Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot

Change

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

to

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

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

Bumping thread. Left guide (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

References

Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate Completely Contradicts His Boss Christopher Wray on Trump Bullet Wound Ambiguity

The Deputy FBI Director testified before Congress and said there was never any question that Trump was hit by a bullet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6qS9mXYM0

Thoughts on this? Was Wray lying the entire time when he said that there is still a question about whether it was shrapnel/debris, or a bullet that hit Trump?

I think that more scrutiny needs to be put on any statements released by the FBI before they're included here.

Additionally, people here were keen on not including certain other information because they wanted to "wait for the investigation", but then jumped on trying to include the shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory, even when such a claim boldly flies in the face of reality.

We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section. e.g.

"Director of the FBI Christopher Wray initially claimed that Trump may not have been hit by a bullet, and that flying shrapnel/debris may have been the cause of his ear injury. However, a plethora of sources and experts believed that Trump was shot, and this was eventually confirmed in a statement released by the FBI. Furthermore, Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress that there was "no doubt, and never has been" in the FBI's mind that Trump was shot with a bullet, contradicting Wray's earlier claim."

MightyLebowski (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have umpteen threads on this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see any mention of these particular comments from Paul Abbate here. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

NO, but its still the same issues, was Trump shot. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wray did not say "debris," so why do you even introduce that? He said "bullet or shrapnel." The subsequent FBI statement said a bullet or bullet fragment. A bullet fragment is a form of shrapnel, so the FBI statement can be interpreted as clarifying what kind of shrapnel Wray was talking about. Sen. Tillis did not ask Abbate to distinguish between a bullet and a bullet fragment; he asked about ridiculous alternatives (namely: a space laser, a murder hornet, a sasquatch), so the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction. I strongly oppose adding Christopher Wray's "bullet or shrapnel" response to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Debris can be used to refer to shrapnel in the context of a bullet fragment, they're interchangeable terms. Abbate said outright that a bullet (not bullet fragment) hit Trump.

"A bullet", not "bullet fragment". That's literally what Abbate said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk6qS9mXYM0&t=41s

Sen. Kennedy (not Sen. Tillis) only asked about "space lasers" after asking the initial serious question.

I think we should include it. Wray was clearly being duplicitous. There was never any question that Trump was hit by a bullet. MightyLebowski (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It remains the case that Wray did not use the word "debris," and if you believe that "debris" and "shrapnel" are "interchangeable terms," there's even less reason to say "shrapnel/debris" since it "debris" would add nothing. My mistake about misidentifying Sen. Kennedy; I misinterpreted the name placards in front of them from the angle of the camera. I know what Abbate said. I also know what Wray said and what the FBI's statement said. You want to preference Abbate's statement over the other two. I do not. You want to interpret Abbate's statement as excluding a bullet fragment, when Kennedy never asked about that. I do not interpret it that way. Your personal opinion that "Wray was clearly being duplicitous" has no place on the page. The FBI released a statement, and unless/until they update it, it answers the question. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the question though, since WP:RS report conflicting accounts i.e. Abbate most recently saying it was always known that a bullet hit Trump, while others said it may have been shrapnel or debris (the FBI specifically used the word "debris" in the NYT reporting):

"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."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/us/politics/fbi-bullet-trump-rally.html

There was never any question that it was debris, according to Abbate.

I don't see why you would hold one statement as more reliable than another, given that they all come directly from the FBI and reliable sources. Clearly there are conflicting accounts, and it is obvious now that it was a bullet, not shrapnel or debris, according to Abbate.

You're the one including your opinion when you try to attribute another meaning to exactly what Abbate said i.e. you claiming that Abbate may have meant that it was a bullet fragment, even though that's not at all what he said.

We are supposed to include what WP:RS says, not what you think they meant/should have said/would have said under different circumstances or questioning. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the FBI did not “specifically use[] the word ‘debris’”; it was introduced by the two NYT reporters, but the article does not quote the FBI using that word.

So far, you haven’t presented any WP:RS that substantiates “was Wray lying the entire time … We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the ‘Misinformation and conspiracy theories,’” “the shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory,” “Wray was clearly being duplicitous.” Abbate was not asked and did not say that Wray’s testimony was false, that Wray lied or was duplicitous, that the possibility of a bullet fragment was a conspiracy theory, that Wray’s statement was misinformation; you seem to be inferring those things, but it’s not what Abbate himself said. Also, beware that some of your comments about Wray conflict with WP:BLPSTYLE, which applies to all information about living persons, on talk pages as well as articles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Debris" was introduced by two NYT reporters "according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official". Did you miss that part? Are you really denying the FBI said this when a WP:RS reports the FBI said it?

It's not inference, it's literally Abbate saying one thing, and Wray/FBI officials saying another. Regardless of why you think this conflicting information exists, those are conflicting statements from high level government officials on a major event, and it should be noted in the article.

Denying that Abbate said Trump was "hit with a bullet", or attributing different meaning to his words, conflicts with WP:BLP. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the two views are necessarily conflicting mostly because they have been reported at different times. Wray's statement was over ten days ago while Abbate's was just two days ago. With the investigation ongoing, opinions can change and new facts can emerge. Claiming that Wray "lied" or that his uncertainty is deceptive without proper coverage by WP:RS would violate WP:NPOV and as noted by the article's own sources, the mention of glass debris started around July 15, a week before Wray's hearing so he is obviously not the source of that information. Yvan Part (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting information isn't whether it was shrapnel or a bullet, but rather the fact that Abbate said there was "never any question" that a bullet hit Trump, whereas Wray said it was still in question. Never any question vs. in question, that's the conflict. This doesn't change with time, so if Abbate said the FBI never questioned a bullet hitting Trump, but Wray said there was still a question, then someone is factually incorrect, and the information is conflicting.

Also, I never said that Wray lied, but the information that he provided is not consistent with the statement released by the FBI, and the subsequent statement from Abbate. You may be confusing the word "lied" with "duplicitous", the former which alleges intent, while the latter does not.

WP:RS reported on the conflicting statements:

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/30/congress/no-doubt-trump-was-hit-by-bullet-00171861

I don't know why you mentioned the glass conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with what Wray said.

Like I said, there's a plethora of sources to include the conflicting information in the article, and attribute Wray's statement as "misinformation". To be clear about what misinformation is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation

"Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent."

MightyLebowski (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is at best worth the addition of a small mention on the glass misinformation that is already only a single line in this article. We are hanging on the edge of WP:DUE for this article if we go into details about it as we would need to include Wray's statement, Abbate's statement, the subsequent FBI statement mentioned in the Politico article and the GOP reactions to all three of them to respect WP:NPOV. Yvan Part (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Like I said before, the glass misinformation angle has nothing to do with what Wray said. Here's a refined version:

"FBI Director Christopher Wray initially claimed that Trump may have been hit by shrapnel, rather than a bullet. Similarly, FBI sources told the NYT that flying debris may have been the cause of his ear injury. Republicans immediately criticized the FBI and Wray for expressing doubt that Trump was shot. A plethora of sources and experts believed that Trump was shot, and this was eventually confirmed in a statement released by the FBI. Additionally, FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress that there was "no doubt, and never has been" in the FBI's mind that Trump was shot with a bullet, contradicting Wray's earlier claim."

This absolutely should be included. It is a major piece of misinformation that needs to be documented. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No offense but it doesn't really look like a major piece of misinfo from my point of view. You're free to open a rfc about it if you think it's really that important and require additional opinions to reach consensus. Yvan Part (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the notion that Trump wasn't shot is the big enchilada of misinformation. MightyLebowski (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, your claim was “the FBI specifically used the word ‘debris’ in the NYT reporting,” but the article does not quote the FBI using that word. Rather, the NYT reporters are the ones who “used the word ‘debris’” in their own description of what they were told.

Yes, things like “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory” and “Wray was clearly being duplicitous” are inferences, not things that you've presented any WP:RS as saying.

Re: “those are conflicting statements … and it should be noted in the article,” that’s a long way from your original proposal that “We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the ‘Misinformation and conspiracy theories’ section, e.g., [3 sentences of proposed text].” No one has voiced support for your original proposal. If you now want to propose more limited text about a potential conflict in a different section, you can.

I never “Den[ied] that Abbate said Trump was ‘hit with a bullet.’” so don’t suggest I did, and no, my actual statements that “the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction” and “I do not interpret it that way” do not conflict with WP:BLP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"but the article does not quote the FBI using that word. Rather, the NYT reporters are the ones who “used the word ‘debris’” in their own description of what they were told."

Distinction without a difference.

What Wray said is objectively misinformation based on its Wikipedia definition, but if you want to add it to another section that more people will agree with, then that's fine.

"Yes, things like “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory” and “Wray was clearly being duplicitous” are inferences, not things that you've presented any WP:RS as saying."

I never wrote that in the excerpt, but those are reasonable conclusions from WP:RS, not inferences.

"my actual statements that “the exchange doesn't clarify the bullet vs. bullet fragment distinction”"

It's not our job to determine if something else was meant by someone's statement, or by what WP:RS report, but that's what you're doing here. MightyLebowski (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s the difference between knowing what words the FBI officer(s) and federal law enforcement official themselves used (a quote) vs. not knowing what words they themselves used (reporters’ description). I think that knowing vs. not knowing is a meaningful difference.

We do not know that Wray’s statement was misinformation, much less a conspiracy theory; we do know that it differs from Abbate’s. For all we know, it is Abbate who misspoke rather than Wray; after all, Wray’s statement is consistent with the official FBI statement (a fragment is a kind of shrapnel), and Abbate’s is not (unless we consider the possibility that by “a bullet” he was including both whole and fragment, as the official statement does). If there are quotes from any other FBI source, please say. Otherwise, all we have are potentially conflicting FBI statements, and WP:NPOV requires that we not come down on either side of it, especially since the FBI has not released an updated official statement. Do you want to propose a sentence for the Investigation section that notes the potential conflict between Wray's and Abbate's statements while abiding by WP:NPOV?

Some of your conclusions are inferences, and we disagree about whether they’re reasonable. And no, what I’m trying to do is check whether claims are true, false, known, or unknown. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to propose a sentence for the Investigation section that notes the potential conflict between Wray's and Abbate's statements while abiding by WP:NPOV?

Nothing I wrote in the misinformation write-up conflicts with WP:NPOV, but here is something that we can include in the Investigation section:

"On July 24, FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress that it was an open question as to whether Trump was hit with a bullet. After his testimony, the FBI clarified that it was indeed a bullet, whether whole or fragmented, that hit Trump in the ear. Deputy FBI Director Paul Abbate testified before Congress on July 30 that there has never been any doubt about whether Trump was hit with a bullet, saying it was a bullet "100%", conflicting with Wray's earlier statement.

MightyLebowski (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You certainly haven’t been neutral here. You’ve said things like “was Wray lying the entire time,” “We should add Christopher Wray's false claim to the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section,” “Wray was clearly being duplicitous,” “shrapnel/debris conspiracy theory,” and “What Wray said is objectively misinformation.” You’re still calling it “misinformation.” You’re clearly taking Abbate’s statement as true and Wray’s as false, rather than simply noting that they conflict to some extent.

I’d like to separate out two different though related issues: (1) what struck Trump, and (2) what the FBI was investigating as possible objects that struck Trump / what there may have been questions about as they explored issue (1). (1) is already addressed in the article by the FBI’s PIO statement. Wray’s and Abbate’s testimony address both (1) and (2) to some extent. (2) was also addressed by the NYT article that you cited earlier, which is consistent with Wray’s statement and not with Abbate’s.

I prefer to let Wray and Abate speak for themselves. How about this, placed after the sentence about Rowe’s Senate testimony:

"There was some conflict in FBI Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigation of what wounded Trump, with FBI Director Wray stating on July 24 that “With respect to former president Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear” (citation: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/07/26/fbi-donald-trump-shot-in-ear/74567255007/), and FBI Deputy Director Abbate stating on July 30 that “There is absolutely no doubt in the FBI’s mind whether former President Trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear. No doubt, there never has been (your Politico citation)."

Or if that’s too long, just “There was some conflict in FBI Senate testimony about the FBI’s investigation of what wounded Trump, with FBI Director Wray stating on July 24 that there was some question about whether a bullet or shrapnel hit Trump’s ear (citation), and FBI Deputy Director Abbate stating on July 30 that there was never any doubt that a bullet had struck Trump’s ear” (citation). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the shorter version sounds fine and can be included as your wrote it.

To be clear though, I never said Wray lied, but just posed the question, which is reasonable given the circumstances (a boss and deputy being at odds literally days apart, with the deputy saying what almost all of WP:RS reported from the beginning, which is that it was abundantly clear Trump was hit with a bullet).

Note that in the modern era, shrapnel is almost always used to refer to flying metal objects from bombs, not bullets or bullet fragments/ricochets/other flying material or debris from bullet impacts. Wray's statement barely makes any sense when referring to 5.56 rounds. Using bizarre language out of context is concerning, especially when it comes from the head of a major investigative agency in the United States. MightyLebowski (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't play detective, but summarize reliable sources like NBC, ABC, CNN Newswire, AP, etc. Some people seem really hellbent on trying to prove that Trump was never injured by a bullet grazing him, when the reliable sources are unanimous in saying he received an injury from a bullet. So until the sources change, nothing in the article changes. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Timeline allegedly inconsistent

Although unusable as a source, being a Youtube channel, this "Peak Prosperity" channel put up a detailed analysis of the official timeline that allegedly points out inconsistencies. The analysis can be found here and I only bring it here so that we can use it as an exercise of double checking every timestamp and event to bulletproof the,. Please watch and discuss if there is any merit on pursuing fixes to the Wikipedia timeline. Otherwise I plan on extracting the main points myself later. Forich (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Questions about actions of officers should be answered by

1. the FBI, who is interviewing officers
2. a new Senate hearing where officers testify under oath.

Any news on any of those two? Uwappa (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not we go by RS, not some bloke on the internet. Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Calm down, I fully agree with you on sticking with official and reliable sources. The video does mention possible internal inconsistencies of the timeline, which we could use if they are due to some unaccountaded update in the timeline, some version being officialy deprecated, a lapsus linguae during the hearing that got past the news report of it, etc. Here are the factual points the video questions:

1. The location of the picnic table referred in some texts may be contradictory (in some texts seems to refer to a place that could be seen as different in later texts)
2. The Sheriff's statement to the Washington Post retracted or asked for clarification that the officer hoisted onto the roof saw Crooks but did not encountered him "face to face". The sheriff also corrected WaPo by saying he could not know if the rooftop encounter happened precisely "seconds before the gunman opened fire".
3. The AGR building had a team of snipers assigned to be posted there, and it could be confusing who notified who about Crooks? In some accounts AGR-stationed snipers notify the rest about Crooks, while other sources say that they were NOTFIED that Crooks was lurking around the building.
4. The ESU Snipers assigned to AGR were: i) initially three in number; ii) one left the position at 4:27 pm; iii) second left the position at 6:05 pm; iv) the last one left the position at 6:06 pm. The last 2 exit movements of snipers are then happening AFTER Trump's entered the stage which obviously requires us to double-check that in the latest and best official reliable source we have, otherwise it seems not logical if the main purpose of the snipers was to watch from a higher ground DURING the speech.

Please comment on whether our timeline in Wikipedia is solid regarding these specific points.Forich (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is up to date with current knowledge. The questions are valid and local officers should be able to answer them when interviewed by FBI or a Senate hearing.

• As far as I know the FBI has interviewed local officers but not reported yet about results.
• I do not know about a new congress hearing yet.

From another of his videos: the security plan as made public by Senator Grassley: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/butler_esu_djt_fpotus_detail_plan_redacted.pdf See

• page 2 AGR building location for local snipers
• page 10 QRF team (4 to 6 Operators)-Responsible for a lone Active Attack/Shooter on/off site.
• page 11 AGR buildings not on the map, not an important sector for security
• page 12 unclear if snipers should be inside AGR building or on top of its roof
• page 40 AGR buildings outside security sectors
• page 42 AGR buildings outside security sectors.

Uwappa (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

1. What picnic table? As far as I can tell, neither of the words "picnic" nor "table" are in the article.

2. My personal opinion is that Butler County officials are not reliable regarding the shooting. There have been issues with the various statements since the 15th. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Juicy update from CNN

Edit away fellow editors: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics/police-body-cam-video-trump-shooting/index.html Forich (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably OR, but the thing that sticks out to me in that video is that body camera "BWC2-122110" doesn't have the time set properly. It doesn't seem possible that there would be gunfire at 18:12:04.

That said, is there anything we can use in this to update the article in any way? --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've included the CNN citation with the BBC's. kencf0618 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Some other bits we could consider:

• Per BBC: They [the body and dashboard footage] capture moments of frustration, confusion and miscommunication in the moments before and after the assassination attempt.
• Per New York Times: The footage gives more clarity about the movements of nearby law enforcement officers with respect to previous releases of data.
• NYT: The footage shows that, from around 6:09 p.m to about two and a half minutes later, at least four Pennsylvania law enforcement officers were focused on the roof from where Mr. Crooks fired and its inmediate surroundings.Forich (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Another update from CNN at https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/10/politics/snipers-detail-breakdowns-trump-assassination-attempt-invs/index.html with some details that are not in the timeline yet:

1. ... he and other snipers were assigned to be inside the AGR building and directed to several windows on the second floor with a view of the entry area to the rally grounds and the stage where Trump would speak. A Butler sniper leader who met Nicol and his partners at the AGR building told them their mission was to look out those windows and scan the area for threats, Nicol said. They were instructed to remain covert. They set up their rifles on tripods so that the barrels were a foot or two inside the open windows to prevent them from being seen from outside.
2. “Units be advised internet and cell service is down,” an officer is heard saying at 5:48 p.m. on Butler’s radio. A minute later, a sheriff’s deputy radioed. “Your picture is probably not going to go through because I don’t have any service,”
3. Video discovered by the FBI shows Crooks pulling himself onto the roof of the AGR building at around 6:06 p.m. Shortly thereafter, a local law enforcement officer reported over the radio, “Someone’s on the roof. I have someone on the roof with white shorts.” A Butler supervisor then passed the information to the Secret Service command post at 6:09 p.m., according to the transcript obtained by the Post. The Hercules snipers covering Trump from above and behind the stage then turned to face the AGR property to the north.

Uwappa (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

How is the fact that the trump fist pump photo is not shown in the article?

Can it at least be shown somewhere? It is one of the most historic photos in presidential history. The photo has already become inescapable. You’ve undoubtedly seen it: It is in newspapers, in memes, on T-shirts. Former President Donald Trump, surrounded by Secret Service agents, face streaked with blood, raising a fist into the sky. A man defiant in the face of potential death. Can someone add it back to this article? Any reason not to is absolutely ridiculous and biased. Source as well: https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/13/republicans-back-trump-by-sharing-a-bloody-photo-of-the-former-president-00167980 2603:8001:B5F0:8370:DDA4:E6F8:8C9D:2AD1 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:GETTY number 6, using [A fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image [is unacceptable] if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image).

The article about the image is already linked in this article. It's not that hard for a reader to scroll a bit and click. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Any reason not to is absolutely ridiculous and biased. Alternatively, we are using a copyrighted photo on a separate article about the image and are abiding by our NONFREE policy by not using it here. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Specific content classification for "misinformation and conspiracy theories"

This part should be divided into subheadings for two criteria that are receiving more attention more specifically: 1) that the Deep State is behind it, and 2) that the Republicans are behind it, so that these two can be viewed separately. It would be good to display these two main motivations separately. Specific content classification for "misinformation and conspiracy theories" Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I prefer that the classification focuses on who is being blamed instead of your proposal of who is behind the especulations. The blamed person is explicitely included in most especulations and thus can be classified objectively; whereas to group all persons that see or repost misinformations as pro-democrats, pro-republicans, or pro-black rock is in itself a subjective leap that we should not make except for individual notable cases, and even then, with attribution.Forich (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

In the first paragraph of 'victims' there is the sentence;

Both were in stable condition on the next day

This is grammatically confusing. Consider changing this sentence to something like the following;

Both were listed in stable condition the following day. Moziyimorin (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. The necessary corrections have been made. Please inform me if further modifications are required. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"DEI" criticism of female Secret Service agents

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

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

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

If there are two sources, and one of them calls the scrutiny sexist, I would attribute: Female agents have faced increased scrutiny from Republicans, which some have called sexist or which Wired has called sexist.

If there were 5+ sources and they all or almost all agreed on this, I would just put it in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)