Jump to content

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Removal of Trump from the stage

I changed the text "escorted him..." to "hoisted him..." My edit summary was "escorted" sounds like the debutantes' ball. He was in shock and hauled off by half a dozen strong men. "escorted" trivializes the extent of his impairment at that moment.

I believe that "escorted" sounds like the First Lady being taken to her seat by the West Point Honor Guard at graduation ceremonies. But Trump was in shock and was dragged from the stage in uncertain condition by many agents carefully supporting his weight. We need to reflect that by appropriate language. It is not "puffery" to convey the gravity of the moment. If not "hoisted" it could be "carried" "supported" or some other word. But see the definition of "hoist"

[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hoist hoisted; hoisting; hoists

transitive verb

lift, raise

especially : to raise into position

SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is a sample: (NBC) "rush him off the stage," (Axios) "escorted off stage," (The Independent) "rushed from the stage," (ABC News - United States) "hustled off the stage," (CNN) "rushed off the stage," (USA Today) "rushed off stage," (PBS) "escorted off stage." Might need a review of sources to confirm which is primarily used, but rush(ed) appears the most often from what I found. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
That's helpful. Certainly none conveys the genteel escorting of a distinguished speaker from the stage. In fact we could see that he was limp and in shock and was hoisted and then dragged by the torso, his legs possibly not even in continuity with the ground beneath them. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
"hoisted" just seemed a bit too boisterous, and I share similar concerns with "escorted". I was going to suggest "carried", but it sounds like "rushed" is used by most RS and I am ok with that too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
"Escort" is actually a very serious job description in military and paramilitary contexts, which is what this case involves... it in no way "trivializes" anything. The term is used to classify the protection and support of an asset, in both noun and verb forms. "Police escort", for example. Entire classes of ships are referred to as "Escorts" (e.g. Escort destroyers, Escort vehicles, Escort fighters. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that wikipedia isn't written from a military perspective so the average user probably would not make the connection between "escort" and a military maneuver, as evidenced by this very talkpage section. I do think "rush off" would give the appropriate context to any reader. Yvan Part (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The text in question literally describes a paramilitary operation by the Secret Service. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia... reliable sources are comfortable assuming a level of sophistication in their readers and are comfortable using that term... I don't think we need to do otherwise. Also, he was not immediately "rushed off". Besides the delay while he was crouching, he literally told them to stop so he could go "Fight!"... they were only "rushing" at the very end. Categorizing what the SS did as "escorting" him is the most precise option of describing it. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Presidential protection is not a function of the military in the USA, and this analysis is pretty much off the wall. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The Secret Service is a paramilitary organization. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That will require multiple Reliable Sources, otherwise...no. SPECIFICO talk 03:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Marcus Markup: Not fully sure if you intended to reply to me, but if you did I don't believe saying that rush(ed) appears the most often from what I found is trivializing anything. I will say that escort(ed) does appear to be either the second most or most popular description. For additional sources that I just checked: (NYT) "After agents escort Mr. Trump off the stage," (NPR) "escorted offstage by Secret Service," (Washington Post) "Agents escort Trump down the stairs from the stage," "as Secret Service agents escort him offstage," (CBS) "As Secret Service surrounded Trump to escort him off the stage," (USA Today) "and escort him off stage into a vehicle," (ABC News - Australian) "but as his Secret Service detail begins to escort him off stage," (SBS) "surrounded by US Secret Service agents trying to escort him off the stage" I do think we might need a review of sources as some use escort(ed) or rush(ed) and some use both. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • "rushed off stage" seems to be fine. Hoisted seems off and it doesn't appear in reliable sources. Carried doesn't seem exactly accurate since Trump appeared to have mostly supported himself. R. G. Checkers talk 03:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    There was no rush. Don't use same-day accounts. If you're going to do word counts, you would need the most recent RS usage and not news media quickies. And why pivot from literal repetition of immediate newspaper wording to your opinion as to whether he was supporting himself? And why Australia of all places? SPECIFICO talk 11:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    Based on the RS provided by folks above "carried" is not supported. Rushed off and escorted are what RS use predominantly. R. G. Checkers talk 17:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    You're not addressing the issue I raised above. We need the most recent credible RS, not Aussie overnight reporting. We wouldn't use USA today for a kangaroo story. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
    We need the most recent credible RS What reliable source supports your assertion that "hoisted" should be the verb we should use? Why are you insisting on impeccable sourcing for others work, when your suggestion is completely unsourced? Marcus Markup (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? Last I checked WaPo and NYT aren't based in Melbourne or Sydney. R. G. Checkers talk 05:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
    @SPECIFICO: I believe you have an issue with my comment, but I am unsure since you did not directly reply to me. If so, I did two quick surveys through Google search of reliable sources and listed what I found, with the exception that I didn't cover anything in the second comment that was already covered in the first. I will go and make a small change to my first comment to keep that clearer, but I don't see why a global viewpoint should be restricted. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
'Escorted' is used by a large number of RSes, and I don't pick up any inappropriate connotations. If you want to replace it with carried or hoisted, you should be able to find at least a few RSes that use those words, considering how many RSes other people have already linked. Hi! (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Either escorted or rushed off would work. Both appear to be the primary way to describe what happened and it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in a full survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"DEI" criticism of female Secret Service agents

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

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

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

If there are two sources, and one of them calls the scrutiny sexist, I would attribute: Female agents have faced increased scrutiny from Republicans, which some have called sexist or which Wired has called sexist.
If there were 5+ sources and they all or almost all agreed on this, I would just put it in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The women faced scrutiny because they were a foot shorter than their VIP (making it impossible to fully shield them), and because one could barely holster their gun.
On average, women are shorter and have much less testosterone than men, so it's not surprising that they will be criticized when they're put into jobs that are physically demanding, and where slight errors can result in catastrophe.
The average American man is about 5 ft 9 in, with women being even shorter (5 ft 4 in). It seems unlikely that this criticism is sexist, since it's simply rooted in reality. The average man is not qualified for securing the most important figure in the world, let alone the average woman.
There's plenty of articles that describe legitimate criticisms of short women in the Secret Service who run direct security for 6 ft 3 in+ VIPs. It's not sexist to describe these physical realities. MightyLebowski (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Southern Sniper Team made the Shot

Change

Secret Service snipers were likely obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the northern sniper team in particular having its line of sight obstructed by trees.[1]

to

Secret Service snipers on the northern roof were obstructed from being able to see Crooks as he crawled into a firing position due to the slant of the roof that Crooks was on, with the southern roof snipers having to shoot instead.[1][2]


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

Bumping thread. Left guide (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
 Partially implemented; the paragraph has changed significantly since this request was made, but I have added the source included in the request and updated some of the information in the article based on it. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Oakford, Samuel; Steckelberg, Aaron; Hill, Evan; Ley, Jarrett; Baran, Jonathan; Horton, Alex; Granados, Samuel (July 16, 2024). "Obstructed view may have delayed sniper response at Trump rally". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 17, 2024. Retrieved July 17, 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-rally-shooting-tree-snipers-analysis-video-satellite-imagery-cbs-news/

A failure to communicate

Forgotten radios and missed warnings: New details emerge about communication failures before Trump rally shooting, CNN (Aug 23, 2024)

"The day before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, a tactical team of local police officers set aside radios for their Secret Service partners so the two agencies could communicate during the former president’s July 13 campaign rally.
But those radios were never picked up.
The next day, three minutes before shots were fired toward Trump, local police radioed that a man was on a nearby roof. That warning never made it to the Secret Service, whose snipers didn’t know the would-be assassin was on the roof until shots rang out. In the 15 seconds it took for snipers to lock onto and kill the shooter, he was able to fire off eight shots."

Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested summary, for Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Security_arrangements.
"Local police set aside radios for the Secret Service, who did not pick them up." Uwappa (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Best description of shot in relation to Trump's ear

We have been under a multiple edit thing over the wording regarding how the shot affected Trump's ear. Let's settle the matter here. I propose a procedure that I think will be helpful. As a first step, lets produce a comprehensive list of all the verbs used (injured, grazed, etc). When we feel the list is ready, let's qualify each verb by Reliability of source, popularity (number of google search results), and discarding early reports which had incomplete information.

  • abrazed
  • grazed
  • hit
  • planed
  • scraped
  • shot in the ear
  • continue here

Let's go.Forich (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Uwappa (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

lets go by what RS say. or we can add uninjured, faked and god knows what else. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
"Grazed"[1] is a well-sourced description that seems to fit what happened. It was just enough to draw blood, yet to heal within a few days. "Pierced" (which I just deleted, forgetting that edit wasn't to the article, so sorry about that) is Trump's own description, which is already in the article. As it's a quote, we can't do much about it, even though it's misleading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Valjean, did you just deleted a Talk Page edit of mine? As I explained in the introito of the section, we are listing verbs to later discuss their pros and cons, so keep and open mind as long as the verbs are verifiable. In stage two we will greatly appreciate your comments on each decision and your opinion favoring "grazed" will hopefully show up.Forich (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Forich, yes, I did do that by mistake, as I mention above: "(which I just deleted, forgetting that edit wasn't to the article, so sorry about that)" I apologize again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies accepted @Valjean:Forich (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's not overdo this. Grazed, nicked, scratched, or cut are all OK. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support Grazed. It's sourced and is an accurate description of what happened. R. G. Checkers talk 04:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion, work with a table with a list of sources per word and a supported by:
Caption text
Word Sources Supported by
abrazed
grazed
  1. CNN, 10 Aug 2024 ("grazed")
  2. Neurosurgeon, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, 19 July 2024 ("barely injured")
  1. R. G. Checkers talk 04:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  2. Uwappa (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  3. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  4. Zefr (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
hit
planed
scraped
shot in the ear
continue here
We can use "grazed", provided this table exercise we initiated does not end up exposing Wikipedia:Cherrypicking#Multiple_sources, and I don't expect otherwise, given that you guys seem to be experienced editors.Forich (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Browne, Malachy; Lum, Devon; Cardia, Alexander (July 26, 2024). "Speculation Swirls About What Hit Trump. An Analysis Suggests It was a Bullet". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on July 28, 2024. Retrieved July 29, 2024.

FBI: videos show Crooks scaled building at 6:05, walked on roof from 6:05-6:08

See chapter timeline in https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/fbi-pittsburgh-special-agent-in-charge-s-remarks-to-media-on-updates-to-the-butler-pennsyvlania-assassination-attempt-investigation Uwappa (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Claim that Secret Service counter snipers saw Crooks at 5:52

Much has been clarified and corrected in the last weeks. But the claim that the Secret Service counter-snipers first spotted Crooks at 5:52 persists in the table. This was only reported by ABC News (and WDSU, explicitly quoting them). It does not make sense in context of the verified events. Where did they spot him, when he climbed onto the roofs not before 6:06? Did they spot him in the crowd? How? This appears to be a synthesis and misunderstanding from the much better verified facts "(other) snipers spotted Crooks" and "Secret Service was informed about suspect". The claim should be removed from the article as dubious at least. --KnightMove (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this needs a correction. ABC news mixed up the 'hidden' local snipers in the AGR building and secret snipers on a remote roof. Uwappa (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
 Resolved Looks like it has been removed from the timeline's table. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

Change the short description of the article from "2024 shooting the former US President in Pennsylvania, U.S." to "2024 shooting of the former US President in Pennsylvania, U.S." Scs52 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The FBI announced that they found “no definitive motive or definite ideology” for the shooter to attempt to assassinate Donald Trump. [1]

 Not done, ask in the correct "Change X to Y" format, and someone will consider. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/28/trump-rally-shooting-motive-unknown-thomas-matthew-crooks/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2024 (2)

Change the Motive section from “Under investigation” to “Unknown”. [1] Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, the articles do not make it clear weather or not the investigation has concluded.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/08/28/trump-rally-shooting-motive-unknown-thomas-matthew-crooks/

This article uses the term "AGR" without first explaining what it refers to

That's as of the time I'm making this post. Maybe I'll find the spell-out as I read further down, but it's customary to give the spell-out upon first use of the acronym or initialism, as in 'at the Agitated Grumbling Reader ("AGR") Building'. When things aren't where they're expected to be it makes it difficult to come here and get some little factlet quickly without having to read the entire article, as I'm sure many people will desire to do.

If you don't know what "AGR" stands for, perhaps you can find out rather than leaving me to. One thing that would help would be using a more Google-Satellite type picture for the map, or at least explaining what the colors mean, and LABELING what the AGR Building is. Or label it in the photo. More maps would help. What I think readers will want to do figure out why if Crooks was RUNNING to elude officers, WHERE was he running, and why wasn't the event delayed pending the apprehending of this person running away from law-enforcement, using a golf rangefinder, etc.? If there CAN be a logical explanation for the failure to delay the event after so many indications that something untoward was afoot, I'm sure Wikipedia readers would like a chance to figure out what it IS. This article could help them more than it does.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
AGR International is the organization that owns the nearby warehouse complex. I have edited the article in an effort to make this clearer. I agree that maps can contribute to a better understanding of this situation; you may find that this source[1] has some useful maps. As for why the rally had not been called off, law enforcement officers, while considering the person to be suspicious, had not realized that the person had also been armed until around 38 seconds before the shooting. I hope that this helps! –Gluonz talk contribs 14:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Boburg, Shawn; Oakford, Samuel; Barrett, Devlin (August 3, 2024). "'We lost sight of him': Radio traffic shows failed search for Trump rally shooter". Washington Post. Retrieved August 3, 2024.

CBS: Crooks hit by rifle stock fragments at 6:11:37 pm

A quote from https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/butler-swat-operator-trump-rally-gunman/ that impacts the timeline at 6:11:37 p.m.

"The shot hit the gunman's rifle stock and fragmented into his face, neck and right shoulder area from the stock breaking into pieces. Crooks went down but recovered after just a few seconds and popped back up, the report says. The shot delayed the shooter long enough for a United States Secret Service sniper to take the fatal shot."

CBS quotes page 4, "The 9th shot fired..." at: https://clayhiggins.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Preliminary-Investigative-Report-8.12.24.pdf#page=4

Uwappa (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice finding, worthy of mention.Forich (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
My doubt: It is not clear who drew this conclusion and how. Was it mr. Clay Higgins himself? Was it local police? FBI? Is video available that supports this conclusion? Was it logic, the last 10th shot hit Crooks, so a shot hitting his rifle must have been the 9th shot? Uwappa (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added that source. –Gluonz talk contribs 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Source #61 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/acting-secret-service-director-testify-senate-details-trump/story?id=112384807) does not mention an air conditioning unit; replace with source #62 https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/08/03/trump-rally-police-radio-transmissions/ Squ1rrelwithagun (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. –Gluonz talk contribs 17:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump_in_Pennsylvania/Archive_10&oldid=1250163936"