why if Crooks was RUNNING to elude officers, WHERE was he running, and why wasn't the event delayed pending the apprehending of this person running away from law-enforcement, using a golf rangefinder, etc.? If there CAN be a logical explanation for the failure to delay the event after so many indications that something untoward was afoot, I'm sure Wikipedia readers would like a chance to figure out what it IS. This article could help them more than it does.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
AGR International is the organization that owns the nearby warehouse complex. I have edited the article in an effort to make this clearer. I agree that maps can contribute to a better understanding of this situation; you may find that this source[1] has some useful maps. As for why the rally had not been called off, law enforcement officers, while considering the person to be suspicious, had not realized that the person had also been armed until around 38 seconds before the shooting. I hope that this helps! –Gluonz talk contribs 14:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Boburg, Shawn; Oakford, Samuel; Barrett, Devlin (August 3, 2024). "'We lost sight of him': Radio traffic shows failed search for Trump rally shooter". Washington Post. Retrieved August 3, 2024.

CBS: Crooks hit by rifle stock fragments at 6:11:37 pm

A quote from https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/butler-swat-operator-trump-rally-gunman/ that impacts the timeline at 6:11:37 p.m.

"The shot hit the gunman's rifle stock and fragmented into his face, neck and right shoulder area from the stock breaking into pieces. Crooks went down but recovered after just a few seconds and popped back up, the report says. The shot delayed the shooter long enough for a United States Secret Service sniper to take the fatal shot."

CBS quotes page 4, "The 9th shot fired..." at: https://clayhiggins.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Preliminary-Investigative-Report-8.12.24.pdf#page=4

Uwappa (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice finding, worthy of mention.Forich (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
My doubt: It is not clear who drew this conclusion and how. Was it mr. Clay Higgins himself? Was it local police? FBI? Is video available that supports this conclusion? Was it logic, the last 10th shot hit Crooks, so a shot hitting his rifle must have been the 9th shot? Uwappa (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added that source. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Source #61 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/acting-secret-service-director-testify-senate-details-trump/story?id=112384807) does not mention an air conditioning unit; replace with source #62 https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/ Squ1rrelwithagun (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Actual close look at ear

An interesting article:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ron Filipkowski, the editor of MeidasTouch News and a regular Daily Beast contributor, has been among the most prominent names scrutinizing the Trump campaign’s claims that the former president was directly struck by a bullet fired by Crooks. Referring to the bullet strike as a 'campaign claim' makes this source interesting but useless. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This reporter seems to like to find scientifically unsophisticated reporters to comment on presumed medical issues of Trump (e.g. how a Vanity Fair reporter thinks Trump may have PTSD because he allegedly watches the video of his shooting a lot). Such a useless source... posting his work here verges on WP:NOTFORUM territory and is a waste of editorial time. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Was he shot or was he shot at?

Political hay is being made out of the term shot when it's not really clear he was hit, grazed or struck by shrapnel or debris. A failure to release the medical records seems to be intentional obfuscation. While it was indeed a traumatic event and still of major significance it is being used as propaganda in such a way that the terminology has become more important than it needed to be. For now should "Trump was shot and wounded in his upper right ear by ..." be changed to "Trump was shot at and wounded in his upper right ear by "? Oghma6 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any change. I believe this has been hashed out in numerous discussions and possibly even at an RfC. Perhaps a FAQ is in order? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I may have missed previous discussions but tried to check before posting. As long as it remains unclear what damaged his ear then to claim he was shot is a step too far. I would have thought the medical records would have helped clear it up, but they are being withheld. The fact that the terminology is being used as propaganda makes this more important than it otherwise would have been. It still may have been that he WAS indeed shot but as long as it remains unclear it's not "correct" to say in Wikipedia that he WAS shot. In my opinion. Oghma6 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there was an RfC. This has also been brought up in multiple discussions since. Please use the archive search function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_5#RfC%3A_Trump_shot_in_the_ear Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It appears unresolved and the reasoning given that other articles say it doesn't make it true. What caused the injury is still not clear and the language has been made to matter as a source of biased rhetoric and propaganda. Can anyone point to a source of authority confirming shot or not? The medical record is withheld. Why? The problem here is that some people have made this matter more than it should. I would ask that until the record is released and makes it clear or if official authority clarifies it is MUST say shot at and NOT shot. In my opinion. Shot has become a biased representation. Oghma6 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_9#FBI_officially_confirmed_Trump_was_shot Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, again. Very much appreciated, but it still really doesn't seem to resolve it :( "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." Could it not then be said that the four officers around him were also "shot" instead of hit by fragments or debris? Yet again the medical record may help, and how can the FBI say for certain it was fragments of a bullet and not something else? It also doesn't help that the Director is a Trump appointee. Oghma6 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
We really only go by what reliable sources are saying, and overwhelmingly sources report that Trump was shot and wounded in the ear. I don't know how we'd justify deviating from this basic fact without some exceptional sources like reliable sources covering a medical report coming out and saying he was injured by the hydrostatic shock of a bullet passing within extreme proximity of his ear (rather than the actual bullet or fragments). Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that I'm using an extreme example like Hydrostatic shock to be dramatic (and it sounds cool), even though there's no evidence to suggest that this is even remotely possible. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Understood, but the only "reliable" source doesn't confirm whether or not he was shot or hit by fragments. There is still no one in authority who has confirmed whether a bullet hit him (shot) or fragments of the bullet (or something else) caused the injury. Normally most wouldn't really care but the term shot has been used to inflame and exaggerate the event intentionally. It is significant enough that someone made the attempt, but the term has been used as propaganda. Wikipedia currently supports that propaganda, without real evidence. Oghma6 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

We have this:

"The upper part of Trump's right ear was grazed by the first bullet fired by Crooks.[1][2]

It's accurate and backed by RS. There is no reason to change that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference you give is the one I've quoted where the FBI Director states "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." which doesn't at all clear up whether Trump was shot or shot at. If anything the failure to release the medical record and this failure by the FBI Director to be specific indicates a desire to avoid refuting Trump and associates claims that he was shot. As the terminology is being used as propaganda then it has taken on more weight than it ever should have and until an authoritative source makes it clear then all that is certain is that Trump was shot at and slightly wounded in the ear. It could be by a bullet, or fragments of the bullet or fragments of something else. This has become one of those say it often enough and it BECOMES truth. Not good. Oghma6 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
"shot or shot at"? I don't know if there's a language problem here, but this was no accident. He was obviously "shot at" because that was the intention of the shooter. He was "shot" because his ear tip was grazed by the bullet. Even grazing counts as a hit. It was a close call. His ear could have been shot off or his skull been hit. As for fragments, bullets are designed to not fragment until they have hit an object, and even then, they often only mushroom. Even if, for some weird reason, it had fragmented, and a fragment grazed Trump's ear, that still counts as a hit.
This is not a situation where we repeat the episode for scientific purposes while experts analyze and photograph every detail of the bullet's trajectory. We may never know simply because no one knows, and it's irrelevant anyway. This is a waste of time.
If a bullet fragmented before hitting its target, that would defeat its purpose. If one wants fragments, one uses a shotgun. I once saved a bullet lodged in the front leg of one of the many reindeer I shot in Greenland. The bullet passed through the lungs and was stopped by the front leg. It had mushroomed on impact very nicely, and there was no evidence, even after impact, of any fragmentation. There were bits of bone embedded in the lead, probably from the ribs it had passed through. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
While it's obvious he was shot at it still isn't clear what hit him. As long as it remains unclear it is improper to say he was shot. Period. The ONLY reliable source we have, so far, says "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." doesn't help. Hit by fragments is not the same as shot so it can still not be said definitely that Trump was shot. Language matters, and it is being used as propaganda. As you said, we may never know, which only goes to my point that as long as we don't know then shot at is more "correct" terminology than shot. 2604:3D09:A079:E700:70CB:48F4:ABF8:7925 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
My apologies to you and the moderator. I clicked submit without logging in first. It was not an attempt to hide authorship.
While it's obvious he was shot at it still isn't clear what hit him. As long as it remains unclear it is improper to say he was shot. Period. The ONLY reliable source we have, so far, says "What struck former President Trump in the ear was a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject's rifle." doesn't help. Hit by fragments is not the same as shot so it can still not be said definitely that Trump was shot. Language matters, and it is being used as propaganda. As you said, we may never know, which only goes to my point that as long as we don't know then shot at is more "correct" terminology than shot. Oghma6 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Please review WP:1AM and WP:DEADHORSE. This has been discussed extensively and there is a solid consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware it's been discussed ad nauseum. None of it changes the fact that it is still not clear as to whether or not Trump was shot. The level of obfuscation and deceit that accompany this person are astounding. As long as it remains unclear the wording MUST be shot at. To say something without clear proof is something Wikipedia is supposed to be doing it's best to avoid. Oghma6 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I've opened this under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard because despite a solid consensus we do NOT know what caused his ear injury. It is a policy violation to say shot as that is not a neutral wording for what we actually know about the incident where as shot at is. In the 19th century a consensus of SCOTUS justices determined the tomato to be a vegetable, and in the 21st century a consensus of SCOTUS justices determined one American to be superior to any other American. Oghma6 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Browne-2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Dilanian, Ken; Richards, Zoë (July 27, 2024). "FBI confirms that a bullet struck Trump's ear during assassination attempt". NBC News. Archived from the original on July 27, 2024. Retrieved July 27, 2024.

Donald Trump raised-fist photograph(s) inclusion in this main article

I was wondering why the raised fist photograph is not featured in this article? Is there an image that is non-copyrighted that could be included? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to see the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14. –Gluonz talk contribs 18:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Or any images for that matter like those featured in Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan's article? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Those images are part of a project with the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The raised-fist photograph is not, hence why it is included under a limited non-free clause. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

@EvergreenFir: In "president Ronald Reagan", would the first bullet point in MOS:JOBTITLE not imply that "president" should be capitalized? I had been the one to initially change the capitalization to lowercase, but I changed it back after rereading MOS:JOBTITLE. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gluonz It's honestly confusing. I thought it should be lowercase per the example "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972." I now I'm not sure. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
AP Stylebook says that it would be "President Ronald Reagan" and "US president since Ronald Reagan." The main thing for the Stylebook is if there words between the title "president" and the name "Ronald Reagan" for this case. That said, it seems like policy does not follow the AP Stylebook. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I raised this issue at the guideline talkpage, and the consensus there seems to be in favor of capitalization. –Gluonz talk contribs 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

These articles give a pattern for how this article may one day be renamed, in the event that content from this September's incident stays as a separate article.

A revised title for this article might be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Wizmut (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Change the title

Please change the title to "Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump (July 2024). The FBI confirms that today's incident was also an attempt on his life. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirects needing checking

The incoming redirects [1] to here Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will need checking, to see if all of them are still appropriate, or if any of them should point to the disambiguation page Donald Trump shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that Bluethricecreamman built, or the new incident at Trump International Golf Club shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or to Security incidents involving Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Head Turn

I would like to recommend the addition that when Trump turned to look at the chart being displayed behind him, he also leaned to his left to be able to continue speaking into the microphone. The shooter had targeted the center of Trump's head just before that turn. 50.206.176.156 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there was a video showing exactly the angle and time of it. BeyondPerfection (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"Donald Trump shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald Trump shooting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § Donald Trump shooting until a consensus is reached. 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Move revert

To make those viewing page history aware, I reverted a vandalistic move of the main article and talk page, which is why there is only one revision. For some reason, talk page and article histories are over at Talk:Donald Trump assassination hoax and Donald Trump assassination hoax. SirMemeGod  18:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)~~

Never mind, issue has been fixed. SirMemeGod  19:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania/Archive_10&oldid=1251742241"