Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania

Main photograph

Can we add the Medical Documents that show the wound and the number of stitches or the name of the plastic surgeon that rebuilt the ear. Cause an AR Hit would have destroyed the Ear. Period.

I've been shot. I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipiap (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

>Cause an AR Hit would have destroyed the Ear

Wrong. The entry wound for a 5.56 round is millimeters big. Almost impossible to see sometime, and the ear is too thin to cause a real substantial exit wound. Tell me you don’t understand the physics of a 5.56 round without telling me. 202.47.239.86 (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we please change the photo of the crowd and the rally to the iconic photo of Trump raising his fist? 2600:1011:B323:2A52:11E4:26C1:C49B:8B7 (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCCP. Because the image is used under fair use, it is policy to use it as few times as possible. The image has it's own article so it's not necessary to use it here. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Like it or loathe it, the photo of a bleeding Trump with his first in the air was widely acknowledged as an iconic and perfectly composed photo by both the NYTimes and the Atlantic magazine. It summarizes one of the two defining events of the 2024 election. Omitting it is akin to omitting the raising of the flag at Mt. Suribachi in 1945 from an article on the battle of Iwo Jima. Future generations will wonder what Wikipedia was smoking. 2600:8805:3804:F500:A592:16D5:4747:641C (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that Raising the Flag was freely licensed while the assassination was used under fair use. Whether you like it or not, fair use is taken pretty serious here on a website where everything is free for everyone to use. If any reader wants to see it, they can look at the image's own page. It's still there to see. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

you have no consensus to establish this parameter. This photo can be utilized in the lede and is perfectly acceptable. May I receive have consensus from any other editor? Ri5009 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. The image is a copyright violation (i.e. you stole it) so I've nominated it for deletion. E_F⁵ 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Read my comment below this one. Take a hint. Ri5009 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you stole it; I'd suggest not re-adding it without consensus. E_F⁵ 20:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not a real photo, it's AI generated, in no way should it be used on a site like this. 2A00:23C5:2B0D:B901:A943:5CB6:8954:CAF0 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I can tell by your profile that you are clearly left-wing and simply do not want the photo in the lede because the photo is historic, iconic, and widely acknowledged as the key defining moment of this assassination attempt, which most left-wing editors try to claim was not even an assassination attempt. Whether you like it or not, that is the case with this picture and it should remain in the lede. Ri5009 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It's got absolutely nothing to do with party politics. You are not Evan Vucci, and therefore have no right to claim this image. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Evan Vucci photo is now used. Any more excuses? Ri5009 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

That's not how copyright works. You didn't take the image or is under a free license, so it can't be used. See Creative commons. E_F⁵ 20:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait a second, that makes absolutely no sense then why is the photo being allowed on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_raised-fist_photographs then? You are now claiming an image in its entirety cannot be used unless for "certain" purposes, how could this page not be a better usage of the photo, that by your own words, means it is "fair use", which by definition, means "Fair use allows copying of copyrighted material in an educational setting, such as a teacher or a student using images in the classroom. Fair use is flexible concept and can be open to interpretation in certain cases." according to https://libguides.unm.edu/ So, I guess you are the ultimate decision maker when it comes to whether or not this "fair use" picture, can be used, am I correct? Ri5009 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't that the image wasn't viable as a fair use piece of media, it's that you uploaded it under an invalid license. If it was under a proper fair use rationale I personally wouldn't have done anything, since it's not a bad image. E_F⁵ 20:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct, I admit to that and then changed it the Evan Vucci image, just explain to me again why that image cannot be used with the "fair use" argument in a rational way, and I will back off from this page, I am not trying to break rules, I just feel that too much discretion is being used for this photo on this page when it seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate to use it. If there are further reasons, just explain it to me and we can bring this to a consensus that I will respect to, not one editor's opinion. I asked for consensus in my first comment by the way, I have not seen other editors doing the same, by the way. Ri5009 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No, you're fine (although please tone the political comments); I had re-removed it not seeing that the file names had switched. If you want I can add the fair use rationale; it's kind of tricky to do. E_F⁵ 20:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok I respect and appreciate that, some other editors have not treated me rationally to this conversation before but I appreciate your understanding and apologize for my tone. I do feel this wikipedia outlet does have some issues with bias and agenda, but that is simply my opinion and wish to not try to apply that to edits seen by many people for historic events. Thank you for your understanding. Ri5009 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

They say reality has a left-wing bias. 2603:7080:EF41:8B00:EB2A:31:B3EE:BDE2 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You're not him, so you've got no right to use it. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_raised-fist_photographs this article proves you are completely wrong. Ri5009 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Personal attack! please read WP:NPA I swear there is a double standard on this wikipedia. Ri5009 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And please read WP:NPA, accusing others of being in bad-faith for being aligned with a political party isn't a good thing to do. E_F⁵ 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ri5009 There is consensus to establish this parameter. As I've said in other discussions, read WP:NFC#UUI. This policy, which has existed, long before Trump-politics since 2003, states that using [a fair use] image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article, is unacceptable, so long as the article the image is used in is linked (which it is). The image is used in its respective article because it is iconic, we agree with you! It's an important element of the shooting that readers should be seeing! What's the harm of having to click once to see the image though? While you can technically find a consensus to ignore this policy with legal considerations, it's basically impossible (as evidenced so far).

One last thing; avoid the political insults. Not only are they annoying, but that is not the type of rhetoric that should be used here. It fails to convince anyone. Assume good faith. Please note that the reason fair use is so strict is due to the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, i.e anyone can reuse its content and redistribute it even for monetary purposes. The fair use policy exists as an exemption to this principle, but to retain the spirit of the principle, it must be strict for only certain purposes of great educational value. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. Ri5009 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

BlackRock Page Preview

In the "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section, the page previews for the BlackRock link and the "previous conspiracy narratives involving the company" link both show the text "In 2024 blackrock took part in the attempted murder of donald trump". See also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/summary/BlackRock 100.35.197.187 (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Crooks was using his cell phone on the roof

Just prior to the assassination attempt, it has now been revealed, one year later, that Crooks was using his cell phone while perched on the roof. Using encrypted messaging. HSI, or Homeland Security Investigations has yet to provide any information about this reveal. Who was he in contact with? No follow up. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Saw it being discussed on a TV news broadcast on Fox News in July 2025. Obtained by Pittsburgh-based WPXI, the gray, 12-button remote and smartphone were recovered from the roof of the Butler, Pennsylvania, building he used as a sniper's perch. Crooks, who reportedly climbed on top of the building by stepping on an air conditioning unit, told his boss at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center that he needed the day off because he had "something to do," according to CNN. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

How is this politics? They were discussing and reporting facts of the assassination attempt and follow-up investigation. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

If that claim came from Fox News, and it has anything to do with Trump, it's political, and we don't trust it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Well if nobody else wants to report the facts, that's unfortunate. Evidently it's true, HSI, or Homeland Security Investigations has yet to provide any information about this reveal.24.194.32.135 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

How do you know it's true? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw it discussed with people who know about this. Unless we don't trust our government officials, "in the know", I cannot answer that question. However, HSI has the access and is not providing the information to the public. IDK why? 24.194.32.135 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Unless you can provide a reliable source supporting your claim, we cannot include it. And Fox News is NOT a reliable source.HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well time will tell, till an RS actually reports on this.So call me, maybe? 24.194.32.135 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2024/07/17/us-news/thomas-matthew-crooks-cell-phone-and-transmitter-found-next-to-trump-would-be-assassin-body/ Seems to imply it was being used to trigger remote explosives. Which we already mention. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The transmitter was to trigger remote explosives, I agree. The cell phone and who he communicated with prior to the assassination attempt is what HSI has not revealed, now one year later. This is what was discussed on TV broadcast. 24.194.32.135 (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

So have any RS reported the idea that there were others involved, with whom he was communicating with? Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

References

First countersniper shot

The lede says the first countersniper shot was 4 seconds after Crooks opened fire. The article body said six seconds. Neither figure appears to be sourced. I have changed the latter to match the former, so that the article doesn't look dumb. If someone wants to actually verify which number is right and provide sources, that might be a good idea. Jozsefs (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

No mention of Leftist Hate

There is no mention of leftist hate in the Domestic or Online section under Reactions. There were several prominent Democrats and Democrat politicians that expressed their feelings of disappointment across social media. “They missed” and “How did they miss” began trending on X moments after the assassination attempt. Thousands of left wing users expressed their anger after the failed attempt. A lot of people lost their jobs after spreading they hate. The hate came strictly from the left and should be mentioned.

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/several-dems-spark-outrage-with-trump-assassination-reactions-sympathy-for-the-devil-tennessee-state-rep-antonio-parkinson-and-sen-london-lamar-both-democrats-representing-memphis-made-immediate-statements-colorado

https://www.newsweek.com/posts-celebrating-trump-shooting-jobs-1926271

https://nypost.com/2024/07/13/opinion/leftist-hate-rules-social-media-after-trump-assassination-attempt/ WhowinsIwins (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be vastly overstating what the sources you cite actually say: Newsweek for example states that "Several Americans have lost their jobs for social media posts in the days since former President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt". National News Desk says much the same thing. And I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources: we don't cite the New York Post for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)