Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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)

Nobody claims he climbed 400 ft vertically.

400 or 430 or whatever feet is the distance from the shooter to the podium or stage area where Trump was wounded. When the cop fell from the roof of the building, the distance he fell is given as approx. 8 ft by most sources. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This source uses an estimation of 410 ft. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 15:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This one, 430ft. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This uses the same, more specific estimate (441ft) as PBS. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

BBC says 443 ft. I suggest we mentioned the whole range of reported distance, from shortest to longest. In this case, the estimated distance is between 400 and 450 ft. Let's edit the article with the range for now, and we can later trim the range by discarding some of the estimates that are less precise. Agreed? Forich (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

Add:

The Trump campaign had originally planned to hold the rally at Pittsburgh-Butler Regional Airport, but it was already booked for July 13.

After this sentence:

U.S. Representative Mike Kelly said he had contacted the Trump campaign to recommend holding the rally in an area that could handle a larger crowd than the Butler Farm Show Grounds, and that their response was, "We appreciate your input but we've already made up our minds".[18]

https://triblive.com/local/regional/butler-county-airport-authority-denied-trump-campaign-request-because-of-conflicting-event

This is some important context about the Trump campaign searching for different venues. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Does it, is Mike Kelly contacted them, not the other way. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're saying, but the purpose of adding this is to convey the fact that the Trump campaign tried to book the airport venue, but couldn't, so they went with the alternative.

Did they, or did an outside party make the suggestion, that is my point, is Mike Kelly part of the campaign team, you suggested edit implies he is not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that Mike Kelly is part of the campaign. The Trump campaign tried to book a larger venue 1.5 months ago, but it didn't work out. By the time Mike Kelly contacted them, they had already settled on the Butler Farm Show Grounds. MightyLebowski (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

SO what relevance does this have? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The article gives Mike Kelly's recount that he wanted Trump to hold the event at another location to accommodate more people.

The RS I gave reports that the Trump campaign tried to hold the campaign event at another location to accommodate more people, but it was already booked.

The article makes it sound like Mike Kelly is criticizing the Trump campaign, as if they shouldn't have held the rally there.

This addition conveys the fact that the Trump campaign tried to hold the event at another location, but couldn't. It's totally relevant. MightyLebowski (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

UNless you added it, it was already mentioned. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice it, where is the mention? MightyLebowski (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Background, your edit almost word for word. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here. That's the original sentence. I'm saying to add this sentence:

"The Trump campaign had originally planned to hold the rally at Pittsburgh-Butler Regional Airport, but it was already booked for July 13."

After the sentence that's already in "Background", which is:

"U.S. Representative Mike Kelly said he had contacted the Trump campaign to recommend holding the rally in an area that could handle a larger crowd than the Butler Farm Show Grounds, and that their response was, "We appreciate your input but we've already made up our minds".[18]"

So the final edit would be:

"U.S. Representative Mike Kelly said he had contacted the Trump campaign to recommend holding the rally in an area that could handle a larger crowd than the Butler Farm Show Grounds, and that their response was, "We appreciate your input but we've already made up our minds".[18] The Trump campaign had originally planned to hold the rally at Pittsburgh-Butler Regional Airport, but it was already booked for July 13." MightyLebowski (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Change "trumps physician"

The line about Ronny Johnson being Trumps former physician should be changed to former White House physician Ronny Johnson as he served under multiple presidents (trump and obama). If there is concern over potential bias of Johnson then i suggest adding something along the lines of "former WH physician and personal friend of Trump" 216.175.28.83 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "former physician to Trump" is that I wanted to make it clear that he's not Trump's current physician. I think that changing it to "former White House physician" leaves the current relationship ambiguous, since a former White House physician could nonetheless be a current treating physician. There's also the aspect that Jackson's medical license has expired (see, e.g., https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2023/09/07/im-an-er-doctor-rep-ronny-jackson-told-officers-at-rodeo-but-license-is-expired/). Perhaps we can come up with a solution that addresses both issues? Something along the lines of "former White House physician and former physician to Trump"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Trump's former White House physician." MightyLebowski (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That works. I've changed it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024 (3)

Change:

Comperatore's firefighting uniform, with his name misspelled "Compertore",[138]

To:

Comperatore's firefighting uniform, with his name misspelled by the fire department as "Compertore",[138]

It needs to be made clear that Trump's campaign were not responsible for the misspelling, which is what the cited source says. MightyLebowski (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done - personally I'm not sure the misspelling needs to be mentioned at all, but if it is I agree this should be clarified. Jamedeus (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump bashes Facebook apologizes Google search censors

I added it but wikipedia is censored https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1237306413 https://www.thecentersquare.com/issues/elections/article_68f63228-4e75-11ef-84b1-8b46cb2eee9b.html https://nypost.com/2024/07/29/business/facebook-admits-it-wrongly-censored-iconic-photo-of-bleeding-trump/ Baratiiman (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So? What relevance does this have to the assassination? Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not consider the New York Post to be a reliable source for information (see WP:NYPOST), and the Center Square article does not make the claim that Google actually started hiding anything. Wikipedia relies on content backed up by the actual statements of reliable sources. As such, this entry should not have been accepted for any page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

As Slatersteven mentioned it's not really relevant to this article. It might be more approppriate in Trump raised-fist photographs but the way the diff is written might violate WP:NPOV and WP:EPSTYLE and it does not properly summarize the article from the center square which include responses by google and facebook. Yvan Part (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Move paragraph

After the shooting, the FBI uncovered a social media account "believed to be associated with the shooter" with about 700 comments from 2019-2020. The content of the posts were described as antisemitic, anti-immigrant, extreme, and espousing political violence. His Internet activity before the attack included searches related to the 2021 Oxford High School shooting and for other politicians and their events.

Should this paragraph in "Perpetrator" section be moved to the "investigation" section? Chuterix (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

FBI officially confirmed Trump was shot

Per AP article. Hopefully this debate can be laid to rest. Slamforeman (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Some here were so sure of this fact, without even requiring reliable sources to confirm it, that I suspect they are all FBI/Secret Service personnel (or ignore WP:RS). I for one will wear my bulletproof tin foil nightcap, just in case. Polygnotus (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

That's very funny but please put the scary man above your comment so it doesn't look like I put him there. Slamforeman (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Without a tin foil hat to protect you you are already doomed. Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It was crazy to question it in the first place, since basic analysis of the video shows that, based on the distance of the shooter, Trump's reaction time, and the time at which the camera picks up the sound of the first shot, three things must be true:

1. Trump was wounded and bled from the first bullet while still standing, as shown in high resolution NYT photos taken at 1/8,000th of a second shutter speed

2. There wouldn't have been enough time for shrapnel to travel from its impact point

3. The first bullet's impact point would have been way too far away for shrapnel to even land near Trump

Even a junior detective would know such basic facts, and easily be able to map a bullet's trajectory to fully confirm if Trump was in the line of fire.

I honestly think that the FBI should be considered an unreliable source at this point.

I saw people everywhere here fighting tooth and nail, using all of the mental gymnastics they could, to try and justify the conspiracy theory that Trump wasn't shot.

Prior to the FBI officially admitting it, I told people that Wray made an offhand comment to the effect of "I don't know", which isn't even up to Wikipedia's standard to change the article to say that Trump may not have been shot.

I think this really casts doubt on Wikipedia's reliability too. If this happened here, it must also be happening in thousands of other articles. No wonder people are just going to X or elsewhere to get their information, which of course is also filled with disinformation. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not our job to give our own analysis or research. The above may all be very well true, but we wait for reliable sources to give their conclusions. FBI gave their conclusions yesterday. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that reliable sources were already saying that Trump was shot, yet it was kind of ignored, and everyone seemed to hold an offhand "I don't know" from Wray as more reliable than tons of sources reporting him being shot in excruciating detail i.e. people here grasping at straws to say Trump wasn't shot, going against what most of the sources were saying. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the only responsible arbiters of the ebb and flow of fluid information on a hot topic such as this. Comparing us to X or any of the other social media site is laughable. We are "soldiers" that will quibble over the smallest detail till we get it right. Of course there are moments when info is wrong. Like every article here, it depends on the moment in time when the reader visits the article. They may visit just at the moment when someone has added unverifiable BS and no one has corrected it. And....a minute later its gone! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 04:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't compare Wikipedia to X, I'm just saying that this level of ignoring obvious reported facts from WP:RS is a microcosm for people going to "alternative" sources for information. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are actual rules of evidence here, whereas most social media sites are just chaotic zoos (and often filled to the brim with bots). Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@MightyLebowski: If anything is "crazy", it is using original research on Wikipedia instead of following WP:RS. If there is still an ongoing investigation by the FBI/USSS because they aren't sure Wikipedia can't just pretend we know more than the FBI/USSS. "I honestly think that the FBI should be considered an unreliable source at this point." on Wikipedia you are the unreliable source (just like every other Wikipedian). Polygnotus (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The question is, does a pending FBI investigation supercede reporting from reliable sources or does Wikipedia hold off reporting until the FBI produces their final report? Numerous reliable sources reported that Trump was shot over several weeks. However, once the head of the FBI states he isn't sure what the FBI knows, all the previous reliable sources are immediately in doubt? 96.231.246.62 (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Previous reliable sources are in doubt but don't need to be discarded. Based on Wray's testimony, any reasonable editor would doubt the contents of this article, at that time. Not change it...yet. The FBI has priority over the crime scene and all available information. They don't deal with conjecture. So any reasonable editor should go to questioning themselves and others. "What's Up?", "Did we mis-inform the reader?", "Is our OR wrong and mis-leading?" We do the best with what we dig up. We are creating a historical account for the ages. We need to be accurate. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if the FBI claims they don't know due to an ongoing investigation (that's not even what Wray said), if WP:RS mass report something, it's not conjecture. MightyLebowski (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Like the 3 statements of truth you made at the beginning of this thread. All were conjecture. Not truth. Slow your mojo. Trump was shot. We all know he was shot and by who. Respect the process of collaborative editing. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Conjecture is the lack of evidence for a claim. There was a plethora of evidence that Trump was shot before the FBI released their statement. Don't rewrite history. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if the most reliable source says that they do not know, then far less reliable sources who claim to know are not to be trusted. The newspapers do not have access to the same resources the FBI and USSS have. Polygnotus (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hard disagree, tons of reliable sources said Trump was shot and had a hole in his ear. During the hearing, Wray said:

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

People here completely ignored what Wray actually said, put everything that WP:RS reported en masse into a dumpster, then "Wikipedians" spun the actual reporting into "the FBI doesn't know if Trump was shot", even though that's not what Wray said, all because of obvious confirmation bias. MightyLebowski (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect, reliable sources (correctly) reported that the FBI was still investigating what it was that hit Trump. For example: The bureau is assessing what caused the former president’s wound during an assassination attempt. The question has turned political. 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. -- NYT Also you seem to forget that Wray said: there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that, you know, hit his ear. NBC Polygnotus (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no question Trump was shot, it was only the exact details of how the bullet actually hit him that were in question. The FBI later clarified this because people were misusing Wray's words (like you're doing now).

Your quote from Wray was earlier in the hearing, towards the end he clarified with the quote I cited above i.e. it was his latest, more relevant comment on the matter, which is that the FBI knows what happened to Trump, but he just didn't know during the hearing because "the documents weren't in front of him".

Regardless, the plethora of WP:RS reporting Trump being shot would not be undone by reporting on a pending FBI investigation into the matter, meaning it should've been "Trump was shot, but the FBI is still looking into it". MightyLebowski (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@MightyLebowski: If you are just going to ignore the evidence that shows that you are wrong then we are done here. A far more reliable source saying "we do not know yet" overrules less reliable sources saying "we know". And reliable sources like the NYT also reported that the FBI was still trying to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head. Polygnotus (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wray stated the FBI knew if Trump was shot in the hearing, full stop, direct quote.

You're saying Wray, and those who reported on his statement, are unreliable/less reliable sources compared to an anonymous FBI official from the NYT? Lol.

If you're going to ignore what the FBI director said, along with hundreds of reliable sources saying that Trump was shot, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

BBC, 30 July: FBI confirms Trump was hit with a bullet Uwappa (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Attempted Assassination of Trump Wikipedia article misinformation

In the article Wikipedia says flying debris hit Donald Trump. This is misinformation on the part of Wikipedia. This article cannot be edited and is controlled by Wikipedia. When suggesting edits you are supposed to state credible sources. Ronny Jackson who is the doctor who has had as patients several Presidents of the United States has come out with a statement refuting the inaccuracy of the idea flying debris hit Trump. He said it, in fact, was a bullet that hit Trump's ear. Wikipedia needs to correct their entry or be regarded as an inaccurate source of information. Cut the nonsense (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that "In the article Wikipedia says flying debris hit Donald Trump" is false. The sole sentence that includes the word "debris" is "Four Pittsburgh Police officers who were feet away from Trump suffered minor injuries from flying debris when bullets struck objects nearby," and the article is clear that Trump was hit either by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet. You have not quoted/cited anything to substantiate that the article includes "misinformation." Ronny Jackson has not been Trump's doctor for several years and did not diagnose him. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

They probably misread the sentence because it lacks clarity. It should be changed to:

Four Pittsburgh Police officers, who were feet away from Trump, suffered minor injuries from flying debris when bullets struck objects nearby.

The commas ensure that the reader immediately understands the information about the officers' proximity to Trump to be supplementary. MightyLebowski (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Timeline's tilde=y

What do the five or six dots beneath the tilde denote, if anything?

~3:50 p.m.

kencf0618 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you hover over it a tooltip appears – 'approximately'. — Czello ^(music) 12:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Hadn't seen it before. Seems cluttered –might one use be sufficient? kencf0618 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

“president” Trump

“president” should be capitalized when it’s preceding and referring to Trump or Biden or anyone that is or was the President of the United States of America. 76.229.151.107 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:JOBTITLE for Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) and instructions on when the title "president" should and should not be capitalized when referring to the current or previous holder of the office of the President of the United States of America. General Ization ^Talk 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service Director mentions video

I watched the hearing in which the Secret Service Director mentions a "business video" that shows Crooks getting up the roof at 6:06 pm. Can someone confirm this and look for Reliable Sources that let us insert that in our timeline? I may find time to do that this week but I just wanted to put it out there as a to do. Forich (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. "Abbate recently discovered video footage from a local business that shows the shooter getting onto the roof of the building at 6:06 p.m., and he was spotted by local law enforcement at 6:08 p.m."Forich (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Great but the timeline is extremely incomplete in addition to what you point out here. Thousands of recordings were made of this event. The science of accoustic forensic can figure stuff out with far less than that. Somebody knows the exact time each bullet was fired and by whom. Shouldn’t that be in this chronology at a minimum? I’m not an editor here but isn’t this info available from a reliable source by now, two weeks after the fact? Roricka (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The current timeline has a contradiction:

• 5:51 A member of the Beaver County Emergency Services Unit tactical team sees Crooks on a roof, ...
• 6:06 Crooks gets up on the roof.

According to Row and Abbate the 5:51 is incorrect, the 6:06 is correct. See these two quotes from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/acting-secret-service-director-testify-senate-details-trump/story?id=112384807

1. Rowe was pressed on reports that 20 minutes passed between the time Secret Service snipers first spotted the gunman on a rooftop and the time shots were fired at the former president. Rowe said it was the "first" he was hearing of that and to his knowledge it was "incorrect."
2. Abbate recently discovered video footage from a local business that shows the shooter getting onto the roof of the building at 6:06 p.m.

Uwappa (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Fragment from the hearing that supports the 6:06, mr Abbate, FBI, starting at 1:20:30 of the hearing video.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HvV7Ea7S5eE?feature=shared&t=4830

Quote:

"We have video that was recently found of the shooter walking in the distance from his car just before 6pm, about 5:56 I believe and based on everything we have we assess that he returned to his vehicle at that time, got the backpack, and then proceeded back to the area, to the AGR building and then he is observed of course on the roof just, you know, minutes later holding the backpack in front of him. In fact there is dash-cam footage from a police vehicle that shows him briefly traversing the roof with the backpack in front of him. And then it is just minutes after that that he is actually seen by the officer who I described with the rifle on the roof." Uwappa (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the actual video available online? It would help to see it to corroborate with precision the timestamps and avoid possible mispoken words.Forich (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The police dash-cam video is in the possession of the FBI. It was not shown during the hearing. It is probably not public yet.

It looks like this video would explain why Crooks was classified as suspicious, not a threat even when Trump was already on stage:

• At 5:56 when Crooks was seen getting his backpack from his car, he was just suspicious, not classified as a threat yet, as no weapon in view yet.
• At 6:03, when Trump went on stage, Crooks was not yet on the roof, still just suspicious, not yet classified as a threat.
• At 6:06, when Crooks went on the roof, it was with the backpack, no rifle in view yet. There is no mention of a police officer in the police car, watching the dash-cam images real time.
• At ~6:09, bystanders see Crooks on the roof with a rifle and alert officers.
• At ~6:10, the Butler Township police officer attempts to climb the roof, sees Crooks with a rifle.
• Shortly after, Crooks fires. According to Row, this is the first time Secret Service snipers see Crooks, see from

0:19:10

2:39:37 and

3:00:05 in hearing video.

Uwappa (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)