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: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2024. | ![]() |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() | The contents of the Timeline of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump page were merged into Attempted assassination of Donald Trump on 22 July 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
Southern Sniper Team made the Shot
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
- ^ 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.
- ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-rally-shooting-tree-snipers-analysis-video-satellite-imagery-cbs-news/
Juicy update from CNN
[edit]Edit away fellow editors: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics/police-body-cam-video-trump-shooting/index.html Forich (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Probably OR, but the thing that sticks out to me in that video is that body camera "BWC2-122110" doesn't have the time set properly. It doesn't seem possible that there would be gunfire at 18:12:04.
- That said, is there anything we can use in this to update the article in any way? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've included the CNN citation with the BBC's. kencf0618 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some other bits we could consider:
- Per BBC[1]:
They [the body and dashboard footage] capture moments of frustration, confusion and miscommunication in the moments before and after the assassination attempt.
- Per New York Times[2]:
The footage gives more clarity about the movements of nearby law enforcement officers with respect to previous releases of data.
- NYT:
Forich (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)The footage shows that, from around 6:09 p.m to about two and a half minutes later, at least four Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were focused on the roof from where Mr. Crooks fired and its inmediate surroundings.
- Per BBC[1]:
- Another update from CNN at https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/10/politics/snipers-detail-breakdowns-trump-assassination-attempt-invs/index.html with some details that are not in the timeline yet:
... he and other snipers were assigned to be inside the AGR building and directed to several windows on the second floor with a view of the entry area to the rally grounds and the stage where Trump would speak. A Butler sniper leader who met Nicol and his partners at the AGR building told them their mission was to look out those windows and scan the area for threats, Nicol said. They were instructed to remain covert. They set up their rifles on tripods so that the barrels were a foot or two inside the open windows to prevent them from being seen from outside.
“Units be advised internet and cell service is down,” an officer is heard saying at 5:48 p.m. on Butler’s radio. A minute later, a sheriff’s deputy radioed. “Your picture is probably not going to go through because I don’t have any service,”
Video discovered by the FBI shows Crooks pulling himself onto the roof of the AGR building at around 6:06 p.m. Shortly thereafter, a local law enforcement officer reported over the radio, “Someone’s on the roof. I have someone on the roof with white shorts.” A Butler supervisor then passed the information to the Secret Service command post at 6:09 p.m., according to the transcript obtained by the Post. The Hercules snipers covering Trump from above and behind the stage then turned to face the AGR property to the north.
- Uwappa (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "New bodycam footage shows police response to Trump rally shooting". www.bbc.com. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
- ^ Bedi, Neil; Toler, Aric; Willis, Haley (9 August 2024). "New Footage From the Trump Assassination Attempt Shows a Frantic Police Effort to Reach the Gunman". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2024.
- Which section can we edit to add Uwappa's # 1 CNN extract? Feels too detailed for timeline, perhaps? Forich (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about a new section: "security arrangements"? That new chapter will describe:
- security perimeter
- locations of officers, command posts
- responsibilities, instructions
- use of equipment such as drone, radios
- Uwappa (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, let's draft it first a subsection of "Background" and go on from there.Forich (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Let's go for it and avoid overlap with current chapter Criticism_of_security_arrangements Uwappa (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the security perimeter, please have a look at page 11 of the security plan with the security zones in order of priority on the map. The AGR buildings were not marked as a priority, were not even on the map. Would it be allowed to include that map to illustrate the security perimeter? Is is free of copyright? Uwappa (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Generally, works by the federal government are public domain. Secret Service is tied to a federal department, so it might be acceptable.Still, might be best to double check with MCQ to make sure it is in the clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- Nevermind, it is Butler County ESU. Likely copyright of the state of Pennsylvania, unless there is a public domain program. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, pages 39-42 would likely be what we would want to use as they are higher quality, depending on if it is free of copyright issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would the data be public? Would it be OK to recreate the map? Uwappa (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would double check with MCQ as they likely have a better understanding than I do of Pennsylvania public domain. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would the data be public? Would it be OK to recreate the map? Uwappa (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, let's draft it first a subsection of "Background" and go on from there.Forich (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Specific content classification for "misinformation and conspiracy theories"
[edit]This part should be divided into subheadings for two criteria that are receiving more attention more specifically: 1) that the Deep State is behind it, and 2) that the Republicans are behind it, so that these two can be viewed separately. It would be good to display these two main motivations separately. Specific content classification for "misinformation and conspiracy theories" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer that the classification focuses on who is being blamed instead of your proposal of who is behind the especulations. The blamed person is explicitely included in most especulations and thus can be classified objectively; whereas to group all persons that see or repost misinformations as pro-democrats, pro-republicans, or pro-black rock is in itself a subjective leap that we should not make except for individual notable cases, and even then, with attribution.Forich (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about grouping the theories as: i) Antifa, ii) Trump as a staged act, iii) transgender perpetrator, iv) blackrock, v) secret service and Biden orchestrated it as inside job. Again, this classification seems more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines of NPOV. Forich (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the first paragraph of 'victims' there is the sentence;
Both were in stable condition on the next day
This is grammatically confusing. Consider changing this sentence to something like the following;
Both were listed in stable condition the following day. Moziyimorin (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. The necessary corrections have been made. Please inform me if further modifications are required. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is the viral picture of the incident which shows Trump pumping his fist in the air while surrounded by Secret Service absent here. This information of the incident is incomplete without it. Except it's censorship as usual 2C0F:F5C0:715:5D67:68EC:22FF:FE59:E6A5 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- NO its called copyright. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does the minimum use policy allow the article a link to it's filename file:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp? Uwappa (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have an article on the picture, which we already link to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does the minimum use policy allow the article a link to it's filename file:Shooting_of_Donald_Trump.webp? Uwappa (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @2C0F:F5C0:715:5D67:68EC:22FF:FE59:E6A5 Per WP:GETTY number 6, using
[A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).
- Sigh... why are there always people who never understand our copyright policy and immediately assume it's censorship... TheWikiToby (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- NO its called copyright. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is the viral picture of the incident which shows Trump pumping his fist in the air while surrounded by Secret Service absent here. This information of the incident is incomplete without it. Except it's censorship as usual 2C0F:F5C0:715:5D67:68EC:22FF:FE59:E6A5 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
"DEI" criticism of female Secret Service agents
[edit]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
orwhich 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)
CBS: Crooks hit by rifle stock fragments at 6:11:37 pm
[edit]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)
External media link in photographs section
[edit]As far as I'm aware, no discussion has been had about adding an external media link to the famous photograph of Trump, so I took the liberty to be bold and added it to the article using the external media template. It's the perfect candidate for this template as an image that would surely be in the article if it was free use, but still does not pass the NFCC criteria. Just noting this here in case anyone has any thoughts or qualms. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- We link to a whole article, about it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Relevance? Reread what I wrote. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The relevance is why do we need an external link to the picture when we have an internal one? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see your point now. Unlike the link to the main article, the external media template makes it clear to the reader how to access the photograph and it allows you to add a caption to the photograph, just like you can with any free image. I think those two merits make its inclusion beneficial to the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The relevance is why do we need an external link to the picture when we have an internal one? Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Relevance? Reread what I wrote. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Trump from the stage
[edit]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)
- The Secret Service is a paramilitary organization. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:46, 21 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 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- '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)
Head Turn
[edit]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)
A failure to communicate
[edit]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
[edit]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)
- Let's not overdo this. Grazed, nicked, scratched, or cut are all OK. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 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)
- "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)
- 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:
Word | Sources | Supported by |
---|---|---|
abrazed | ||
grazed |
|
|
hit | ||
planed | ||
scraped | ||
shot in the ear | ||
continue here |
- No, we do not need to make a silk purse of Trump's ear. Grazed has consensus. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ 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.
Claim that Secret Service counter snipers saw Crooks at 5:52
[edit]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)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class Pittsburgh articles
- Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
- WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- Mid-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report