Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

Was he shot?

I've seen conflicting reports as to whether he was actually shot. Benpiano800 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sky News claims there was blood coming out of his ear, which would imply the bullet hit him. Luunarr (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Could also be injury from the Secret Service agents jumping on top of him. Mårtensås (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

He reached for his ear right after you here the first shot and before the secret service run to him 129.13.192.39 (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So far none of the sources seem to clearly say that he was shot. Will become clearer once we know more. Gust Justice (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

cnn reported he was injured

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/trump-injured-pennsylvania-rally/index.html CViB (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

because they saw him bleeding. if that was from the shot or something else is unknown. the SS hasn't confirmed anything besides the fact that he's safe Problem$0lved (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

NBC News speculates that it came from the shot, hope information comes out soon. Breadstocks (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears that he was shot: https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1812263916497506711 NorthropChicken (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "grazed by gunfire" doesn't necessarily mean actually hit with a bullet. Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

theguardian is saying he possibly got his by glass... presumably from the teleprompter Tdwizew (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Both teleprompters don't appear to be damaged in the close-up views. Worstbull (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we mention that he reached for his ear right after the shots, before he went down? Benjamin (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the explanation for how he was injured otherwise? Benjamin (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

CNBC commented on the video they released, saying: "Former Pres. Trump could be seen on video contracting his body to the right, clutching his ear and dropping to the ground. What appeared to be blood could be seen on the former president's right ear." However, there has been no official statement released anywhere stating any facts. I'm sure there will be at some point, but until then it's best to leave it out. Maineartists (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Title

"Shooting" might be taken to imply that the attack was fatal. I propose moving to "2024 Donald Trump assassination attempt". Mårtensås (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

But we do not know yet if it was an actuall assasination attempt? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If/when it comes out that it was an assassination attempt (i doubt it wont), we should just call it Donald Trump assassination attempt. In the meantime, we should call it smthn like "Donald Trump PA rally incident/shooting"Nojus R (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes i agree. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I am not even sure "shooting" is appropriate at this point: none of the reliable sources state that unequivocally. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree in principle but the current title "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" is a bit awkward. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I surely agree, maybe "incident" would be more appropriate Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Atleast until we have more information about the plot behind Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the indefinite article I was talking about Pickle Mon (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

i mean getting shot at is by definition an "Assassination's attempt" especially when you're a high stake politician

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/13/politics/trump-injured-pennsylvania-rally/index.html CViB (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't know the alledged assassin's intentions, and therefore cannot yet rule it to be an assassination attempt. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As of right now, the page title should stay as is, but I agree that the name could be changed to something more informational. Silaaaaaa (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Shooting" could also imply that it was a mass shooting so I think your title is better, though I do also think we should wait before moving in case it's labeled something else. Articles about mass shootings simply say "shooting" in their title. As it stands I believe both CNN and Fox report that there were multiple shots fired but only Donald Trump and one bystander are confirmed to be struck but both still alive and receiving urgent care. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My last statement is wrong. Donald Trump and one bystander are hurt but in care; a second bystander was killed, as of right now. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - sounds more professional; current title sounds awkward Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mårtensås I'm not sure how "shooting" implies it was fatal. Shots were fired; it is a shooting. "Shooting of Donald Trump" would be the best title in my opinion as the media is most commonly referring to this as a shooting. Cobblebricks (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

But it looks as of now as he was not, in fact, shot (but hit by glass shrapnel). Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Shooting of Donald Trump" was the title when I wrote the comment above. Mårtensås (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Rename

I think Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would be a better title, per example of Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. There's no reason why 2024 should be specified in this specific situation since it was the first to happen. Luunarr (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed 24.115.255.37 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If and when the sources tell us it was unequivocally an assassination attempt, I agree. Dumuzid (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Unkown at this time if it was an attemted assasination. Give it a bit CitrusHemlock 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Given reporting on his injury, as well as precedent for former presidents where an attempt was made made(See: Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt), the move to attempted assassination is appropriate. Foreheadman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed also. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 2605:8D80:5C0:E1D2:63CD:9DDB:B0CC:6683 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed SpringField23402 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. We do not yet know if this was an assassination attempt, much less if Trump was the actual target. It certainly seems likely, but the shooter may have, for example, been trying to kill someone else. Or he may have been trying to just wound Trump, rather than kill him. Stick with reliable information for now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is candidly absurd to suggest that the target wasn't Trump and that the bullet that seemingly struck his ear was intended merely to harm. This was clearly an assassination attempt. -- justdweezil (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm

I think we should only include reactions if they're notable. Random expressions of sympathy will unnecessarily bloat the Reactions section. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As per usual, I think it's worthwhile to have Biden and Shapiro's reactions. Other reactions can be added if they prove to be meaningful (i.e. if a politician starts a conspiracy that gets popular) Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Keep to congressional leadership, world leaders, and Shapiro (and white house assuming they respond). Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I came here to say the same thing. This happens all the time with shooting articles. They get bloated with reactions from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be best to remove the section on X users too? I feel like it's a bit redundant and way too vague of a statement, all things considered. Anjellies (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Business people and fan/supporter reactions are not needed. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's bar new additions besides Joe Biden, Ruben Gallego, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Shapiro. We can discuss other people here. I am removing Elon Musk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. I think political leaders from the area and in the relevant federal arena may be appropriate. A random businessperson of any persuasion is inappropriate. Zkidwiki (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Musk is the world’s wealthiest man; hardly random. Mårtensås (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a matter of if he does anything with his wealth or power. Does his one sentence tweet of support matter? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk was added back, but we can discuss here whether to keep it. I also believe Gallego might be unnessisary. He's just a random member from Arizona and I anticipate many, many members of congress on both sides of the aisle addressing this. And Governors will too, so to that extent I don't know if Whitmer's needed. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Musk is unnecessary unless he mobilises something major in support of Trump. As it stands, he just sent a Tweet. NYT reporting does not lend it newsworthiness because they're slapping everything on a live feed right now. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Musk is undue. "Space man said something on Twitter" isn't worth being in the article about an assassination attempt. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Barring new additions aside from those four officials is a bit odd, particularly since Whitmer is not the governor of the relevant state and is not a federal official. I don't think there is a rational basis for including only those four and, say, excluding Barack Obama and George W. Bush from the list. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid being accused of ownership. I think that former presidents are still questionably important here. We can squish them all into "former presidents and politicians" once we get a full picture. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting we follow the Attack on Paul Pelosi's reaction page. Start at the President, mention the VP's reaction, local governor and mayors' reactions, and then in a few weeks or months we can discuss the general rabble/politicians' reactions. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Amending this with a recommendation to hold off on adding new reactions for another week. The Notre-Dame fire had an impossibly large reaction page for a long time. Save us all the effort. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Unless the reaction actually has a significant effect as described in reliable sources, they're trivia and there is no reason to include them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Heavy prune. It can be trimmed to one sentence, "The shooting was universally condemned by politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties." Abductive (reasoning) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I only suggest removing "universally". This section is getting way out of control now. Why do we care about Javier Milei's reaction? Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2024

2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally → 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump – High usage of the term attempted assassination. Prior to administrator protection, this was the article title and an administrator, without discussion, moved it to the current name. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• PLEASE WAIT until we get some non-breaking-news sources, its impossible to gauge a COMMONNAME this early. – Hilst [talk] 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to go with any "wait" ideas, given an administrator moved it away from that title with 0 discussion. It was the title prior to administrator protection, and a single person determined the current name. Nah, a discussion needs to happen. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'd support a move to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump since none of the other assassination attempts against him (such as the ricin one) were nearly as notable as this one. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)+1 Hilst, although "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" is probably better than current title. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose- Not confirmed SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@SimplyLouis27: WP:VNT. Do you have proof/sources that it was not confirmed or is not the common term? I listed 8 sources above using it. Sorry, but SNOWCLOSE isn't a valid thing for this, with a "not confirmed" reasoning because Wikipedia doesn't care about what is or isn't confirmed. Only what is verifiable, which "attempted assassination" is as presented above. If you wish to oppose, you can, but please provide a valid oppose reasoning via Wikipedia's policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The majority of those sources are low quality tabloids. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, let's wait until there is a general consensus in reliable sources. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait, we still do not know the motive of the perpetrator(s), It's possible it was not the goal to harm Trump but simply shoot at the rally. There is more information we should wait for. I believe we can move when it is confirmed an assassination was the goal. Bigfatman8766 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Pennsylvania, and WikiProject United States History have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, with the amount of edits going through, it would not be good to move this early. ElusiveTaker^(talk) 23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support This article already says that it was an assignation attempt in the side bar. Others of list many sources calling it this, and here is one. CavDan24 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:NYPOST - There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Clearly was an assassination attempt, shots were fired and Donald Trump was injured. BigRed606 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  No WP:RS has confirmed this, saying it was and assassination attempt is currently speculation. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying this with no disrespect, but you are either as blind as a bat or just being really ignorant. There is 8 RS listed in the proposal saying it was an assassination attempt. Since this is now the 2nd time your mentioned RS not using it, I'm specifically calling out the 8 sources above. If you still say RS as an oppose reasoning, take all eight sources to WP:RSN to get a consensus on their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  With respect, most of those are not RS, or should not be taken as RS on such matters when well-established political and national news media are not saying something. The rest are just repeating verbatim what the first lot said. But they're just hyperbolic for clicks, because until there is intelligence about the situation, it cannot be said conclusively, and no RS worth its salt is going to effectively influence the immediate intelligence-gathering by putting such a statement out there. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  the sources you listed aren't exactly well known media organisations. For example, the BBC make not mention of this being a assassination attempt. [9]. Also, please don't call other editors ignorant its quite rude and condescending. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  User:WeatherWriter, if you cannot recognize a bad source when you see it, or if you cannot list sources that qualify per RS, then maybe you should stay out of contentious topics. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; however, I'm willing to wait for more reliable sources describing it as such. No objections, either, to calling it "2024 shooting of Donald Trump", or something simple in that respect; I strongly dislike the current name, which is wordy and falls flat on encyclopedic guidelines. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  "2024 shooting of Donald Trump" implies that it would be fatal. "Attempted assassination" or "Assassination attempt" are more accurate descriptions. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait — No conclusions should be drawn at this time. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support His ear was literally shot, and the shooter was clearly aiming for his head. Had the shooter succeeded and killed him it would have been referred to as an assassination. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait until we know more. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait until the motive of the attack becomes clear. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support But wait, clearly was an attempt to assasinate. MildLoser (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: County prosecutor has confirmed he was grazed by gunfire and the current title is not encyclopedic. natemup (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Multiple sources are now confirming that shots were fired and that the shooter is dead. 2001:569:6FFC:F901:8C20:E381:3B92:7FDC (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support but wait I think most people can agree that's what it is but we need 1000% proof first. Pickle Mon (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support for now, but we should wait. Almost every media source I can find explores the potential of "assassination attempt", even if they also refer to it as a shooting; though there is as of yet no official classification. Let's wait—but given current information, support is the way to go. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy support - Confirmed assassination attempt. Poxy4 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait even though signs point to assassination. Still wait. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support but wait There are no official versions yet whether Trump was the main target of the assassination attempt or not, but it is obvious that he was. I suggest waiting for the official version of law enforcement agencies about whether Trump was the main target, and if they confirm that he was, then change the page name.  PLATEL  (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support but wait. We are getting to a point where the media will say this is attempted, but I think there we should wait. However, shouldn't this be like "Assassination Attempt of Donald Trump" (omitting the year, to be in line with Reagan's article) 49p (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It would in that case be Attempted assassination of Donald Trump based on the Ronald Reagan article (and many, many other articles). LegendoftheGoldenAges85 of the  East  (talk | worse talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant to say. Year won't be relevant to the article's title unless something changes in the near future. 49p (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support and wait All information pointing to intentional shooting, but wait for more news NorthropChicken (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support but wait: It was pretty clearly an assassination attempt; according to sources i read, multiple shoots being witnessed. let's wait for now and not rush things up till things get a bit cleared out. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support and wait Everyone above has valid points on the necessity to wait for more information. GuardianH (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support — WP:BLUE. Barring any issues with the title, the Butler attorney general has confirmed gunfire and everything hints at it to be a politically-motivated assassinatiion attempt. Luunarr (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - all sources say assassination at this point, combined with pretty basic intuition. — Knightoftheswords 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait, and oppose anything speedy No major media outlet (the proposal sources are dubious for political matters at best, some outright trash) is saying so, because they cannot confirm it, because police intelligence (while this is major and they will be working quickly) will not have yet told them so. The reason why no solid RS is running with "looks pretty obvious" is to not interfere, and Wikipedia absolutely does not lead the way on describing such incidents, especially if it would be applying a criminal motive that has not been reported by police yet. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support and wait for more information. Hume42 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support we literally see it happen in the video, there's no debate it was an attempt to assassinate him LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There's NORUSH. You are still making assumptions. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

the infobox on this article lists "assassination attempt" under "Attack Type" LittleMAHER1 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - we don't know who the target was. We've got years to change it. There's other issues with the title ... 2024? Have there been others? Was it a rally or a campaign event? Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd call a "rally" a campaign event. Potato potahto. And who else would the target have possibly been? Pickle Mon (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nfitz, eh you got sense about "2024? Have there been others? " —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support but wait until more reliable sources call it that or change “shooting” to “political violence” as it is also being called that.[10] Wafflefrites (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support "Shooting of Donald Trump", pending further announcements of motive. The article title can be improved even before a motive is released, and the fact that Trump was shot appears to be the single most notable thing here. We don't need to circumlocute to "2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally" pending future announcements when we can make an incremental change to benefit the page. Status quo is not good enough, and also is not the sort of thing that we should default to in a WP:NOCON close, since the original page title was at 2024 attempted assassination of Donald Trump. If we do get motive, then I would support Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, since we don't need the year and it's better grammar-wise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Axiosreporting that he wasn't shot, so that title would be even more misleading. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, New York Magazine reports that he was struck by a bullet. And, apparently, so does The Associated Press (via South Florida Sun-Sentinel). Can you link to the Axios report that affirmatively denies that Trump was hit with a bullet? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Via The Guardian Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support but wait. We should make sure we have the fine details worked out before. There has been reports by reputable news sources about this topic, but there's definitely still some ambiguity that needs settling. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 _(ramble) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - It seems fairly clear that this was an assassination attempt, with some RS exploring the idea. We likely won't officially know until down the line, however, this should be moved back to its original title. A "shooting" understates the importance/severity of an assassination attempt, especially during an election cycle. 30Four (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - obviously what happened. Acting like it's not is useless pedantry TocMan (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Pretty obvious. TheBritinator (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note AP is now reporting that the Secret Service is investigating this as an attempted assassination (source). Unless there's a good reason not to, I'm going to unilaterally implement this move in about 10 minutes (since that seems to have rough consensus and be supported by RSes). Please let me know below if there is a good reason not to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Further comment - Unilaterally is the wrong word to have used, but consensus is becoming pretty clear here in this RM. I don't see the point in Wikipedia's article title being vague and imprecise. If (and there's about a 0.1% chance at this point) this turns out to have been something *other* than an attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the article can always be moved back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to get this dragged into a process discussion, so I won't be making any move myself. However, I do support the proposed move. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't do anything unilaterally is my advice. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I support that move IDKUggaBanga (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean... I see no reason not to implement it if it's exactly what it is. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Just as a note, the current title was unilaterally moved away from "2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump". Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and? The move from it was a rushed move to a worse title. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Investigating as an assassination attempt" is a far cry from "deciding it was an assassination attempt." Dumuzid (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

web link here [11] SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Investigating =/= confirming. Let's slow it down here. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah there's a good reason, it's called WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you don't Ganesha811. Out of process moves often end up at ANI. Fences&Windows 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

good reason not to - you don't have consensus. There is no deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait, because we don't know the motives of the perpetrator. We can't find out directly from the perpetrator because they're dead, but I imagine the Secret Service will find out what their motives were one way or the other. As I'm typing this, someone noted that the Secret Service is investigating this as an assassination attempt, so thanks in advance for that note. Ultimately, we'll have to see what they conclude. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support It was clearly an assassination attempt. BrendonJH (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support It was clearly an assassination attempt.--Excel23 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone that says wait will reach the same conclusion which is support Excel23 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose article shouldn't even exist yet but we shouldn't have an NPOV title until things have actually been confirmed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? A former president is wounded in a shooting and we shouldn't have an article yet? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a shitty, shitty source for breaking news. 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We're an encyclopaedia not breaking news. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, too late for that. Article exists and no way can we go through AfD for this. BlunanNation (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't mean we should exacerbate the problem with renaming the article based largely on original research/editors opinions on the event. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't say delete it but I see where they're coming from. It's a current event article about something so current we don't really know what's happen(ed/ing). If the very basis of the event's notability cannot be definitely said (i.e. is the event "someone tried to shoot Trump" or "someone tried to wreak havoc at Trump rally" or unlikely but possibly "Trump fan discharged gun in crowd at rally, oops") then it'd be hard to get it through AfC, for example. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If you believe the article should not exist, you are free to nominate it for deletion. But I would advise against that at this point. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"The article won't be deleted" and "the article should not exist" are different statements. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Any deletion nominations as a note I will vote as speedy keep BlunanNation (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you're admitting you're voting based on your opinions rather than policy as WP:SKCRIT wouldn't apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It would never pass because no admin wants to deal with the flak from the 'Wikipedia should be breaking news' crowd. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• G10 Delete Would someone remind folks that this is an encyclopedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is obviously not a WP:G10. In what way is this page designed to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:AFD would be more suitable to state your case. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• No, this is obviously just a prank.. Of course its a fucking assassination attempt, what else would it be 🤦--FMSky (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support The incident is now being investigated as an assassination attempt, according to the Associated Press. NorthropChicken (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait It is way too early to be discussing this, the current title of the article is fine. Until an official statement about what just happened comes out from a major official source confirming what possible motive was involved here. (Major official source being something like: President's office, District Attoerey, US Secret Service, FBI, CIA) BlunanNation (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support but wait Obviously an assassination attempt, but I think we should wait for some more clarification before we can make a decision to change the title. Indiana6724 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, it is being investigated as an assassination attempt. NAADAAN (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: You're delusional if you think this was anything other than an assassination attempt. Scu ba (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The attempted assassination of President Reagan is described as such, even though it did not result in his death but did result in the death of another; this is no different. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Any logical mind assumes that firing bullets at someone is an attempt at their life, as a political figure it is entirely fair to assume a shooting at them at a political event is an assassination attempt.★Trekker (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This was clearly an attempt to take his life and this will likely lead to him being a martyr which could have election impacts. AlienChex (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait.' - We don't know what the shooter's motives were yet. It seems likely that it was an assassination attempt but it has not yet been confirmed. Shooting is neutral until authorities determine it was an assassination attempt. We should, however, add that this is being investigated as a potential assassination attempt in the lede. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Perpetrator is dead so we might never know the motive. We know who was shot though, and people usually shoot to kill. MonstoBusta2000 (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It was clearly an attempt to wound and or seriously injure him. This is going to have major implications for the 2024 election. It is being investigated as an assassination attempt and the White House is making a statement related to the event. Potomokbelogobarsa (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support renaming brings more clarity, not less. The attempt was clearly to kill Trump, regardless of the specific motive. Bill Williams 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as WP:V is not met, in spite of what all of these support comments think. There is a great likelihood this was an assassination attempt, but for all we know some yahoo started firing a gun into the air and some shrapnel nicked Trump. We need to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation and mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support, no waiting Well, unless something funny comes out down the road, e.g. a false flag, then firing a gun at a politician is ipso facto an attempted assassination. Zaathras (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support for reasons of common sense as stated above. Regardless, title should be changed in line with WP:NCWWW as the current one is very unwieldly. "2024 Donald Trump rally shooting" would be more appropriate. CompassNNE (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an attempted assassination or not. We should absolutely not attempt to gun on this and frankly, the article was created too early as it is.}} Downerr2937 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Although I do not deny that Trump was purposefully targeted, we are not even sure quite yet what the downed shooter's motive was. Let's wait for the investigation to turn up any further information. FreeMediaKid$ 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support It's obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Killuminator (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support [12] — hako9 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support but wait. I say it's highly likely it was an assassination attempt, but it's also possible that it was a random shooting with no political or religious motives, which doesn't constitute an assassination per its definition: murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. It might be better to wait until a motive for the suspect has been found. SilentExplorer (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  • The Shinzo Abe attack was the result of a personal grudge and that is still referred to as an assassination attempt. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    In his testimonies and letters, Yamagami claimed that he was driven by a grudge against the Unification Church for ruining his family. Even though he originally planned to target Hak Ja Han, then president of the church, he was unable to approach her, so he switched to Shinzo Abe, whom he believed was "one of the most influential sympathisers" of the church. SilentExplorer (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support AP news reports the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt. Discussion should be closed. https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5 LJF2019 ^talk 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support due to Associated Press calling it such as well as obviously that being the case. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  AP saying they have been told it is being investigated as such =/= AP saying it is such. We have to wait for the latter, whatever editors think is obvious. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support This was a clear cut assassination attempt. As someone else stated above, this was clearly an attempt to take his life and people usually shoot to kill their target. Anthonyd33331 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose it's WP:TOOSOON to determine if it was an assassination attempt or not.Worstbull (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy support @ everyone going ermmmm we don't know the motive of the shooter, actually 🤓 There is no reason for an audience member to fire a gun at a politician unless it is to assassinate them. Enough chicanery. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I advise you to strike/remove your insults. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I advise you use your eyes and see that Trump was shot. What other motive would the shooter have? Scu ba (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  May I introduce you to WP:V and WP:OR. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  The government is treating it as an assassination attempt, and ABC has reported it as an assassination attempt. 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, they are investigating it and calling it an apparent assassination attempt, note their caution. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. His right ear was bleeding so it's obvious that this was an attempted assassination on the former President. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• SNOW CLOSE This is textbook (kneejerk) WP:Original research. They haven't even really started the formal investigation yet, smh. Wait for 24 hours minimum and try again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sources have yet to identify it as an assassination attempt. "Shooting" is the predominant, even accounting for geographic and political bias, e.g. NYT: "Trump ‘Safe’ After Shooting at Rally", Fox News: "Former President Clinton condemns shooting at Trump rally", The Guardian: "Trump rally shooting being investigated". "Support but wait" is a meaningless distinction here, as we don't have crystal balls and don't know that will definitely be the language this turns out on. Sure, I'd put money on it, but this is an encyclopedia, we wait for reliable reporting. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  So uh... what do you call someone shooting a politician? Because I call that an attempted assassination. Scu ba (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I call it WP:Original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support for above stated reasons.Spilia4 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support The shooting was planned and Trump was clearly targeted. This was an assassination attempt. Bowwow828 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The existing title is factual and accurate. Whether it was an assassination attempt is speculation, which Wikipedia should not do. The cited news reports couch things in terms like suspected, alleged, or possible. Unless and until what happened is investigated and confirmed by a formal investigation by competent authorities, and even then, the existing title is fine. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Number of victims

Currently there's no source on the number of victims (other than Donald Trump), despite it saying that there are two victims (one of which being Donald) and one death PikaCookies (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian is reporting that the would-be assassin and an attendee at the rally are dead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

they is also talk another attendee is severely wounded Tdwizew (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Change {{Short description|Non-fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} to {{Short description|Fatal shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump}} RidgelantRL (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS for this? Donald Trump is confirmed as being safe [13]. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am hearing on CNN now that AP reported one attendee is dead Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your wording implies that trump was the one who was fatally shot. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

From media reports, it appears the dead attendee is the shooter. The shooter shot at Trump, law enforcement returned fire and killed the shooter. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: 2 dead, the shooter and one member of the audience. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be left as "shooting at rally of former U.S. President Donald Trump." Cwater1 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need to include 'former US president', Donald Trump is not going to be confused with anyone else, and a short description is supposed to be short. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 23:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That wording implies that Trump was killed. Benpiano800 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry mate RidgelantRL (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So tired of citing shooting metaphors.

The current article lede states:

Days before the incident, President Joe Biden stated "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye".

This is a long-standing metaphor in politics and other fields. People keep using it because there is no social consensus for not using it. That being so, why quote this? Conservatives who defended Palin using it will now attack Biden, liberals who attacked Palin will now defend Biden. Until someone writes Political speech § Shooting metaphors to offer clarity I see nothing to be gained by putting too much prominence on such remarks. Thank you. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the sources specifically connect the phrase to the incident, then it should be included. If they don't, then including it violates our policies on original research and neutral point of view. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There are sources and then there are reliable sources. And to be clear, the issue is not that Biden or Palin said such things, it is the linking of such comments to shootings. IMO unless there is clear evidence a shooter was influenced by such a comment such linkage is not RS, it IS OR by a source.

Thanks. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are supposed to engage in original research. That's just journalism. We're not supposed to because we summarize what they say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

No all journalists are reliable. Just look at the comments here about Fox. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Single source: "Shooter and one audience member reportedly dead"

AP and Washington Post are reporting this, though it's from only one local DA, and not from the Secret Service or any federal government spokesperson. Take with a grain of salt:

• Washington Post reporter via Twitter - https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1812263916497506711

  Butler county district attorney Richard Goldinger tells me Trump was grazed by gunfire but is safe. An audience member was killed and the shooter is dead. Another person is in serious condition, the prosecutor said.

• Associated Press - https://apnews.com/live/election-biden-trump-campaign-updates-07-13-2024

If added, I would suggest it needs this context, and not simply be stated as a fact as of now. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/trump-biden-rnc-election-live-updates-rcna161404 NBC as well Gosh dern (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the same source - Butler County's district attorney – so we should seek more corroboration. We've been down this 'fog of confusion' road before when reporting on breaking news in Wikipedia and need to be more discerning. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fuzheado AP News is a reliable source. Wikipedia is meant to mirror the facts of reliable sources. There is no reason to "take this as a grain of salt" Cobblebricks (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One WP:RSP source reporting one utterance from one individual does not equal a verifiable fact. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, this district attorney is the one for the county where the shooting took place. OCNative (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Three dead

Fox News has indicated that three, including the shooter and two others, are as of now dead. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Fox isn't reliable for politics on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Information on the number of casualties isn't political... but I do agree that further information is needed. NorthropChicken (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on, as Fox News is not a perennial reliable source. See what other news orgs report. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Just something to keep an eye on. Ublaz01 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Attendance size

A better source that the Republican County Chairman is needed for the figure on the number of attendees. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree - added better source needed template. LucasR muteacc (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Date

Why does the date section say 1 day ago instead of 2 hours ago? SaturatedFatts (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I presume it's because it is based off UTC+0 SimplyLouis27 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's tomorrow in UTC. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's based off UTC RossoSPC (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Michigan's governor is not a federal official

@Wikieism:, did you mean to move Gretchen Whitmer's statement from "state officials" to "federal officials" in this edit? If so, would you be willing to explain why? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, please join this discussion. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Assassination"

Please, I beg of you all, do not add that this was an "assassination attempt", including in categories, until we know for sure that it was one. Mind WP:BREAKING. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And WP:RSBREAKING... Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of incident is in unincorporated Butler County, PA

The Butler Farm Show Airport and Butler Farm Show fairground are both located just outside of Meridian, Pennsylvania in unincorporated Butler County, Pennsylvania. This article is currently too chaotic for me to try and clarify the incident did not actually happen in Butler, Pennsylvania but I wanted to make note of it. Raskuly (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pennsylvania does not have unincorporated areas. If it’s outside the city limits of Butler it’s likely part of a township. Dough4872 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is part of Connoquenessing Township. There are unincorporated places in Pennsylvania such as Boyers. Irregardless, it does not seem appropriate to say that it occurred in the city of Butler. Raskuly (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of Live or Archived Sources

I noticed the archiving of some live sources. Should we not be simply linking live sources instead for higher accuracy and to prevent future confusion if the old sources report outdated information? Some people may update the content of this Wiki article and not change the outdated sources. Bill Williams 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The current infobox image is biased and inappropriate

File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp is already being cited in the context of political grandstanding.

• Photo of bloodied Trump fist pumping immediately spotlighted by his allies
• Trump Pumps Fist, Secret Service Says He Is Safe

I have doubts that it even passes WP:NFCC. Can we locate something better? Zaathras (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It likely does not pass it. Removing for now. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Given how recent it is, no way it passes NFCC right now. Speedy tag it for basically any of the criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine, see Battle of Iwo Jima or September 11 attacks (A firefighter requests assistance at World Trade Center site) both are common pcitures for propoganda. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the issue, primary issue is we don't have the rights to the image and it is possible someone at the event might release a similar image to the commons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Difference is those images have historical significance, which, yeah, something that just happened really doesn't. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because an image of a victim of a shooting is being used by the supporters of that victim doesn't mean the image itself is "inappropriate" for a situation like this NorthropChicken (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't pass NFCC, I've opened a discussion for the file on WP:FFD. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This article should be considered for deletion

WP:V states "that all content must be verifiable with reliable sources". The current article relies on live updates and initial reports, which are often speculative and lack the depth of analysis and confirmation required for long-term encyclopaedic content. In particular, the primary sources include live updates from news outlets such as CNN, BBC, and The Guardian. While these are reputable sources, live reporting is prone to errors and retractions, making it less reliable for establishing verified facts. The article mentions multiple gunshots being heard based on witness accounts and initial reports, but there is no definitive follow-up confirming the exact details of the incident (eg, the identity of the perpetrator or the specific nature of the injuries). WP:NPOV requires articles to be written without bias. Including statements from individuals such as Elon Musk and politicians may introduce subjective opinions, inadvertently swaying the reader's perception. Statements from Elon Musk and political figures denouncing the violence introduce a bias, as they represent specific political and social perspectives.

Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a news outlet per WP:NotNews. It should not cover current events unless they have enduring historical significance. This incident, while significant, may not have the lasting historical impact required for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia's role is to document history rather than provide a running commentary on current events. The article's emphasis on real-time updates and immediate reactions suggests it is more suitable for a news report rather than an encyclopaedic entry, so translate to Wikinews. Wikipedia prohibits the use of unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. The article includes speculative elements, such as the motive of the shooter and the broader political implications, which are not backed by solid, published research. Speculations about the political motives behind the shooting or its potential impact on the 2024 upcoming election lack verifiable sources and are inherently speculative.

It might be better suited as a section within a broader article on Donald Trump's political activities or "attempted assassinations" of U.S. presidents. Ultranuevo (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

no, it has enough media coverage to have it's own article. Scu ba (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No, irregardless of the Wikipedian craze around this current event it appears to have crossed the threshold of notability to qualify for having it's own article. Raskuly (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, refer to the existing article on the 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident with no noted injuries or fatalities. CompassNNE (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding Obama statement

Can someone add [former President Obama's statement](https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1812271849893442018) to the "Aftermath" section? Opportunity Rover (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was added, but removed for some reason. I think it should be added. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This. Ultranuevo (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• #Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

add his reaction, he twitted his response. Hsn.frrr (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• #Please let's not turn the article into a reaction farm Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)