Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania

ear injury: projectile or glass ?

Is Trump's ear injury from an assassin's projectile or is it a piece of glass from the broken TV teleporter screen? Look here, see you a piece of glass in Trump's ear? https://berliner-zeitung.imgix.net/2024/07/16/b498dbe3-81dc-4f75-ad63-9fa13349c2e3.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.42.219 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not the editors' job to analyze and make conclusions. See WP:NOR. Yvan Part (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s for reliable sources to figure out. If they amend to say it was glass, we’ll follow. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is outside the scope of editing decisions (as already noted, WP:NOR), but some sources such as https://www.insideedition.com/will-donald-trump-get-reconstructive-surgery-on-his-right-ear-88244 state it likely there was "superficial damage to [the] cartilage" of his ear. WP's Cartilage article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartilage) states that "Hyaline cartilage is found in the nose, ears..." while WP's Hyaline Cartilage article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyaline_cartilage) describes it as "glass-like (hyaline) and translucent cartilage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.185.17 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in an earlier discussion, there was consensus to say that he was injured by the bullet due to reliable sources. As noted by Zanahary, if sources report the injury was from a non-bullet projectile, then we can update the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Except, to my understanding, there is still zero evidence that a bullet ever touched Trump. Now, I'm not saying I believe that, and there's a really convincing video that was uploaded the other day that shows how Trump's ear was hit by a bullet, but other than Trump saying "I was injured by a bullet", there's no evidence, and the article should mention that. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

If news sources are wrong due to lack of evidence, it's still not the editors' job to comment on that lack of evidence. I will add that wikipedia is not a race toward some imaginary finish line. Certain facts can take a while to emerge and getting ahead of ourselves is just bad practice. Ultimately, whether he was hit by a bullet or a piece of glass is a barely important fact compared to basically everything else in this event. Yvan Part (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. The pattern goes like this: Event happens; sources are published; many sources disagree; sources eventually converge over a period of time to a single, unified narrative, although this can take longer than usual. Within that unified narrative, there are subnarratives indicating how each narrative came to be. The notion of a paper trail, which includes medical records and professional opinions about Trump's injury are part of this narrative. We've discussed many times over the last several decades what to do when sources are wrong or make unusual claims. We are not stenographers, and we do have the ability to pick and choose sources and modify the narrative so that it aligns with what we know to be true. Just because a source says the sky is green when it is clearly blue, doesn't mean we have to print the sky is green. We have choices, leeway, and agency over how we write articles. But let's cut to the chase: was Donald Trump shot? Do most sources agree on this point? What do they base this claim on? Is it just Trump and his people saying he was shot, or do we have good evidence? (Someone said there's actually a photo of the bullet in the page history of the iconic photo upload; no idea if that is fake, but it's there, I looked). What do the medical records say? Have they been released? These are perfectly normal and legitimate questions for us to ask and to answer here. This is entirely within our remit. With that said, given the authenticity of this photo, from where I stand, this is open and shut. It does appear that Trump was hit by something, and it's safe to conclude it was likely a bullet or fragment of something the bullet hit based on what we know. I think it's perfectly reasonable to go into this kind of detail in the article, explaining that we have photos of the bullet, for example. That way the narrative isn't based solely on what Trump is saying, but is constructed by a multiplicity of converging data points. That's my position, at least. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

See edit: Special:Diff/1235151601 —Alalch E. 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS state it was a bullet. It also helps we have a photo of the thing. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This photo is not proof that Trump was shot with this projectile or any other. This photo shows a projectile in flight, nothing more!! And if you look, you will see that the projectile would hit below the ear, but Trump was wounded above the ear. Then there's the perspective. The projectile can fly one meter behind Trump in the photo. You can't see that in the photo (2D). If you were to compare the video of the assassination and look for the spot where Trump has exactly the same posture as in the photo, you would have proof of which shot (first, second, etc.) this photo was taken. As far as I know, Trump's ear injury was caused by the first shot. And since there is a piece of glass in Trump's ear, I would say that the assassin hit the TV screen with the first shot. According to the media, the assassin was a bad shot, so it is quite possible that he missed Trump by half a meter at 130m and hit the TV screen. Luckily, he was a very bad shot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.197.71 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Broken glass doesn't travel that fast, it probably would crack absorbing most of the force and drop quite slowly. A bullet however, wasn't stopped and hence caused great damage to Trump's ear. Cormio (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/glass-from-teleprompter/ Some1 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

   Already done: It's been in the article for the better part of two days now—to support the statement that the glass theory is false. —Alalch E. 16:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This article, fact check, who wrote it, the guy who stitched up Trump's ear in the hospital? This doctor or the doctor's report is currently the only real fact check. The article claims that small pieces of glass were shot. But there are witness statements that say something different!! And we have this picture with a high pixel shot of Trump's ear directly after the assassination. And there is something in the ear and it looks like a piece of glass. And since this photo exists in high image quality, the question remains: is there a piece of glass in Trump's ear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.206.35 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There's an image taken by I think a NYT reporter showing the bullet just before it hit Trump, it was travelling at a very high speed (as bullets do) and it looked nothing like glass. There is no glass involved, just a crazy leftist conspiracy theory. Cormio (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not about the photo where you can see the projectile in flight. It's about the photo in high pixel quality, where you can see the bleeding ear from Trump with 'something' that is in the ear: https://berliner-zeitung.imgix.net/2024/07/16/b498dbe3-81dc-4f75-ad63-9fa13349c2e3.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.36.229 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You're doing your own research, which is out of the scope of what you/we should be doing here; please see: WP:NOR

The glass theory has been debunked many times. If you have new reliable sources with new evidence there was in fact glass, by all means post them. There isn't. Hella say hella (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Counting Jackson nephew among the wounded

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the nephew of Ronny Jackson be counted among the wounded? WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Several days have passed since the Trump shooting. No-one other than Ronny Jackson has asserted that Crooks shot a fifth person, namely, the grazing of Jackson's nephew's neck by a bullet fired by Crooks. This assertion has been widely published in reliable sources, but the only source is Jackson. There is no independent confirmation by law enforcement, government, doctors or journalists. Even the nephew and his parents have remained silent. The four named shooting victims (Trump, Comperatore, Copenhaver and Dutch) have been confirmed extensively by independent sources. I am concerned that the nephew is being included as a victim on the slimmest of evidence. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• No (should not be counted among the wounded) and omit entirely from the article. The sourcing isn't there. The best we can say is: "According to Jackson, x maybe happened", because he himself says merely that "something" grazed his nephew's neck (a bullet or a fragment of a bullet or something grazed his neck ... very minor injury not a big deal), and that's not a noteworthy fact. Probably many people were injured in some way in the commotion. Someone maybe trip and fell and hurt their wrist, etc. These things are not worth mentioning irrespective of how certain and verifiable they are. —Alalch E. 12:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No. At best, we see Ronny as a self-published source, not usable for BLP information of other folks (such as his nephew); no one else has put it in their voice that I have seen. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note For those stating self-published, I don't think Ronny Jackson owns Politico, USA Today, The Texas Tribune, or Reuters/Fox News. I don't have an opinion on whether this should be included or not, but I don't think WP:SPS is a strong argument for it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

All of those articles say that Jackson said his nephew was grazed by a bullet. They do not explicitly say that he was. That is the best we can say; anything else is speculation and certainly not appropriate in a WP:BLP context.. News articles are repeating what Jackson published himself. It is just a self-published source. C F A 💬 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• No w/ Comment We shouldn't be counting anything per WP:SYNTH. We can use reliable sources to give us accurate injury counts related to this incident. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• No. This has bothered me since its insertion. It's an unproven assertion from an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with it's removal but I'm just curious what you mean by "an operative with a history of making false statements about his benefactor". Is Jackson the operative and Trump his benefactor? Raskuly (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• No As others have said, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• No I added this originally in the early "fog of war" and it has not been corroborated outside of claims by Jackson, even if the claim was published in respectable sources. Should the claim be included in the article as potentially have happened, yes in my opinion, but it should no longer be included in the total injury total for instance. Raskuly (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• RfC closed, clear consensus not to include. WWGB (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distance from roof to venue stage

We currently say ``He climbed onto the roof of a building around 400 feet (120 meters) north of the venue stage but PBS says ``Crooks was an estimated 147 yards (135 meters) from where Trump was speaking. What is the distance exactly? Forich (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but these facts don't necessarily contradict each other. He could have been 15 metres from the edge of the roof, or 15 metres from the corner that was closest to Trump. I'm not saying he was. The distances seem to be approximate. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Then, I guess we are having two ways to refer to the distance: stage to general area of roof, and stage to position where Crooks made the shot. The distance from stage to the general area of roof is around 400 feet (120 meters or 133 yards) and the second distance is, per PBS, an estimated 441 feet (135 meters or 147 yards). Since the exact position of Crooks includes the roof, and is more relevant for effect of the coming ballistic studies, I vote for using PBS' estimation of distance. Forich (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times says 450 feet for distance general-roof/stage here. Forich (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is unfortunate quite antisemantic wording. How he climbed 400 feet while usnig 5 feet ladder (according to investigators) he purchased at morning of Jul 13 ? Change the semantic to add 3D dimensions of vertical "climbing" and horizontal e.g. "crawl". Note the ladder on video is much taller than 5 feet and nobody seen him caring such big ladder. Mabe add dim of horizontal 'walking' since his van was towed from from location 12 mil away, as widow of firefighter who intercepted bulet shot at Trump saing. That person (CC) whos WP article were just deleted - see discussion above. Maybe he, more than SS saved Trump life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Separate investigation section

Would it be beneficial to remove the Investigation "sub section" out of the Aftermath section and make its own section, @Alalch E. has suggested that this be a talk page discussion. In the page Assassination of John F. Kennedy the investigation is a separate section. While in the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan there is no specific investigation section, instead its aftermath based on specific people, and similarly with the Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt. However, other pages due to gun violence in the US such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting have an investigation section and the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting page focuses more on legal proceedings.

I personally feel that a separate investigation section may be beneficial due to the number of calls for investigations into the actual event and the procedures/circumstances that helped lead up to it occurring, such as the case with the JFK page. Additionally, at this time the Investigation subsection is two paragraphs and will probably become more, which could make the Aftermath section too long. Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes+.Add what the ivestigators saying on the open window facing Trump (less visible,(third E) on S side of tall Agr building, opened before shoting). soruce cnn youtu.be/5z84JvteJaE?t=129. Note cnn edited the video - ligtspot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath is that which happened afterwards and is causally related to the event. The investigation happened afterwards and is causally related, and so investigation is aftermath, not the whole of it, but a quintessential part of it. Putting it outside of the "Aftermath" section, as as an equal-level section, indicates semantically that the investigation is not among the things that happened after the event, and that is a false statement. It is illogical. An exception can be made for more remote phenomena such as reactions, legacy, historiography etc., but the investigation along with the immediate aftermath of Trump being evacuated is the next most proximate causally linked thing in the aftermath, and it is the prime and core element of the aftermath. So as long as we have the "Aftermath" section, it will be that the existence thereof is justified precisely by including coverage of the investigation, and when we remove the investigation from "Aftermath", then the "Aftermath" section is no longer justified and should be dismantled into constituent parts. So yes, we can also not have "Investigation" as a subsection of "Aftermath", but only if we do not have "Aftermath" in the first place as a discrete section. What we can't have is equal-level sections named "Afermath" and "Investigation". We could have "Immediate aftermath" and "Investigation" as equal level sections as in Assassination of John F. Kennedy, however. —Alalch E. 14:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The JFK example doesn't really work: the investigation started before much of what is discussed in the "immediate aftermath" section. Furthermore, one definition of aftermath is (per Merriam Webster), "the period immediately following a usually ruinous event."

Also, "aftermath" doesn't just mean the things that happened afterwards. Another M-W definition of "aftermath" is "consequence, result". An investigation is a response, not a consequence. Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted 83d40m's removal of Trump being shot

I restored the article to before 83d40m (talk · contribs)'s mass removal of text stating that Trump was hit by a bullet. Reliable sources state that Trump was shot. Unless and until that changes, don't reinsert such edits. This unfortunately undoes several intervening edits that will have to be redone. Ylee (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ylee I've reverted you, only because you also undid a number of other unchallenged edits. Next time, only undo the changes you're objecting to. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Undoing only one change was not possible because of the number of intervening edits, and the huge number of edits 83d40m did removing mentions of Trump being shot. Undoing the intervening edits was not what I wanted to do, but right now the article is in worse shape than otherwise because the edits 83d40m did are still there. Ylee (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It absolutely is possible. If after twenty years of editing here you aren't aware of how to copy and paste selected text between two windows of revisions to achieve the edit you want, I don't know what I can offer to you. If someone else understands what edits you were taking issue with and wants to selectively restore a prior version, be my guest. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I should have said "practical", instead. The number of edits 83d40m made was so great and so scattered throughout the article that it would have been very, very difficult, especially given that because of the high activity level, most edits would clash with other editors' changes and thus need repeated redoings. Ylee (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Thomas Matthew Crooks

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Thomas Matthew Crooks—has been proposed for merging with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. C F A 💬 23:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not merge this with article of plans of Asian leader to adress congres or art of abandonnig her plan after TAA . That will also narow namespace to prevnet more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.112.39 (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sloped Roof Claim

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said in a direct statement during an interview with ABC that the reason why Secret Service were not on the roof used by Crooks in the assassination attempt was due to it being "sloped":

"That building in particular has a sloped roof at its highest point, and so there's a safety factor that would be considered there, that we wouldn't want to put somebody up on a sloped roof, so the decision was made to secure the building from inside."

- USSS Director Kimberly Cheatle

https://nypost.com/2024/07/16/us-news/secret-service-boss-kimberly-cheatle-says-the-buck-stops-with-me-calls-trump-rally-shooting-response-unacceptable-but-still-wont-resign

Why has this statement not been included yet? It's been 5 days since she's made this statement, and they still aren't included in the article? Can anyone explain why this critical information has not been included? It's literally the reasoning given by the leader of the Secret Service, stated in a mainstream media interview, as to why her personnel avoided securing the rooftop used by the shooter. This is absolutely crucial information.

Currently the article says that "manpower shortages" were the reason why Secret Service agents weren't on the roof, but that is only claimed by anonymous law enforcement sources, not Secret Service, in just one cited article.

It should also be noted that the Secret Service has ultimate jurisdiction over the protection of their VIPs, NOT local law enforcement, regardless of the location. This is established under Title 18, Section 3056 of the U.S. Code:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056

This is also stated on the Secret Service government website:

"The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees."

https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general

Therefore, local law enforcement's comments should be given less importance than the Secret Service director's comments, given the fact that they have primary jurisdiction over their VIPs.

Additionally, we should include the fact that the north sniper team were on a roof that had an even steeper slope than the one that Crooks shot from.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.7264065.1721067194!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/election-2024-trump.jpg

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/ftcms%3A48a056d0-35a9-419f-bcc4-f8ecbf44a8de?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&width=700&dpr=1

Furthermore, Cheatle admitted in a CNN interview that a “full advance” had indeed taken place at the venue, disproving theories that the Secret Service were undermanned and did not have enough resources to secure the area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZqk85yvKk&t=129s

To be clear, here are the inaccurate parts of the article that still say that a manpower shortage, rather than the sloped roof, is the reason why Secret Service agents were not on the roof:

"The building housed three police snipers tasked with covering the rally, but none of them were positioned on the rooftop due to manpower shortages."

'This was attributed to "extremely poor planning" and manpower shortages.'

A week later, this information should reflect the Secret Service director's comments about why agents were not positioned on the roof to keep it secure. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are some rather large holes in the article, and that mention of her "sloped roof" defense is warranted (although citing the NY Post would be a problem... there's better sources like the Wall Street Journal). However, she is due to appear before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee tomorrow (Monday) and anything that is added tonight regarding her prior words will almost certainly be completely substituted tomorrow after she appears. I'm personally not going to invest my time on an edit which will be so short-lived, but that's just how I roll. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, because even if she says something different tomorrow, her initial comments are totally relevant. A government official's comments, even if changed later, should be included.

Cheatle's comments about the sloped roof need to be included regardless of whether she gives a different reason tomorrow i.e. the edits shouldn't be short-lived, because it's literally her first reasoning as to why Secret Service agents weren't on the roof.

It's no different than any other government official or politician that contradicts themselves later. Both Cheatle's initial reasoning, and a hypothetical contradiction tomorrow, are relevant to include.

The reason why I included the New York Post article is because it's the only source where I can find the video of her making the sloped roof statement. No other articles, including the ABC one, include the actual video interview clip of her making those comments to ABC. If anything, the original ABC source should be used, since the Wall Street Journal is paywalled:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

It's also important to include Cheatle's comments about a "full advance" taking place, meaning the venue was secured according to Secret Service standards, which contradicts any claims of manpower shortages leading to security lapses. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense, because even if she says something different tomorrow, her initial comments are totally relevant Yes, they are. But a person's got to pick their fights in this life, and inserting text like this would require, I would guess, about a half-hour to an hour of a good editor's time to find the sources, craft the sentence, and then defend their edit on the talk pages objections, and the reversion which would surely occur for an insertion which will last a half a day. There's much more important issues that need to be addressed on this work for anyone qualified to make that edit. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I will tell you this, though... if the phrase "sloped roof" does not appear in the article after the hearing today, I will work on inserting it myself. Because I agree with you, basically... I'm just giving you perspective, and maybe the inspiration to get to the point where you can make these changes you see which need to be made, yourself. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Or not. I hate it when people say they will do a thing, and then they don't, but I'm going to have to beg out of this one. I really could not care less if that jackass's "sloped roof" statement gets into the article, or sub-article, or not. My equanimity deserves better than to have her thoughts in my head, and how I am going to present them. All the best to those of us with more stomach, I will cheer you on. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I did all of the work for you:

"The now-resigned Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle claimed in an ABC interview that the reason why her agents weren't on the roof was due to it being sloped, which posed a danger to them. However, the roof that the USSS north sniper team used had an even steeper slope, leading to doubts about her claim."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

https://nypost.com/2024/07/16/us-news/secret-service-boss-kimberly-cheatle-says-the-buck-stops-with-me-calls-trump-rally-shooting-response-unacceptable-but-still-wont-resign

https://www.foxnews.com/us/swat-expert-explains-how-secret-service-could-have-prevented-trump-attempted-assassination MightyLebowski (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still new, and not yet comfortable with updating the article, but I do know the NY post article will have to be removed due to it not being a reliable source, but here's a good article from Politico that can be used instead. Hella say hella (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As previously stated, the NY Post is not considered a reliable post, but here's one from today from a reliable source.

So was it the slope of the roof, manpower shortages, and/or confusion/disconnect over who between the Secret Service and local law enforcement had responsibility for what? Was the building actually outside of the Secret Service's perimeter? Was it the Secret Service who secured that building or local law enforcement? We don't know, there's A LOT of conflicting information coming out.

We could definitely include her "initial responses", but's it's not our responsibility to investigate, only to document what reliable sources have said.

I guarantee though that what's said in the hearing tomorrow will take front and center in the article though. Hella say hella (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction, it's not our responsibility to do our own investigations into whether the Secret Service is lying or if they're reasoning doesn't makes sense, only to document what reliable sources have said*.

BTW, not saying we shouldn't include that her initial response about the sloped roof or anything :). A source said it, feel free to add it. Hella say hella (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I personally think that the Secret Service claims about the dangers of a "sloped roof" are spurious eight plus days after the attempted assassination. But we need to summarize reliable sources, certainly not my opinion. As facts and interpretation by reliable source change, we should be removing outdated sources (even if their initial reporting was in good faith) and replacing them with reliable sources that are thoroughly trying to describe the evidence eight plus days in. Cullen328 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not "outdated". The article needs to say something like this:

"The now-resigned Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle claimed in an ABC interview that the reason why her agents weren't on the roof was due to it being sloped, which posed a danger to them. However, the roof that the USSS north sniper team used had an even steeper slope, leading to doubts about her claim."

Her statement, which is clearly contrary to reality, should be included, since it's relevant to why the assassination attempt was successfully executed by Crooks, and potentially shows that she is either incompetent, lying, or both.

I honestly don't know why this isn't included. We need to detail the reasoning given by the woman that was Secret Service Director during the assassination attempt on her VIP. It doesn't matter if her reasoning is stupid, we just need to document what she said. MightyLebowski (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Because that is borderline synthesis and editorializing. Doubts?. It's Wikipedia's job to report what reliable, original sources say. So maybe throw in some inline citations there to back that statement up. Q ^{T C} 17:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's backed by original sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/swat-expert-explains-how-secret-service-could-have-prevented-trump-attempted-assassination

"SWAT expert Gene Petrino pointed out that snipers who shot Crooks were on a sloped roof, despite Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle's claim that they weren't stationed on the roof of the building Crooks climbed because of the "safety concern" a sloped roof posed. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)" MightyLebowski (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that it needs to be said in the article. It's not as if it was a random comment made the same day, she said this three days after the assassination attempt. Now that her hearing is over, and she didn't care to elaborate on this dumb comment, it makes sense to add it.

I'm new, and not ready to edit articles, but I'm down to try and help do it.

We should begin after the following text that's already in the article using this source, which includes the original slope comment.

"The Secret Service security detail responsible for protecting the former president during the rally faced criticism for not securing access to the roof of the building from which Crooks committed the shooting. Three police snipers were present in the building, but none were present on the roof or able to cover it." Hella say hella (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Timeline, following the media, is at fault massively

The article currently follows media descriptions that Crooks had been on the roof for a long time and seen by the Secret Service Snipers already at 5:52, almost 20 minutes prior to the shooting. This raises the question why they did let Trump take the stage and why they did not do anything against Crooks - and this gives way to the (with that said, plausible!) conspiracy theory that the Secret Service had planned Trump's death. Also it raises the question why Crooks had a free sightline to Trump at the podium for some 8 minutes, and did not fire for no apparent reason.

While the New York Post is not my favorite quality medium, they seem to have the right timeline with Crooks entering the roof only at 6:09. Then everything makes sense: The Secret Service knew about a suspect, but they did not take him too seriously - and then it escalated quickly! Correcting the article in this regard seems to be top-priority and urgent. --KnightMove (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand that this correct timeline is a sourced information. --KnightMove (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See many conversations above about why and how this happened. By the way, that source says "Around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before the shooting — the same Beaver County cop spotted Crooks a second time, now on the roof", I find no mention of 6:09. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Then scroll down to the (and within the) timeline. The article was apparently not updated in the same way as the timeline, which now says:

"5:45 Crooks spotted scoping out roof A cop... sees Crooks eyeballing the roof od the AGR International building, which had a clear sightline to the podium..."

"6:09 Crooks scales roof Right around this time, Crooks climbed up onto the roof...."

And I had some look into the conversations above, and this topic has not been addressed yet - or can you show me where? --KnightMove (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This time line contradicts their own text, no wonder the NY post is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, also other and more prestigious media cover the correct timeline already, like the Financial Times here:

"6.05pm: As Trump began addressing the crowd, people outside the perimeter fence noticed Crooks. Greg Smith told the BBC he saw someone “bear-crawling up the roof” a few minutes into Trump’s speech and alerted police."

"6.09pm: Four minutes into the speech, Mike and Amber DiFrischia noticed Crooks and began recording him. DiFrischia told CNN his wife spoke to nearby police."

So let him be on the roof already a bit earlier than 6:09, but only minutes after Trump had opened his speech. Anyway our article does not cover at all yet that Crooks climbed onto the roof so closely before the shooting. --KnightMove (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This does not mention that law enforcement also saw him, it is not a complete time line. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And that entitles you to ignore the source for what is written in their time line? Which sources now quoted in the timeline do give a "complete time line", from your point of view? --KnightMove (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it means you do not get to ignore all the other timelines (also provided by "the media", we go by what the majority say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Following the media" i.e. sources, is kindof our thing. GMG^talk 14:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When sources have published information on a confusing event which then turned out to be wrong by further research, it should be kindof our thing to get the facts straight. --KnightMove (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Only when published by a reliable secondary source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We're not in the fact-straightening business. —Alalch E. 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're making the strongest case when you lead off by saying you don't even really favor the reliability of the source you're referencing. GMG^talk 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: @Objective3000: @Alalch E.: @GreenMeansGo: So, let's have a look at the 'majority' of the sources Slatersteven referred to, and what they say compared to our article.

In the timeline table, our article currently states

"5:52 A member of the BCESU tactical team sees Crooks on a roof, notifies other security services, and photographs him, the second such incident. Secret Service snipers spot Crooks. Approximately a minute-and-a-half before the shooting, several members of the public report their own sightings to law enforcement officers."

There are six sources cited for this block of statements. The 5:52 time is written only on the ABC News source, which claims "5:52 p.m. Crooks was spotted on the roof by Secret Service", and the WDSU, which explicitly quotes ABC News. So, that's one source. We have not taken over ABC's claim that Crooks had been spotted by the Secret Service. Further, WDSU already qualifies the ABC News statement by writing "on the roof of a building". As you see, our article also qualifies by writing "a roof", not "the roof".

Of the other sources, the older Washington Post article explicitly adresses witnesses "at least 86 seconds before gunfire", not at earlier times. The other Washington Post article states "Guglielmi said that about 20 to 30 minutes before the shooting, local police ... warned the Secret Service security team by radio of a suspicious person with a golf range finder and backpack.", and "WPXI television news reported that the officer called in around 5:45 p.m. — 26 minutes before Crooks opened fire from the roof." The Washington Post does not write about Crooks being on "the roof" or "a roof" at an earlier time.

The BBC article states "A man with a rifle was seen on a rooftop minutes before shots..." based on an interview with witness Greg Smith. If you watch the video, Smith clearly says "...and probably five to seven minutes of Trump speaking, I'm estimating here, I've no idea, you know, but ... we noticed a guy crawling, erm, bear-crawling up the roof..." So, for over one week now we have the evidence reported by serious media that Crooks climbed on that roof only during the Trump speech, few minutes before firing.

I should not have written "following the media". My bad. Our timeline does not follow the media, it violates WP:SYNTHESIS, collecting different claims from different reports into what is a misleading and incomplete timeline.

Hopefully this is sufficient that you take the topic more serously. --KnightMove (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: WDSU explicitly states "Around 6:10 p.m. — After rally-goers notice a man climbing on the top of the roof of a nearby building, a local law enforcement officer climbs to the roof, according to two law enforcement officials." So basically our timeline and the 5:52 claim is based on ONE outdated source, ABC News. --KnightMove (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How many of thee sources were published within the last 5 days? Also these all tsalk about what the crowd saw, not what the police or federal officers saw., thus they are not complete chronologies (as has already been stated). Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a more recent source, that does not only discuss what eye witnesses saw [[1]] and another [[2]] (which makes it clear its based on up dated information),. Slatersteven (talk)

Your first source, again, is ABC News, the only source to back up the claim as written. They repeat their scenario: "Officials said the snipers spotted the suspect, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, on the roof of a building outside the security zone at the rally Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, at 5:52 p.m. ET."

However your second source, BBC, does NOT back up that timeline. Here it is clearly different:

"Later, around 17:45 local time, Crooks was spotted again, this time by a counter sniper officer around (!) the Agr International building - the one the gunman later (!) scaled up to aim at Trump."

"By 17:52 - 19 minutes before the shooting - the Secret Service was made aware that Crooks was spotted (!) with a rangefinder, and disseminated that information to other officers on site, CBS reported."

So Crooks was spotted by a non-Secret Service counter-sniper at 17:45 AROUND the roof, not on it. By 17:52 the Secret Service got informed. BBC does not claim that they had spotted him, nor that he had been on the roof already.

This does not back up the ABC News claim "Secret Service snipers spotted Crooks on the roof at 5:52 p.m."., BBC clearly contradicts this.

The Associated Press Timeline, updated July 21, confirms that Crooks climbed on the roof around 6:09 p.m.

Further, there is no base in the rules to discredit witness accounts cited by reliable sources - and consistently so. --KnightMove (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add a few quotes from Cheatle's House deposition

For example: "In her opening remarks, Cheatle called the shooting the “most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades.”

RS:[3]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/secret-service-director-kimberly-cheatle-expected-tell-house-hearing-a-rcna163010 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:99D5:26F:70A1:F7AF (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Assassination of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Assassination of Donald Trump has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Assassination of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

United States Congress — Reliable source for the article?

There is a debate between editors on whether the United States Congress’s investigation on the attempted assassination can be used as a reliable source for the article. Note, CommunityNotesContributor is the user saying it is not a reliable source while I say it is. CommunityNotesContributor, could you give some insight into why you think the U.S. Congress is not a reliable source on this article’s topic? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• I may be reading too much into CommunityNotesContributor‘s edit summary, but on the claim that the “In the aftermath, there has been significant scrutiny on the security arrangements, with criticisms directed at the Secret Service for not adequately securing the rooftop from which the shooter fired”, CommunityNotesContributor stated, the U.S. congress (i.e. people literally asking for the director of the Secret Service’s resignation), “is not a reliable source for that claim, not by a long shot”. I really want this explained, since that seems very obvious that the U.S. Congress asking for resignations involve “significant scrutiny”. On top of that, CNC cited WP:RSTWITTER (valid usage), however, that also means CNC is arguing the U.S. Congress would not be a subject-matter expert on the topic…meaning their investigation is not a reliable source. This really needs to be solved and explained. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the edit, the source is the Twitter account @GOPoversight. While it is tied to the Oversight Committee, it is unclear to me if the account is considered a Government account or not. (Note that it is @GOPoversight. There is a similar handle, @OversightDems for the Democrats.)

Rather than a debate on that, it might be easier to try to source the sentence from the official Press Releases of the Oversight Committee. Otherwise, this might be a question to check the archives of RSN to see if it has already been answered. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on the about page, the twitter is linked as gopoversight, so it's official. CNC (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That does seem to make it easier to use. But it does seem like there is still an objection to using it as a source. If there are other sources that can be used like CNC just suggested, then it might be easier to use them instead as a compromise. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The lazy answer is RSPTWITTER, but otherwise WP:ABOUTSELF: "It does not involve claims about third parties". Other users who reverted you were @Muboshgu and @Adolphus79 who may answer differently. CNC (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The other reverts were for it being placed in the infobox, not even remotely associated with that sentence. You are the only editor who reverted me for the addition of the U.S. Congress to the security-related sentence. You just pinged two people who didn’t need to be pinged whatsoever. Given both had reverted that source addition for completely different reasons, it feels (to me) like unintentional canvassing, since it pinged only editors who had previously reverted me not for that addition. AboutSelf has absolutely no basis here…unless you want to argue this article is about the U.S. Congress, then by all means, go for it and try to make a consensus from that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is about the oversight committee, it's about it's members grilling Kimberly Cheatle is it not? Moreover there is widespread coverage of this from reliable secondary source, why not just use them instead? [4][5] CNC (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I notice this is the exact same tweet that WeatherWriter already added, twice, to the infobox as a ref for the shooter's name (the first time also claiming it said there might be other shooters involved), which the tweet does not mention at all. Now they have added it a third time (awkward characters and all), to another statement in the article, of which there is absolutely no mention in the tweet? Forgetting the WP:SPS altogether, my question is, why are you pushing over and over and over to add this single meaningless tweet somewhere in the article as a ref, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the statement(s) you are citing with it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In response to CNC’s statement about using RS above, I should have cited both the Tweet (primary source) and a news article for a secondary source. That said, now that Adolphus79 has also stated the tweet is “meaningless”, we still need this conversation as we now truly have a split consensus on whether the U.S. Congressional investigation actually has merit for this article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing or not, SPS or not, I would still be asking you this same question after you added it a third time, to another statement of which is it completely unrelated... my comment of "meaningless" is because, of the two statements you have added this same tweet to, neither of them are mentioned anywhere in the tweet... why is it so important you are willing to war over it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

“Another statement of which is it completely unrelated”. Excuse me??? LOL! So to you, the U.S. Congress saying and I quote, “While U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle refused to answer most of the questions asked of her today… She thinks that the assassination attempt was “the most significant operational failure at the Secret Service in decades,” yet she still believes she is the best person to lead the Secret Service… She ADMITS to multiple lapses in security under her leadership of the law enforcement agency” does not relate to “security scrutiny”? This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Just casually a situation mentions “multiple lapses in security” and you legit just stated it is unrelated to the security of the shooting. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was, given your replies here. With all respect for you as an editor, please drop out (WP:DTS) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain where in the tweet the shooter's name is mentioned, or that there were "possibly others involved", or that it mentions Biden ordering an independent review? The three statements for which you have tried to use this exact tweet as a reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're citing secondary sources, there is no need to use primary self-published. Also maybe we could come back to basis of WP:SUMMARY: include the content in the body and summarise it to the lead. As Adolphus79 pointed out, at present it's not necessary for inclusion, and that's why I pinged other editors who reverted you as it wasn't clear if they objected to the inclusion of the source beyond the specific use case. This otherwise has nothing to do with whether the congress investigation has merit for the article, so far this is only based on using the Twitter source and where it's being placed. CNC (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On weather articles, it is standard to cite the primary source (typically the National Weather Service) followed by some RS statement. I guess that is different on these type of articles. Well nevermind then. The information and/or one of those RS sources linked above should really be cited and added. I’m going to go ahead and leave the discussion since my original reason for opening was solved now. I’m just going to ignore Adolphus79, since they accused me of bad-faith editing + got canvassed here. Either way, issue seems solved (finding RS for the U.S. Congressional stuff was key). I was just following what I normally did on weather-related articles, where the primary source (NOAA/National Weather Service stuff) is cited along with some RS. In this case, the primary source was being challenged entirely. But, it seems like the citation practices are different on these articles than historical weather articles. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, you need to re-read my first comment... I did not get canvassed here, I clearly stated that I was calling you out for edit warring with a tweet unrelated to the statements you keep adding it to as a reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics are very different than weather articles for sure. Hopefully someone will add content regarding the hearings as does appear due and relevant, and doesn't require primary sources either. CNC (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: You should probably use some WP:COMMONSSENSE, which we both needed. I made a mistake adding the citation for the “President Joe Biden ordered an independent review of security at the rally.” If you noticed what this discussion was about, you would have probably figured out it was meant for the sentence directly before that sentence: “In the aftermath, there has been significant scrutiny on the security arrangements, with criticisms directed at the Secret Service for not adequately securing the rooftop from which the shooter fired.” You know, the one regarding security concerns? Yeah, you probably should have figured that out. You also accused me of bad faith editing. (Personal attack removed) The discussion is already over. (Personal attack removed) Your revert of the tweet was not being questioned. For real, you should have figured that out from this discussion, given the sentence directly before that tiny sentence related to the tweet by the U.S. Congress…Just saying. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you have preferred an edit warring warning template on your talk page instead? As for the bad faith editing, why else would you add a relevant tag to the statement about Biden ordering the Secret Service to reassess their protocols before Trump showed up at the RNC with the edit summary "...Discussion on TP seems to say the Congressional investigation is not relevant..." when NO ONE in this thread has even hinted at that, nor was the statement you tagged even related to the Congressional investigation? - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

For attributed claims, fine, for statements of fact no. Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"AAoDT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect AAoDT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 23 § AAoDT until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Change this part:

The building housed three police snipers tasked with covering the rally, but none of them were positioned on the rooftop due to manpower shortages.

To this:

The building housed three police snipers tasked with covering the rally, but none of them were positioned on the rooftop. The now-resigned Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle claimed in an ABC interview that the reason why her agents weren't on the roof was due to it being sloped, which posed a safety risk. However, the roof that the USSS north sniper team used was also sloped, leading to doubts about her claim. Local law enforcement at the rally attributed the lack of roof coverage to manpower shortages.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

https://www.foxnews.com/us/swat-expert-explains-how-secret-service-could-have-prevented-trump-attempted-assassination

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/22/congress/house-homeland-security-butler-trump-shooting-green-roof-00170389

Change this part:

This was attributed to "extremely poor planning" and manpower shortages.

To this:

This was attributed to "extremely poor planning", manpower shortages, and according to former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, the "safety risk" associated with a sloped roof, a claim doubted by security experts.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rally-shooting-unacceptable-secret-service-director-abc-exclusive/story?id=111962314

https://www.foxnews.com/us/swat-expert-explains-how-secret-service-could-have-prevented-trump-attempted-assassination

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/22/congress/house-homeland-security-butler-trump-shooting-green-roof-00170389 MightyLebowski (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please no more WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as a source though. CNC (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The law enforcement expert referenced in the article has been interviewed by CNN on other subjects, and Fox News is really just reporting what he's saying. Also, this article is under U.S. news, not politics. But if you want to exclude it, then that's fine. You can use this source instead:

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/22/congress/cheatle-house-oversight-trump-shooting-secret-service-00170289 MightyLebowski (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed as it is still politics. I don't see a need for another source.

But, we did not include that one congressperson in the hearing said it was the result of DEI, having a female as the head of the Secret Service.</sarcasm> O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is MREL or marginally reliable. Would be better to cite other articles than Fox News, unless that is the only possible source for a claim. (Plus, if it is considered to be politics like above, then it is consider to be generally unreliable.)

In any case, it does seem like both changes are useable if we can get a better source on the sloped roof text. Speaking of, the text However, the roof that the USSS north sniper team used was also sloped, feels a bit weird to me. ("The roof that one of the sniper teams used was also sloped?" "However, a USSS sniper team was set up on a different sloped roof?" "Despite this, one of the sniper teams was deployed on a sloped roof?" Meh, doesn't seem like improvements.)

We might also want to cover that the roof was being watched until officers started searching for the shooter. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Revised edit:

The building housed three police snipers tasked with covering the rally, but none of them were positioned on the rooftop. The now-resigned Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle claimed in an ABC interview that the reason why her agents weren't on the roof was due to it being sloped, which posed a safety risk. However, the roof used by the USSS north sniper team was also sloped, leading to doubts about her claim. Local law enforcement at the rally attributed the lack of roof coverage to manpower shortages. Crooks did not undergo security screening, as his rooftop location was, according to law enforcement officials, outside the Secret Service's security perimeter for the rally. It was later revealed that two local SWAT-trained officers were stationed on the second story of a building adjacent and with direct line of site to the roof used by the shooter. These officers identified Crooks as suspicious after he failed to enter the venue. Just before the shooting, the officers left their post and began searching for him on the ground. MightyLebowski (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd really rather wait for a thorough investigation before piecing together a lot of observations/claims. We are an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If my suggestion to MightyLebowski is excluded, as in the last three sentences suggested, would it still be a problem? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what the official sources are saying, it's the job of Wikipedia to report that, even if it changes later. These are the same excuse that someone else gave in another topic, saying "well, Cheatle may change her sloped roof statement later, therefore it's irrelevant, and we shouldn't dedicate time to it." Also, reporting claims by the Secret Service, the Director of the Secret Service (now former), and local law enforcement is highly relevant for showing public officials that provide e.g. excuses, lies, conflicting information etc.

We are an encyclopedia.

What do you mean by this? Nothing I wrote is unfit for publishing on Wikipedia. MightyLebowski (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

They disagree, as do I. There is an ongoing investigation and until it is complete all of this is just speculation. Also what you have written is very wordy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So you don't even want to include the sloped roof statement of the former director of the Secret Service? It can be as terse as you want.

There is an ongoing investigation and until it is complete all of this is just speculation.

There's already a statement in the article about how the lack of manpower is why the roof wasn't covered, which is only what local law enforcement say (along with tons of other speculative statements). Why is that included if there hasn't been an investigation yet? Official statements, like Cheatle's, should be included. It's unheard of to think otherwise.

Also what you have written is very wordy.

Not really, but it can be slimmed down. MightyLebowski (talk) 23:15, 24 July 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.

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

Please change "Trump stated that a last-second head tilt may have saved him from a fatal injury." to "A last-second head tilt may have saved Trump from a fatal injury."

For 2 reasons: 1. To match the body. 2. Many reliable sources, which are cited in the version in the body, make the claim in their own voice. Amthisguy (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

[[6]] [[7]], seems to be the attributation is correct. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

From the second source you cited. "Former President Donald Trump might have lost his life on Saturday if he hadn't tilted his head to look at an immigration statistics chart."

Like I said, the reporters are making these claims in their own voice. Trump also made the claim, but that's not the issue. The issue is that a fact is being presented as just Trump's opinion. Amthisguy (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If you accept Trumo made the claim, what is the issue with saying he said it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WIKIVOICE

Stating facts as opinions is a neutrality violation. Amthisguy (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Trump also made the claim". Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the issue, which you have been dodging. I've been clear on this.

Wp:wikivoice

"Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Amthisguy (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence was removed from the intro entirely, so this doesn't really matter Amthisguy (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Moot

 – As mentioned by OP directly above, the material in question no longer exists in the lead, so de-activating the request. Left guide (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Bullet or shrapnel?

Something that may be worth noting in this article. Testifying today (7/24/24) to the House Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray said at least twice -- once in response to a question from Rep. Kevin Kiley of California about six hours into the hearing and once in response to a question from Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio (the committee chair) about seven hours into the hearing -- that former President Trump's ear was grazed by either a bullet "or shrapnel".

sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/shooting-of-trump-christopher-wray-testifies-congress/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWpq1RmNd3Q (CBS live stream) NME Frigate (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, Ronny Jackson (a licensed physician), has confirmed it was a bullet that struck Trump's ear. I don't know if it's worth mentioning what the FBI director had to offer on conjecture. Until a report comes out that definitely states one way or another, I would rather we err on the side of the doctor who has treated the wound.

source: https://apnews.com/article/trump-ronny-jackson-shooting-medical-report-e95a2888cd5eeb64820d6fa789b03463 (AP News) Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson is the doctor who claimed that Trump is 6'3" and 239 pounds, and if wasn't for his diet would live to be 200 years old. In other words, he's a source whose statements regarding the former President have a known record of untrustworthiness. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone who physically examined Trump's injury is more credible than hearsay i.e. Wray saying he doesn't know one way or the other. By your standard, because Wray has a lied about or exaggerated things, he can't be trusted either.

Also, the comment about Trump "living to 200 years old" is obviously hyperbole, no human being lives past about 120 with current medical technology. Anyone who wasn't born yesterday would understand the hyperbolic context of Ronny Jackson's statement. MightyLebowski (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

And there's high resolution photos that show Trump being hit by the bullet, frame-by-frame:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/07/13/us/politics/13TRUMP-SHOOTING-TRIPTYCH/13TRUMP-SHOOTING-TRIPTYCH-superJumbo.jpg

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000009570661/photographer-captures-bullet-streaking-past-trump.html

So there isn't really a question that the bullet hit Trump, there's photographic evidence of it. It's unrealistic for shrapnel to have hit him when he turned his body away from where the other bullets were hitting. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like your WP:OR.

I'm more convinced by the head of the FBI saying we don't know whether or not it was a bullet or shrapnel than anyone studying the video like it was the Zapruder film. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's licensed physician says the bullet hit him, and the NYT source says the bullet went right next to Trump head where he was hit, followed by him grasping his ear, then showing his hand with blood. Wray simply said he didn't know either way, whereas the other sources claim they do know i.e. Jackson saying it hit Trump, the NYT stating that the bullet trail went by his etc. It's not original research when the original sources are making the claim that the bullet hit Trump. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson is not licensed or someone who could be put forth as impartial. Wray is correct because we're waiting for results of an investigation. None of the sources you link to say definitively that Trump was shot. NY Times says they captured a photo of the bullet "passing by" his head. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

He has medical credentials, is board certified in emergency medicine, and examined Trump. He's definitely a reliable source, even if you don't personally like him. This source reports Trump being shot:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ronny-jackson-shooting-medical-report-e95a2888cd5eeb64820d6fa789b03463 MightyLebowski (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Being certified in emergency medicine reflects your ability to medically treat a patient; it's not crime scene investigation. Trump's physicians have a history of making statements about Trump's condition that are seen as being more in align with Trump's desired narrative than with truth. He is not a third-party source; if he's acting as Trump's physician, then he is in Trump's employ. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, AP reports Trump being shot, based on the medical examiner's detailed report and description of the wound. MightyLebowski (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

MightyLebowski: there is no "medical examiner's detailed report"

I see you're new to these parts. welcome, and enjoy your stay soibangla (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever your spin is, the AP source reports Trump being shot. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Jackson is certainly not a "medical examiner", and if he were, he would not be examining Trump on that basis, as Trump is not a corpse, which is what medical examiners examine. If you don't believe me, look it up. (You may also wish to look up the word "opinion" while you're at it.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

there are no photos showing a bullet striking Trump's ear. there is no Zapruder film soibangla (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A bullet going near Trump's head, as reported by the NYT, and Trump's medical examiner saying it hit him, is ample evidence. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

but there's other evidence:

Pittsburgh sent 10 officers. Four of them, as we exclusively reported Sunday afternoon, were hit by shrapnel when a gunman opened fire at the rally, killing one man, and wounding Trump and several others. The Pittsburgh motorcycle officers suffered only minor injuries and were treated at the scene. One later went to the hospital. Video from CBS News shows those Pittsburgh officers, just minutes after they were hit with debris, in the stands helping some of the injured, even carrying one to safety.[8]

Sources tell (WPXI) Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets. Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.[9]

soibangla (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The main point I'll make is that Trump sustained an injury from the very first shot (before you even hear a sound, because the bullet traveled faster than the speed of sound), during which blood can be seen on his hand (in the NYT photo, prior to the next seven shots).

If you're trying to claim that shrapnel hit Trump, then it would have to be from the first bullet, which the NYT photograph shows a vapor trail right next to his head (right where his right ear was).

Common sense logic says that the bullet grazed Trump, since his head being turned would've prevented it from being hit by shrapnel from where the bullet landed behind him.

It's pretty hard for me to believe that anyone not being duplicitous would refuse to accept these reported facts.

Regardless, everything you said is WP:OR; just because others were hit by shrapnel, it doesn't mean Trump was, especially when he was injured by the first bullet that did not appear to land near him.

The AP source clearly reports that Trump was hit by a bullet, so this article should still state that fact.

One last thing, Wray said that he didn't know whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel because he didn't have those facts in front of him, meaning he literally did not prepare for the hearing, and does not know basic facts about what's hes' talking about (common among government officials these days). He said this when talking to Jim Jordan. So the entire premise of wanting to change the article to say that Trump as hit by shrapnel is based on an FBI director that didn't know the answer to the question, so his statement should absolutely not be included.

This topic is totally lacking the context of Wray admitting that he did not know the answer to the question. MightyLebowski (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

MightyLebowski that is not what Jordan asked and not what Wray was answering soibangla (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's just wrong. You didn't watch the entire clip. Jordan asks the question at 01:01:08:

Jordan:

"It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? The very first shot, or is that not accurate?"

Wray:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

Wray doesn't know if it's the first bullet that hit Trump, when only one shot is heard just after Trump grabs his ear. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson does not have an active medical license. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson. haha soibangla (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

if a bullet or shrapnel grazes someone, it is generally acceptable to say that the person was shot. The term “shot” implies that a projectile made contact with the person’s body, regardless of the severity of the wound. However, for clarity, you can specify that it was a graze if you want to emphasize the nature of the injury. For example:

Donald Trump was shot and sustained a graze wound from a bullet/shrapnel.

This specifies that he was shot but clarifies the extent of the injury. Astropulse (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Something that probably should be taken into consideration: Donald Trump now has explicitly disputed the statement of FBI Director Christopher Wray (who was appointed to that position by Trump himself) that there is some uncertainty as to whether Trump was struck by a bullet or by shrapnel. Posting today (10/24/24) on his social media network, Trump wrote, among much else, that the "hospital called it a 'bullet wound to the ear'". That said, as far as I know, the hospital's report has not been made public. Trump himself slightly misstates Wray's testimony: Trump describes Wray saying "he wasn't sure if I was hit by shrapnel, glass, or a bullet", but Wray never mentioned glass. Trump also says that "the FBI never even checked" but I'm not sure what he means by that.

source: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112850202227985061 NME Frigate (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times now has published a story that may be relevant (it's mostly behind a paywall for me, so I can't say for sure) that includes these sentences about the FBI's investigation: "The bureau is assessing what caused the former president's wound during an assassination attempt. The question has turned political."

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/us/politics/fbi-bullet-trump-rally.html?smid=tw-share NME Frigate (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think saying "shot at" will fix this problem. Master106 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"injured during a shooting incident" soibangla (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That could imply that he could have gotten injured by anything, when he in fact was injured by Crooks. Master106 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"in fact?" no soibangla (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If my Doctor told me I could live to be 200 "if only I had a better diet", I would get a new Doctor. In other words I would "demote" him much like Jackson was. Read his article for some insight. His medical expertise is questionable. He misreported his clients health to the nation. He is not a reliable source of "fact". Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 02:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the injury came from a shrapnel or bullet they came from Crooks' gun. That is a fact. Master106 (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources tell (WPXI) Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets. Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.

Shrapnel. soibangla (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Even under that theory, he was still injured by the shooter. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We could combine Astropulse's suggested "bullet or shrapnel" and Master106's suggested "shot at" wording to say "Trump was shot at and sustained a graze wound from a bullet or shrapnel" for the lead section. That is supported by reliable sources, including the FBI director in charge of the investigation testifying before the House Judiciary Committee and quoted in The Washington Post.[10] Elspea756 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A good option until we get a complete comprehensive report on the incident. Wrays testimony raises doubt. Until something definite is confirmed we are not at liberty to say either way. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

lets do that Astropulse (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

its really about choice of words. we saw it on live TV - I dont know what the fuss is about. He was shot - but injury was minimal. so they say grazed Astropulse (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

we saw a shooting incident on live TV

we did not see a bullet hit him

Sources tell (WPXI) Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets. Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.[11]

soibangla (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it says "At exactly the right moment, however, President Trump turned his head to read a chart, so that a bullet which would have pierced his skull instead grazed his right ear."

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/07/23/we-will-continue-to-push-for-answers-chairman-green-delivers-opening-statement-in-hearing-on-assassination-attempt-against-former-president-trump/

but that doesn't mean trump was not shot. he was shot. The term “shot” implies that a projectile made contact with the person’s body, regardless of the severity of the wound. Astropulse (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing coming from a Republican-controlled committee should be accepted as true on its face. soibangla (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that that's a good solution until more information is released. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Having "Trump was shot[dubious – discuss]" in the lead of such a high-profile article, for such well-sourced text, is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Today the FBI, which has access to information the press does not, cast doubt on what the press reported perhaps in haste. The embarrassment might rest with the press. soibangla (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In haste? We literally had this discussion a half dozen times because there was vagueness in the early articles. It is also why we had the RfC to determine if we should say he was shot which was SNOW closed as to include. (Which you should recall since it was your RfC.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the FBI director is not disputing Trump was shot by a bullet, only questioned this and (by default) "cast doubt" on the bullet theory.[12] At most this can be included in the body as FBI director has questioned whether Trump was hit by a bullet, or otherwise "cast doubt" on this. Not much else, this isn't a big deal yet. CNC (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

He's not disputing, but is questioning. Sorry, but that gave me a laugh. Seems to me this is a big deal because it has been made into a big deal, even suggesting multiple times that god had something to do with this. It's why I've always been a big fan of WP:RECENTISM which seems to have gone by the wayside. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did that make you laugh? I'm just going by what I've seen RS report, although I haven't searched extensively. Do you have a source that states the FBI director has disputed this claim, or is this original research? Recentism otherwise has little to nothing to do with this as the event itself remains very recent, the concept is for article imbalance towards recent events. It is almost impossible to apply towards articles based on recent events, unless for example we were to take this even more recent FBI claim more seriously than it is, then that would be an argument for recentism. CNC (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

he cannot confirm what the press has reported as fact and as a result it has been accepted as fact by most of the world

and he has access to confidential information that no one outside the FBI does, but he has not shared one word of it with the press until yesterday soibangla (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This might very well be the truth of the matter, but WP is not about WP:TRUTH. CNC (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Right. It's about verifiability. And no one who can know has verified this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability means WP:V to WP:RS, not as in reliable sources have verified. CNC (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

it's not a matter of truth, he neither confirmed nor denied what the press has reported. if he could've, maybe he would've, but he did not soibangla (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't follow your point here, mine was that we should go by what RS say, not what could be the truth of the matter from someone who might know better, as this sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL. CNC (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

CRYSTAL suggests we wait for an investigation to complete. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

CRYSTAL is about making sure content is verifiable to reliable sources, as already explained, nothing to do with waiting for an investigation to finish. It's simply about avoiding unverified opinions and speculation. It's quite clear that speculation documented by RS can be included, while avoiding undue weight. Hence this shrapnel theory belongs in the body with passing mention, but not as part of the lead. CNC (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, the FBI director later admitted that he doesn't know because he's ignorant of existing facts:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?537151-2/fbi-director-testifies-oversight-house-judiciary-committee-part-3

Timestamp: 01:00:56 MightyLebowski (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So he doesn't know. And the doctors who treated him, the Secret Service, and the WH doctor aren't saying. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

he was replying to Jordan's question about where the bullets were, not a question about whether Trump was hit by one of them soibangla (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's at 01:01:08.

Jordan:

"It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? The very first shot, or is that not accurate?"

Wray:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

Wray responds to Jordan's question about the bullet hitting Trump. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So we wait till the investigation is over, and a public statement is made. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

wp:primary "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Historical documents such as diaries are as well", so (again) we should wait before putting in our voice what Primary sources claim. Nothing is lost by waiting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a good point, thanks for there reference. This implies the "shrapnel theory" would be breaking news, whereas recent coverage of the assassination attempt (since/after the event) isn't breaking news. CNC (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They are both breaking news. The medical folks and the Secret Service have been mum and the investigation is in early stages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

yet reliable sources get a huge head start with a conclusion that is not supported by any evidence. no video, no photos, no medical report, no FBI report, no USSS report, no nothing. and yet WP is obliged to run with it. oh well. maybe I'll add this to Why Wikipedia is not so great soibangla (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is an argument for why WP isn't great, but policy is policy. CNC (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why there is such a controversy over this. Snopes has fact checked this and clearly laid out the evidence as to why it's very unlikely there was any "shrapnel" around that could have caused Trump's ear injury. There is literally nothing around him, the teleprompters are in tact, and the evidence seems to plainly corroborate what the significant majority of our reliable sources have reported.

You and i can theorize why the officers around trump were injured and my take on that is it's likely because once they'd rushed to secure him the shooter began firing rounds in that general vicinity which struck wood, staging, or whatever else was in their immediate surroundings. However, that's all theory, and we're not here to do original research.

Per my commentary earlier, I'm striking my misguided remarks on the general reliability of the FBI, because I see you've had extensive experience editing in this subject area. I will say though even if it were true, it's certainly not relevant given the actual evidence that we do have, and not what is supposedly locked away in the FBI's super secret lair. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Snopes fact checked if it was a shattered teleprompter. Not if it was a bullet. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really though, quoted directly from the referenced Snopes article:

The theory that Trump's injury stemmed from a bullet, on the other hand, requires a shooter and a bullet. Unlike broken teleprompters, a shooter has been identified and a photograph documents the existence of a bullet passing by Trump's head.

Because there is photographic evidence of a bullet, and of a wound caused by a bullet, early and imprecisely sourced claims that Trump's injuries stemmed from broken glass are "False."

You could argue that Snopes is fact checking if his injuries were caused by shattered glass, but in doing so, they've implied that it appears to have been a bullet: nothing more, nothing less. Until there's evidence otherwise it seems WP:UNDUE to cast doubt on the matter because of the testimony of someone who is essentially saying, "I dunno, man." Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

note the narrow focus: glass

the early speculation was first about shattered glass, which was easily refuted by photos, then Snopes updated the story to include a splinter of glass from the prompter, which the fact-checker and others on the web say was merely a reflection, though I don't see if they are qualified to conclude that, but there is no mention of other possible fragments such as metal or plastic, which four officers feet from Trump were reported in a reliable source to have been struck and injured by. soibangla (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Breaking news means "an event that has just happened or just begun" [13] The assassination hasn't "just happened", instead there is more than enough RS since the event that document Trump being shot. CNC (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Wray testimony to Judiciary Committee

Wray said the exact nature of Trump's injury remains uncertain: "There's some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear."[14]

soibangla (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• That is certainly a reliable source for this, the FBI director in charge of the investigation testifying before the House Judiciary Committee and quoted in The Washington Post. Elspea756 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Other details that emerged from Wray's testimony:

• On July 13th, Crooks owned the AR-15. Het did buy it from his father years before the shooting.
• Crooks flew a drone just a few hours before the shooting.
• Crooks did not use the purchased ladder to climb onto the building, he used nearby equipment.

Sources:

• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9vp4mkjpdo
• https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c6p267gvg17t
• https://www.cf.org/news/top-takeaways-fbi-director-wray-testifies-on-trump-assassination-attempt/

Uwappa (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also another source that could be used with cite av media. [15]

"FBI director Christopher Wray cast doubt on whether Donald Trump was hit by a bullet during the attempted assassination at the Butler rally in Pennsylvania on 13 July." CNC (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the full context, Wray later went on to say that he doesn't know the answer to the question of whether the bullet hit Trump because he doesn't have the FBI investigative documents in front of him:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

He also says that "I believe we've all accounted for all of the shots and cartridges", so Wray seems like he didn't prepare for the hearing, which is unprofessional (but to be expected from him at this point).

Another quote just before the aforementioned one:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else."

You should post the full quotes relating to this subject, rather than out of context excerpts.

Source for the quotes:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?537151-2/fbi-director-testifies-oversight-house-judiciary-committee-part-3

Timestamp: 01:00:56

It's pretty obvious that the bullet hit Trump's right ear, and Wray admitted that he doesn't know the answer to the question. Ignorance of the FBI director relating to facts about the case should't be included in this article. MightyLebowski (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: your quote, it was in response to the question "Where did all eight bullets go I guess is my question," not in response to a question about whether Trump's ear was grazed by a bullet versus shrapnel. Also, it's not "pretty obvious that the bullet hit Trump's right ear." The one photo with the bullet shows its path as too low to have injured the top of Trump's ear, and we can tell from photos that it was the top of his ear that was injured (e.g., https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/07/13/donald-trump-says-he-was-shot-in-ear-at-pennsylvania-rally/) FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not true, did you even watch the video clip? It's at 01:01:08.

Jordan:

"It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? The very first shot, or is that not accurate?"

Wray:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

Wray responds to Jordan's question about the bullet hitting Trump. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What you initially said was:

Wray later went on to say that he doesn't know the answer to the question of whether the bullet hit Trump because he doesn't have the FBI investigative documents in front of him:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

That's what I was responding to. The quote is accurate, but your preceding statement was not accurate. I was also mistaken: I quoted the wrong thing in response to you. I made that mistake both because your timestamp turned out to be off and because Jordan's follow-up question was not included in the automated transcript for some unknown reason. I agree now that your quote from Wray was made in response to Jordan having asked "It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? The very first shot, or is that not accurate?" Hopefully, you'll now agree that Wray's response is not the same as Wray saying "he doesn't know the answer to the question of whether the bullet hit Trump because he doesn't have the FBI investigative documents in front of him." Wray is saying that he believes the FBI knows which shot caused the injury, but he doesn't have that info in front of him. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump is widely despised within the FBI, and I have no doubt there are a significant contingent of agents there who are floating any number of wild theories. Properly phrased and cited, I have no problem with citing Director Wray's and his agency's admitted cluelessness as to what actually happened that day. Marcus Markup (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please substantiate Trump is widely despised within the FBI and his agency's admitted cluelessness. There remains no evidence he was hit by a bullet. No video, no photos, no medical report, nothing. soibangla (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Allegations of the FBI having an anti-Trump bias are not new, this is easily Googled and I'm not about to re-hash their case or try to convince you of anything; I'll just say that from MY reading, that seems to be the case. Regarding his being "clueless" about what happened during the shooting, (or "shrapneling" or however our article will eventually end up covering it) that's perhaps not the proper word. He's been presented with plenty of "clues", it's just a matter of him simply not knowing at this point. I should have perhaps said he is "not sure" what actually happened that day instead of him being "clueless". Marcus Markup (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

this is easily Googled so do it soibangla (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Crossfire Hurricane:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-special-counsel-faults-fbis-handling-2016-trump-russia-probe-2023-05-15

The FBI lacked "actual evidence" to investigate Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and relied too heavily on tips provided by Trump's political opponents to fuel the probe, U.S. Special Counsel John Durham concluded in a report released on Monday.

MightyLebowski (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That is OR, we go by what RS say, do RS say "Trump is widely despised within the FBI"? And lets wait until the investigation is over. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

[dubious – discuss] in the lead

It is not "dubious" that Trump was shot (grazed by a bullet) as the tag in the lead currently says. It may not yet be conclusively proven but it is just as plausible an explanation as the shrapnel theory, although the shattered teleprompter screen theory has faded since the teleprompters appear to have been undamaged. FBI director Wray says that no firm conclusion has yet been drawn, but I am not aware of any reliable sources that make the case that Trump was not grazed by a bullet. Are there any such sources? Why is this dubious? Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It feels like the never ending issue. I am two seconds away from starting an FAQ. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

as I mentioned in my RfC on this that was summarily SNOW closed as some suggested I was this guy[16], this is not about a shattered teleprompter screen.

The FBI has access to more information than does the press, and until now they have said not a word. There remains no evidence Trump was hit a bullet. No video, no photos, no medical report, nothing. With Wray's statement, there is now evidence to suggest the press may have reported hastily in a herd mentality. This may turn out to be a teaching moment for them, and us. I support dubious at this time.

Pittsburgh sent 10 officers. Four of them, as we exclusively reported Sunday afternoon, were hit by shrapnel when a gunman opened fire at the rally, killing one man, and wounding Trump and several others. The Pittsburgh motorcycle officers suffered only minor injuries and were treated at the scene. One later went to the hospital. Video from CBS News shows those Pittsburgh officers, just minutes after they were hit with debris, in the stands helping some of the injured, even carrying one to safety.[17]

Sources tell (WPXI) Chief Investigator Rick Earle the officers were just feet away from Trump when shots rang out. The four officers suffered minor injuries from flying debris caused by the bullets. Sources say the officers were hit with either plastic or metal fragments when the bullets struck objects nearby.[18]

soibangla (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The same FBI director who answered "Not at this time, but again the investigation is ongoing" regarding accomplices is enough to doubt all of our RSs?

Additionally, we understand that there were people who were hit with shrapnel. The discussion is on Trump, not on them. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

if four officers just feet away from Trump where sprayed with debris, a reasonable person might conclude the first line of investigation would be whether Trump was also hit by debris, especially since there remains absolutely no evidence he was hit by a bullet soibangla (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the injured officers were at a significantly lower level and that Trump's podium was elevated. Is that incorrect? If the teleprompters were not hit, is there evidence from reliable sources that the podium or any other structure near Trump was hit? But anyway, Soibangla, please provide a link to a reliable source that calls the bullet graze theory "dubious" or any synonym of dubious. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen the injured officers were at a significantly lower level. Do you have a source? I don't, because I don't see any source following up on the WPXI story, if only to refute it. I have been skeptical of what reliable sources have reported here, that he was hit by a bullet despite the total lack of evidence to support it, so I'm not inclined to expect they would now tell us their reporting is was dubious. we, as editors, need to say it's dubious, despite our insistence to rely on what reliable sources say, when evidence has arisen to call it into question. soibangla (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, my personal preliminary assessment about the position of those officers is something that I am mentioning here on the talk page and is based on looking at many photos, videos and digital recreations of the attempted assassination. They show many views from a lower level looking up towards Trump where only the blue sky is visible behind Trump, and other views taken from higher up (podium level) where the people in the bleachers immediatly behind Trump are visible. Basically a level view towards the podium. If those officers were at the same level as Trump, they would have partially blocked the standard video camera shots, and would have been readily visible in the main video. But they weren't, which leads me to conclude that they were at a lower level, at or near ground level as opposed to the elevated podium level. The digital recreations that I have seen were by the New York Times and the Washington Post. To be crystal clear, I do not propose to add my personal thoughts or assessments to the article in any way. My comments are to provoke careful thought and I am completely open to new evidence. The core point to me is the presence of the word "dubious" in the lead. Christopher Ray did not call the bullet graze explanation "dubious". He simply indicated that there were two plausible explanations, and I agree with him. Plausible is not a synonym for "dubious". To call the bullet graze theory "dubious" in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article seems to be original research and synthesis unless actual reliable sources (not individual Wikipedia editors) call it "dubious" or some close synonym of that word. So which reliable sources (not you or other Wikipedia editors) call the bullet graze explanation "dubious"? Maybe such a reliable source exists but I have not seen it yet. Since you support keeping the "dubious" tag, you should be able to furnish the reliable source or sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

can dubious be changed to disputable?

as I suggested before, I have long been skeptical of the press rushing to a conclusion en masse in herd fashion despite totally lacking evidence to support their conclusion, and I mean totally, and I suspect they might be reluctant to acknowledge they got it wrong, they might not be in any rush to admit it, hence the lack of reliable sources reporting it. quite the conundrum for us to have relied on multiple reliable sources for a conclusion, which was later called into dispute by the FBI that up to now had not said a word about it, only for us to lack reliable sources that acknowledge this. maybe we'll see more later today. soibangla (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla your persistence here is concerning. There is no new evidence, just a single person whose voice does not carry enough weight to include introducing such claims to the lead. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kcmastrpc (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc: just a single person who runs the FBI and has access to investigative information no one else outside the FBI does

please do not venture into casting aspersions upon me soibangla (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Too late, take it to ANI if you have an issue with it. I’ll be happy to defend my observations and evidence of WP:BLUDGEON there.

FBI hasn’t presented any evidence, only unsupported conjecture. We should be reminded this is the same FBI who said there was Russian collusion and the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. There was an RfC about this, nothing has changed, no new evidence, just an unsubstantiated claim by an organization who hasn’t been honest in the past. My recommendation would be to open an RfC about it if you feel that this individuals statement is WP:DUE for such a change. Several editors have already weighed in and it seems theres consensus to keep the status quo. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring up Crossfire Hurricane. I just knew it. haha soibangla (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What you've been saying is false, here is the exact quote from Wray:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?537151-2/fbi-director-testifies-oversight-house-judiciary-committee-part-3

Timestamp: 01:00:56

So the FBI director says that the FBI knows the answer as to whether Trump was hit by the bullet, but Wray himself just doesn't know because he didn't come prepared for the hearing.

He may have access to the investigative information, but he's clearly too lazy to actually read it.

The FBI has already accounted for all shots fired (according to Wray), but have not released their findings. The original sources, photographs, and medical examiner say that Trump was shot in the right ear.

Wray did not cast doubt on whether Trump was hit with a bullet, he's literally ignorant and does not know, despite having that information. He fully admitted this in the verbatim quote above. MightyLebowski (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc: the matter is under active discussion, which is likely to continue later today. please refrain from edit warring soibangla (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

per WP:ONUS the disputed change stays out until there is consensus. i’ll caution the same warning re: edit warring to you as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

nothing has changed indeed there has

I did not place the tag and I have not and will not edit war, and there is no reason to suggest I might, and I am most certainly not bludgeoning. the tag was placed in the evening ET and I'm sure this discussion will expand later today. incidentally, Wray is not Comey, the DOJ IG found Crossfire was properly predicated and the FBI never said the laptop was Russian disinfo, but I will digress no further soibangla (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, for Pete's sake, why the the heck are you bothering to mention Comey, Crossfire and Hunter's laptop? Why the heck? Those things have literally nothing to do with this article, except that John Muir once observed that everything in the universe is hitched to everything else, which is both charming and a tautology. So, let me return to the critical importance of reliable sources. Whether or not you first added the "dubious" tag, you have defended it repeatedly. So, where are the reliable sources that say it is "dubious"? All I want is to see the reliable sources. Maybe a week from now, with additional coverage in reliable sources, we will all conclude that a flying fragment of wood or plastic or metal wounded Trump's ear. Maybe reliable sources will conclude that he squirted a ketchup packet or a WWE blood capsule on his ear. We will see. But here on Wikipefia, we require a reliable source to call anything under the sun "dubious". Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328: why the the heck are you bothering to mention Comey, Crossfire and Hunter's laptop?

um, because Kcmastrpc mentioned these things to suggest that Wray cannot be trusted. did you miss that?

I recommend you ping the editor who placed the tag. I am out of this for now. soibangla (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

one last thing

Cullen328: Maybe reliable sources will conclude that he squirted a ketchup packet or a WWE blood capsule on his ear

might suggest to a reasonable person that you are suggesting I am engaged in conspiracy theorizing. please do not go that way. soibangla (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I have repeatedly asked you to furnish a reliable source that calls the bullet graze explanation "dubious" and you have thusfar failed to do so. Chris Ray did not call it dubious. He said there were two possible explanations. No reliable sources that I have been able to find call it "dubious". As always, you are free to furnish reliable sources that call it "dubious". Until then, it appears to be your own original research, which simply does not belong in the Wikipedia mainspace. So please do not restore it without that all-important reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

at this point I recommend you continue this discussion with the editor who placed the tag. I am not engaged in OR, I am engaged in discussion on this Talk page that others are free to take or leave, and I have not and will not edit war, and there is no cause to suggest I might. soibangla (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I have been engaging in discussion with the editor who has repeatedly defended the "dubious" tag, which is you. But let's put it to rest.

On the other matter, do not take troll bait. I am ready to move on at this point and get some sleep. Perhaps other editors will chime in with brilliant new observations. Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 you opened this thread without pinging the editor who placed the tag to solicit their reasoning. I certainly would have.

I AGF in other editors. are you saying another editor I have engaged is a troll? if so, should that editor be admonished? soibangla (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, when I question content in an article on its talk page, I do not believe that I am obligated to search the article history to figure out who first added the problematic content. Is there any policy or guideline that requires that type of deep search? As for the trolling matter, I lack the time or motivation this late at night in California where I live to investigate the other editor, but the one thing that is clear is that they induced you to go off topic, which looks like mild trolling at least to me. Now I need to turn off my phone for about seven or eight hours. Cullen328 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know whether Trump was actually grazed by a bullet or shrapnel. He was certainly "shot at" and saying "was shot at" would end this whole subsection. However, it is clear this article should say that the crowd thought he was dead and was in great sorrow, as this is what President Trump has said. The failure to report that the crowd thought he was dead is appalling.Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that "shot at" is clear and reliably sourced. I suggested above that we could combine Astropulse's suggested "bullet or shrapnel" and Master106's suggested "shot at" wording to say "Trump was shot at and sustained a graze wound from a bullet or shrapnel" for the lead section. That is supported by reliable sources, including the FBI director in charge of the investigation testifying before the House Judiciary Committee and quoted in The Washington Post.[19] And I think I see about three editors who agreed with that, and none that expressly disagreed, but I may have missed some comments. There are several other reliable sources on this, such as The Guardian's "FBI director questions whether Trump was hit by bullet or shrapnel in shooting"[20] and Time's "What We Do and Don’t Know About Trump’s Ear Wound"[21] as well as NBC News "Republicans rip FBI director's testimony that Trump might not have been hit by a bullet."[22] I also just found an article from CNN last week "Dr. Sanjay Gupta: There are still key questions about Trump’s injuries after attempted assassination"[23] This article is currenlty failing WP:NPOV which requires that we are "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." At this point, we are not representing significant views on this. Elspea756 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Gupta suggests Trump could have been grazed by the bullet and shrapnel, "It’s not even clear that he was struck by a primary projectile from the rifle, a secondary projectile or a combination of both." 2600:4040:2256:BB00:90A3:E42C:F5E5:C98F (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, the reliable CNN source written last week by Dr. Sanjay Gupta says that it is "not even clear" what caused the injury, whether a "primary projectile" (a bullet) or a "secondary projectile" (like debris or shrapnel) or possibly a "combination of both." The current version of the article does not represent this view, expressed by Dr. Gupta and similarly by FBI Director Wray. WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, we could write "Trump was shot at and sustained a graze wound from a bullet and/or shrapnel" in the lead section. Elspea756 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I support wording like ""Trump was shot at and sustained a graze wound from either a bullet or shrapnel". Cullen328 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for expressing your support for this change. This also reliably sourced to this New York Times article[24] that says the FBI is trying "to determine whether a would-be assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald Trump’s head, bloodying his right ear ..." Elspea756 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  haha soibangla (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

GunTubers testing online conspiracy theories about the assassination attempt

I believe there should be a section of this Wikipedia dedicated to guntuber channels testing and disproving online conspiracy theories on how the event was staged, ranging from the conspiracy that an AR15 round would make your head explode to the events being staged in general (i.e. Thomas Matthew Crooks only targeted Trump’s ear without killing or injuring anyone else), and including graphs of the incident showing how it would’ve been impossible for it to be staged. 2601:80:CC01:97D0:3C57:6AF3:EB5D:FDCB (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've watched some of these, and while they're certainly both educational and entertaining, they're also not a reliable source per WP:PRIMARY for inclusion without secondary WP:RS covering them. (and even then, see WP:YOUTUBE). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hard no. YouTube is not a reliable source for some very good reasons. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Claims that Biden's statements, or those of other Democrats, incited the attempt are opinions and categorically not conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is the claim that it was ordered or orchestrated by government officials. Please move these under a different subheading.

"Following the attack, some people criticized a statement Biden had made earlier in the month[14] during a conversation with other Democrats: "I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump... It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."[258] More than two dozen Republicans blamed the shooting on Biden,[259] including[238] Texas representative Keith Self, who argued that his language had incited violence;[260][182] Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said "Democrats wanted this to happen";[238] and" Amthisguy (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene, who said "Democrats wanted this to happen" Sounds like a conspiracy. If you follow that link, the source links to an article labeling Greene's statement a conspiracy theory. There is zero evidence that anything anyone said had anything to do with this event. We still do not know the motivation, and anyone who claims they do is just posturing, and perhaps they will later be accused of begetting violence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The Independent article only calls them conspiracy theories in the headline, which doesn't count perwp:headlines

The body only uses the term in a quote and in reference to a conspiracy theorist who assaulted Pelosi's husband.

However, you're right on the MTG one. After reading the article I see that she was definitely tweeting a conspiracy theory.

We don't know the shooters motives entirely, but there's really no question that he didn't like Trump, and it's plausible, to say the least, that anti-Trump rhetoric had something to do with the reason he wanted to kill him. True or not, stating that, is categorically not a conspiracy theory. Public statements are not secret plots. At worst, many of the statements are just assumptions, or opinions Amthisguy (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is definitely a question as to the shooter's feelings about Trump, at least as a political figure. There has been reporting suggesting that the shooter researched other possible targets, including President Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and an unidentified member of the British royal family.

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/secret-service-trump-shooting.html NME Frigate (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If we’re going to talk conspiracy theories, at least acknowledge the ones that came out after the shooting happened, like the staged shooting one or the head exploding after being hit in the ear one. 2601:80:CC01:97D0:6DF0:F40C:78B9:1429 (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many conspiracy theories listed in the wikipedia article I only quoted the paragraph that seem out of place Amthisguy (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why that whole paragraph ended up in the "conspiracy theories" section and not the normal "reactions" section, since about 90% of it is just people getting mad about a gaffe, and seemingly not coming anywhere near positing that it was explicitly ordered by Joe Biden or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory #7....It is claimed that former President Trump posted on Truth Social the following: It took my entire ear off. The whole ear. But I went to the doctor, and he said, and this is true, he said, you heal faster than anyone I've ever seen. Nobody is healthier than you. And the next day, my ear was growing back, and the doctor said, nobody regrows ears like that, and it's a really remarkable thing, regrowing an ear like that, most people can't do it. And I know that, because it's not me saying this, it's the doctor, its everybody saying, just, you're the best at regrowing ears. Is it possible that the Doctor is Ronnie Jackson? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Officially disputed that Trump was shot

The director of the FBI disputes that Trump was directly shot, saying he could have been hit by debris. Therefore, we can say he was injured but not say for certain that he was shot. I have made small edits accordingly, but one user has been reverting them. Source is here https://newrepublic.com/post/184244/fbi-director-testimony-trump-bullet-injury-shooting Newzild (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed above in like 3 different sections and is disputed. Per WP:ONUS please self-revert as there is no consensus for this change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

i reverted it Astropulse (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Astropulse: so now we're saying he was shot by shrapnel? soibangla (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

a) its not clear if its bullet or shrapnel

b) if a bullet or shrapnel wounds someone, it is generally acceptable to say that the person was shot. The term “shot” implies that a projectile made contact with the person’s body, regardless of the severity of the wound. However, for clarity, we can specify that it was a graze if you want to emphasize the nature of the injury Astropulse (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

to say he was shot by shrapnel is quite strange

"Trump was shot at and wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel" is not soibangla (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

i dont know how that is wierd

Can you read

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/projectile

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shot

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gunshot Astropulse (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A) Trump was shot at and wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel.

• “Shot at” implies that someone fired a weapon in Trump’s direction, but it does not necessarily mean that he was directly hit by the initial shot. “Wounded” specifies that he was injured, and this injury could have been caused by either a bullet or shrapnel. The use of “shot at” and “wounded” separately emphasizes the sequence of events: first, an attempt was made to shoot him, and then he was injured.

B) Trump was shot and wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel.

• “Shot” directly indicates that Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. “Wounded” reinforces the fact that the shot caused an injury. This phrasing implies a more direct and immediate cause-and-effect relationship: Trump was shot (hit), which resulted in a wound. Astropulse (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

“shot at” implies that someone fired a gun in Trump’s direction, and as a result of the gunfire, he was wounded by what? a bullet? shrapnel? debris? the FBI seeks to find out[25] soibangla (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why should we even include that it may have been shrapnel when the FBI director admitted that he was ignorant on the issue when asked by Jim Jordan?

Conjecture by anyone, including the FBI director, is still conjecture. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

you are conducting original research, while others are citing reliable sources[26][27] soibangla (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I cited Wray's verbatim words, not original research. MightyLebowski (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The quote from Wray is reported here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-fbi-christopher-wray-bullet-assassantion-attempt-shrapnel-2024-7

Jordan followed up, "It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president. The very first shot. Or is that not accurate?"

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we know the answer to that. I just don't have it in front of me," Wray responded.

...

Additionally, Diaczuk told BI that it's most likely that it was, in fact, a bullet that hit Trump's ear instead of shrapnel.

In order for a bullet to break up and cause a fragment, "it's got to hit something substantial to disrupt its integrity," Diaczuk explained.

"And from what I saw — clearly, I don't have as much information as people who have been to the scene looking at things — but from what I saw the day of and the day after, was that it was a clear line of sight between the sniper's nest and the podium," said Diaczuk. "And if that's the case, then there's nothing to cause the breakup of a bullet."

"I don't see any indication of an intervening object to cause the bullet to fragment," he said.

Like I said, conjecture shouldn't be included.

For example, if Wray were to say he doesn't know whether the shooting was staged or not, it's not something that should be included in the article i.e. "Trump was either the victim of an assassination attempt, or staged the entire thing." We wouldn't include such a conspiracy theory just because someone doesn't know the answer to a question.

I think if you are to include the shrapnel theory, then it should be somewhere else, and it should be clearly stated that Wray doesn't know either way, even though the FBI apparently does know, but hasn't released their findings yet (Source from above: "I believe we know the answer to that" - Wray). MightyLebowski (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

New York Times, Thursday

The F.B.I. is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head, bloodying his ear, according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official.[28]

soibangla (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

BI is reporting that the FBI already knows the answer, from Wray's direct quote. Are you saying that Wray is wrong? MightyLebowski (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I am saying you are conducting original research soibangla (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

BI reporting isn't original research, it's an original source. MightyLebowski (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

can someone else explain to this new editor? soibangla (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

i did not explain it clearly. i updated by previous comment Astropulse (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

it does not necessarily mean that he was directly hit by any shot, isn't that right?

Trump was shot and wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel but the FBI, the nation's premier investigative body in such matters, has not concluded this, isn't that right?[29]

how is one "shot" by shrapnel? soibangla (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

again..... you fail to understand the loose definition of the word shot

The term “shot” generally means that a projectile made contact with the person’s body. In this context, shrapnel can indeed act as a projectile. While it might be more common to associate “shot” with bullets, shrapnel also qualifies since it is a fragment from an exploded device that is propelled towards a target. Therefore, it is reasonable to describe someone as being “shot” by shrapnel if it struck them and caused a wound. Astropulse (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

does shrapnel emerge from a rifle barrel? no, a bullet does, then it strikes an object, disintegrates and ricochets, perhaps striking people

I submit that the change you made is not consistent with the provided NYT source, whereas "shot at" is soibangla (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

it's not that I fail to understand the loose definition of the word shot, it's that I don't accept your loose definition of the word shot soibangla (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel the need to assert that it really makes no sense to say "he was shot with shrapnel." Unless A: We're writing a novel and using colorful language, or B: The weapon used was specifically designed to shoot or produce shrapnel e.g. a blunderbuss or grenade launcher. As all evidence points to both A and B being false "shot by/with shrapnel" seems grossly inappropriate to me. I think injured or grazed by a thus far uncertain projectile is most appropriate until there is some actual unbiased and clear evidence of the nature of the injury/projectile. And no, Trump and his private doctor's assertions do not count for anything for the same reasons others want to object to FBI director Wray's statements. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think injured or grazed by a thus far uncertain projectile is most appropriate...I think following the sources is most appropriate, and when the sources begin, by and large, to begin reporting that he was "grazed by a thus far uncertain projectile" we can then insert that into the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And I think that in their haste to present a complete story RSs may have seen the co-incidence of gunfire plus blood and then jumped to the (admittedly reasonable) conclusion of "gunshot wound" without adequate evidence to say so with certainty. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Several people have been reported as injured by debris, there's no reason or evidence that Trump's injury could not also be from debris, there just isn't any certain evidence of what exactly Trump was hit by. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The Director of the FBI also said under oath that Biden did not exhibit any signs of mental decline during his interactions with him. He is a demonstrated unreliable witness with skin in the game and anything he says must be qualified and quoted, and certainly not used as a basis for slapping a "disputed" tag after "Trump was shot". Marcus Markup (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

does Biden exhibit signs of mental decline 24/7/365? soibangla (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wray is not a layman, but instead the chief spook of the FBI, an investigative agency, who claims he did not notice any decline in Biden's capacity. Either he is incompetent or a politician or a combination of the two... either way, his words cannot be used as anything but for quoting his words; certainly not for making the encyclopedia a laughing stock by going "Trump was shot [dubious, discususs]" in the lead of this article. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

does Biden exhibit signs of mental decline 24/7/365? soibangla (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say the FBI disputes that Trump was shot. This is what Wray said towards the end of the hearing:

Jim Jordan:

"It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? The very first shot, or is that not accurate?"

Christopher Wray:

"As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we [the FBI] know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me."

https://www.c-span.org/video/?537151-2/fbi-director-testifies-oversight-house-judiciary-committee-part-3

Timestamp: 01:01:08

Wray didn't say the FBI doesn't knows if Trump was shot, but rather that he just doesn't personally know. MightyLebowski (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're reading something into the exchange that isn't there. Here's more of the exchange, so you can see the last part in context:

Jordan: Director, I guess I am not clear exactly where all, you said there were eight shell casings on the roof, so eight bullets were fired. We obviously know that Mr. Comperatore lost his life, two other, two other rally-goers were injured, seriously injured, and then the one that hit President Trump. Does that account for, were some of these individuals hit multiple times? Where did all eight bullets go, I guess is my question.

Wray: Uh, I don’t have that in front of me. I am happy to circle back and get that to you, assuming that we have that information. As I said, I think with respect to former president Trump, um, there is some question about whether or not it is a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, that hit his ear, so it's conceivable, as I sit here right now, I don’t know whether that bullet in addition to causing the grazing could have also landed somewhere else. But I believe we’ve accounted for all of the shots and the cartridges.

Jordan: It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president? Is that, the very first shot, or is that not accurate?

Wray: I don’t, as I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that. I believe we know the answer to that, I just don't have it in front of me. [timestamp: 1:00:18–1:01:33]

He's saying that he doesn't know whether the injury was caused by the first bullet, but he believes the FBI does know. He's not saying that the FBI knows whether the injury was caused by the bullet versus shrapnel. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For want of an official FBI report or medical records, reporters are now investigating this issue themselves. A new analysis in The New York Times concludes that Donald Trump was indeed grazed by a bullet rather than shrapnel, although one of the experts they consulted feels that the bullet whose track is seen in the famous picture is probably too low to have struck the top of Trump's ear.

source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/us/politics/trump-shooter-bullet-trajectory-ear.html NME Frigate (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking about bullets vs. shrapnel, the "Other Victims" section currently reads as follows:

"U.S. representative Ronny Jackson stated that a bullet grazed his nephew's neck. Jackson stated that his nephew was bleeding and was treated by medical personnel at the scene."

Those are sourced to a Politico article that quotes Jackson. However, at 11:39 PM EDT on July 13, 2024, Jackson, who was not at the Butler rally, posted the following to X (formerly Twitter):

"My nephew was injured at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Thankfully his injury was not serious and he is doing well. My family was sitting in the front, near where the President is speaking. They heard shots ringing out -- my nephew then realized he had blood on his neck and something had grazed and cut his neck. He was treated by the providers in the medical tent."

source: https://x.com/RonnyJacksonTX/status/1812331180072562923

Should the sentences cited above be modified to change "Jackson stated that a bullet grazed his nephew's neck" to "Jackson stated that a bullet or something else grazed his nephew's neck" with links to both statements? NME Frigate (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Per my edit summary, I've restored this to longstanding consensus and what was decided in an RfC. This matter is clearly still disputed so either leave it alone, or open another RfC to seek a change in consensus. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

While your revert can be justified by the previous RfC, we should note that it's not OK to remove newer RSs, appeared after the RfC was concluded.

With the new information appeared, the consensus should pay attention to it, not to remove it.

Would be better to at least move the text to the article body. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, these attributed testimonies could be summarized in the Investigation section. Based on the discussion above, some of the testimony seems cherry-picked so it seems prudent to ensure there is WP:BALANCE. Even with those in place I still strongly suggest editors open an RfC seeking consensus for the lead change; because it seems this is becoming a slow-moving edit war. (I don't want to get into WP:ASPERSIONS here, just want the article to be neutral and represent editor consensus.) Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Per edit summary, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY is enough to remove this line from the lead, as it's not a summary of the body. I recommend editors include the information to the investigation section before proposing amending the lead per MOS:INTRO. Then the discussion around MOS:LEADREL and WP:DUE can take place, but until then, there is nothing to discuss/argue. CNC (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

How many threads do we need on this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Always at least one more than we already have. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Crane

Really? No mention of the crane? Just after the shots, a rapid escape of gas or aerosol frame the pressurized cylinder (?), as the piston (?) falls several feet, lowering the large loudspeaker suspended from it. See https://www.youtube.com/live/rLLTmANI4rk?t=544s.

President Lethe (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)