Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot

Change

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

to

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

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

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

Juicy update from CNN

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: 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: The footage gives more clarity about the movements of nearby law enforcement officers with respect to previous releases of data.
• NYT: 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.Forich (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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:

1. ... 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.
2. “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,”
3. 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

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)

Specific content classification for "misinformation and conspiracy theories"

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

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)

@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)

"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)

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)

External media link in photographs section

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)

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)

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)

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)