This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At this time, the article lead says Trump "was shot in the upper part of his right ear."
At this time, some reliable sources report Trump was shot in the ear, while other reliable sources do not report this. There has been considerable discussion of this here, with no conclusive finding. The Secret Service and law enforcement have not as yet publicly stated one way or the other.
Yes I think the article should say Trump was shot. This has been very comprehensively sourced. There were countless cameras and eyeballs at Trump before, during, and after his shooting, even capturing a bullet whizzing right by him. I don't see any substantive conflict in RS about this, at most minor language differences. Regardless, a list of 25 sources saying Trump was shot in their own voice includes:
There were countless cameras and eyeballs at Trump before, during, and after his shooting, yet none of them actually saw a rifle bullet strike him in the ear soibangla (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Like what, as in they developed slow-mo vision and saw it? I guess not. They merely heard the report of gunfire, saw Trump get hit, saw the wound on his ear, and did not see a teleprompter or whatever get shot in between and turned into shrapnel, and one extraodinary photographer shot a photo of the bullet itself grazing by Trump. If we're really wp:blueing this though, NBC News interview with photographer who got close up shots of Trump and gave very candid details on before-during-after of the shooting: Photographer at rally says bullet took out piece of Trump's earKiharaNoukan (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Doug Mills was shooting at 1/3000th and caught one bullet passing by Trump's left, but not a bullet that struck him in the right ear, unless it was a magic bullet that nicked his ear, changed course and continued past him, rather than passing through his head. saw Trump get hit no they saw him grab his ear and dive. saw the wound on his ear only after he stood up, like we all did. shot a photo of the bullet itself grazing by Trump are you sure it was the bullet, or one of the bullets that missed Trump entirely? and it did not "graze" by him, it blazed by him. the eyewitness actually saw the rifle bullet hit Trump? really? did he get the pics of the bullet hitting Trump? that would be a guaranteed Pulitzer. or is he assuming shooting + injury = shot? as any judge and courtroom attorney can testify, eyewitness accounts are notoriously wrong, especially in split-second incidents like this. there is no evidence a bullet struck him. soibangla (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes per KiharaNoukan. It's overwhelmingly sourced and should only really change when there has been a definitive statement by officials that it isn't the case. From what I've seen, even the sources that aren't saying he was shot don't actually say 'he wasn't shot', they're just not specifying – which is a big difference. As KiharaNoukan also pointed out, there is also a photo of the bullet flying past his head. — Czello(music)07:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
there is true, there is false, and there is null. if it was certain he was shot, every source would report it, but major reliable sources still do not. nor does law enforcement.
no one disputes bullets were fired, but a photo of one bullet passing to Trump's left does not in any way suggest it struck his right ear soibangla (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We conclusively know Trump was injured, but not that he was shot. If all reliable sources agreed he was shot, they would unanimously and explicitly state that.
On Sunday, CBS News reported:
It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but blood was strewn across his ear and face as Secret Service agents ushered him offstage.[1]
At this hour, the NY Times continues to report:
"The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear, saying only that shots were fired and that the former president was "safe."[2]
There may be at least one other plausible explanation for the ear injury (that does not include a "shattered" teleprompter) but I will not go that way as I do not want anyone to think I'm some sort of a truther weirdo. But given the uncertainties that remain, I strongly believe it is premature for this article to unequivocally state he was shot.
A parallel to this situation springs to mind: Hunter Biden's laptop. Many who wanted everything about it to be real chastised the MSM for not reporting it was, but the MSM did not yet have the evidence. When (some) evidence later became available, they reported it. Similarly, we should not say shot, a very strong term with potential future implications, unless we've got it nailed down with certainty. And especially not if some want it because of the potential future implications. soibangla (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I had scrolled up to the comment above to get all of the sources from the previous time this was brought up, but I see KiharaNoukan has already done this. These are literally twenty-five of the highest tier of national papers of record and international wire services... jp×g🗯️08:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
CBS previously reported he was hit by a bullet, but now walks it back:
It's not yet clear whether Trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but blood was strewn across his ear and face as Secret Service agents ushered him offstage[3]
That article you're referencing is by Kathryn Watson, from July 14, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT.
I already referenced an article from CBS written 13 hours later that said Trump got shot in the ear, but I see it's from their Pittsburgh local area.
However, Kathryn Watson also wrote another article for CBS 9 hours later from July 14, 2024 at 7:37 PM EDT where it's stated, in own words: Trump, with blood visible on his face, was whisked off stage at a Pennsylvania rally when a gunman's bullet grazed his ear.KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how it can be the case, when you think that you have a more up to date article that throws in claims of shrapnel not found anywhere else, it's "now walks it back", but when it turns out that the more up to date article is in fact affirming a bullet struck trump, it's "confusion". KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, uh, twenty-four of the highest tier of national papers of record and international wire services. Is there any actual reason to doubt them? You have said that there's some kind of motivated reasoning for people wanting to say he was "shot", specifically -- maybe this is true -- but surely it's evidence of motivated reasoning, or evidence of something, if twenty-four prestigious newspapers say something happened, everyone on this talk page agrees we should go with that until proven otherwise, and one single person says "no, I'm not convinced, because this might be made to play into his hands"? jp×g🗯️10:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
everyone on this talk page agrees
others on this page have agreed we are hasty in concluding he was shot
I previously mentioned to you that "groupthink happens." journalists are fallible humans, and sometimes lazy, and in a fast-breaking important story like this they need to publish fast on deadline. journalists rarely get fired for reporting the same thing everyone else in the herd did, because "I wasn't wrong, everyone was wrong." I still see no evidence he was struck by a bullet, law enforcement has not said he was, and there is at least one plausible alternative explanation. it won't kill us to err on the conservative with what we know for certain for a few days, but we sure will look stupid for a long time if we're wrong on this soibangla (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
News orgs also come up with a word formula, often a contrived one, for some fact in their early reporting and regurgitate that language for days, months and even years using constructions such as "alleged x" when their peers have long since stopped qualifying, because they reference their own previous articles uncritically and a reporter is not brave or diligent enough to cut the crap and report on the fact sanely, when facts become much more clear, but will by automatism carry over the inherited language formula, out of fear that he could be asked "why did you change this language" by the superior. This can often explain why some outlets that report on something early on stick to deprecated language. It calcifies. —Alalch E.11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, if we're going to be totally honest, I feel like if you took the top 500 most active current events editors on Wikipedia and indeffed about 170 of them, you'd have a more literate press corps than a wide swath of the sources we consider reliable, but that's neither here nor there. jp×g🗯️13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Support yes it should be included. We don't require that all sources unanimously and explicitly state that. Wikipedia policy says we look at the weight of the sources reporting it, and if it is due for the article. Those thresholds have been overwhelmingly met here. Instead of arguing what some sources are not reporting and what law-enforcement has not stated, you need to present sources that dispute he wasn't shot in the ear, so we can evaluate those sources and decide if any further content should be included per WP:BALANCE.Isaidnoway(talk)09:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Just say what the sources say. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there are reliable sources saying there is any question about this, then cite it. If not, then remember that this is not an internet forum for presenting wikipedia editors personal opinions and/or theories. Elspea756 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes The silence of law enforcement should not be used as a basis for our including or not including a thing. By almost all accounts, there is question of their performance of their duties in this incident, and what they say, and when, has to be assumed to be self-serving. Nor should the silence from certain media outlets on the matter... at least they have stopped saying his wound was the result of a Teleprompter getting hit and then a glass shard was launched into his ear. Or that he "fell" and that's how he was injured, as an early report from CNN said. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, which does not mean that the ear was the actual target. The shooter missed his target, as would be expected with this type of rifle and at such distance, according to experts. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes: per above. It was reported by many reliable sources. It's not our job to interpret what actually happened. That's the job of journalists writing the reliable sources or the FBI. CFA💬17:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes: per above. It is pretty obvious that he was shot. Widely reported in reliable sources and there were countless cameras and eyewitnesses as well. PadFoot (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inclusion of all victims in first paragraph
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Add the name of the deceased victim, Corey Comperatore, to the first paragraph of the article, and ensure other victims are added if/when they are named. Youradhere (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The page should be updated since 2 other victims have been identified:
57 years old David Dutch from New Kensington (Westmoreland) and 74 years old James Copenhaver from Moon Township (Allegheny). Cicku (talk) 05:27, 15 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. Dough487200:32, 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. Here is a map of Butler County with cities, townships, etc. labeled. Butler County, PennsylvaniaRaskuly (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Raskuly there are no unincorporated places per se in Pennsylvania as per @Dough4872. Boyers is just a community within the incorporatedMarion Township. Townships are incorporated; better cite sources that actually specify Connoquenessing Township instead of "just outside Meridian, Pennsylvania". JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand. I am not familiar with how Pennsylvania divides itself. My stance then is that this incident should be referred to as being within Connoquenessing Township or near Meridian. Raskuly (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The map of that has been added to the article clearly shows that the incident happened on the Butler Township side of the Connequenessing/Butler Township line – therefore it happened in Meridian. Trorov (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Trorov: Found the section! Is this based upon the dot on where the stage/specific event happened? One issue is that the local newspapers say it is in Connequenessing Township. If the assertion that it took place in Butler Township (as in the specific site) is to be added, one would need to find a newspaper article saying specifically it took place in Butler Township (otherwise people would have a lot of difficulty analyzing the specific lines and trying to see if the specific site is on one side or the other, and this is why people defer to WP:OR) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bill Williams: Hello! Postal address city names often do not match actual locations, and in my view the readers need to be taught this.
We have local newspapers giving the exact location here (similarly, St. Louis County, Missouri, does not coincide at all with St. Louis City but has places with St. Louis postal addresses, but the local newspapers clarify this).
Readers read Wikipedia to gain a comprehensive knowledge and attention to detail, and in my opinion readers should understand that this did not take place in Butler, full stop.
I wrote in the background that it is between the township and Meridian, but the infobox is listing a specific location and its address is Butler. The lead is stating what is notable which is that it is near Butler, as the vast majority of media outlets report it is there. Bill Williams05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
That is true, but I put "between Connoquenessing Township and Meridian near Butler, Pennsylvania" which is technically true because it is between the two, and Butler is separate from Butler Township. Bill Williams05:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
While technically you are correct, no one who lives there would refer to it as Connoquenessing or Meridian. They would call it Butler. Trump's campaign also called it Butler: "President Donald J. Trump to Deliver Remarks in the Splendid City of Butler, Pennsylvania". So "near Butler" is probably the best description of the location. Nosferattus (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "near Butler" is best for what is in the lead, while the specifics may be buried deep in the article. The local newspapers had more specific descriptions of the location, and so people living there talking to each other would be more specific. However, if they are talking to people from elsewhere, they may feel it's not necessary to use specifics and just call the area "Butler" based off of what the postal address says. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Postal addresses are garbage (GIGO). Will any reader of the article be putting pen to paper and writing a letter, sealing it in an envelope, affixing a stamp, and addressing it to the Butler Farm Show? Trorov (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah gotcha, now I see where I made a mistake. Since it seems that everything took place in Meridian then, I would think just listing that would be the best. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem is, non-local RSes get locations flat out wrong and the reason is apparent (relying on US postal service "city names" which don't take into account actual locations), and this needs to be pointed out in every discussion. However, we do need to take into account where the public thinks the event took place, and this is why "near Butler" is perfect for the lead. "In Butler" is 100% incorrect, but "near Butler" is in fact correct and it fits what the reliable sources say. Also, using local RSes (newspapers/media from the area) are more likely to get the actual locations. One local RS stated that the farm show venue is in Connoquenessing Township (which is at least partially true). See also St. Louis County, where various places use "St. Louis, MO" postal addresses but are very much not in St. Louis City, which is independent of the county). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The property is intersected by the border of Connoquenessing and Butler Townships, and the part that is inside Butler Township is in Meridian. Therefore, I think its best to continue with saying "near Butler", but for example it is best to say that on Crooks' article that he died in Meridian because well, he did. Raskuly (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Source Conflict - Police Officer who Saw Sniper on Roof Retreated via Ladder, or Not?
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
According to the CBS reference Sheriff Slupe stated an officer was hoisted by another officer to the roof of the building where the shooter was positioned, but never actually made it onto the roof because he saw a weapon being pointed his way and retreated. According to the AP reference a local officer climbed to the roof then retreated down the ladder when the shooter pointed his weapon at him. To me this reads as conflicting routes. It's not critical but clarification and\or correction may be useful. 人族 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
人族 literally referenced reliable sources present in the article and commented how they conflicted. Not sure what you are talking about. Catalk to me!09:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I added the initial AP source with the ladder a few hours ago, and then updated with the CBS source where the officer was hoisted up by another one. The AP was very initial reporting, AFAIK it was the first one to report on it, so I'm inclined to believe that the CBS one is the more accurate one insofar as there is any conflict, especially with the more unique details around being raised by another officer, as well as more details overall. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Witness claiming police did nothing when the gunman was spotted
Latest comment: 12 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Trump rally: Witness says he saw gunman on roof (bbc.com)
Can't verify this, but mentioning it here for follow up. This ugly event is going to get uglier and possibly even spiral into conspiracy territory. The interview is interesting if nothing else. Perhaps link to it?Michael Dorosh (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
So definitely a slow reaction from security as a whole, which was poor (to say the least) in the lead-up to the assassination attempt. Once the assassination started they did as good as possible though. You can see the surprise of the Secret Service agent who first spotted assassin a split-second before the ear-shot, and then engaged the assassin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5c0AEGIMo8 he probably caused the following shots from the assassin to be less accurate. However for the first shot, the only thing that saved the President's life was that he happened to turn his head. If he had not turned his head, the fact that the security didn't take the most basic security precaution of securing the roof, and also knew about the threat a few minutes before... forget worrying about conspiracy theories, I honestly think today's events could have easily spiraled into a cycle of long-term violence. Ikmxx (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Follow up. Business Insider says a police officer climbed onto the roof, saw the gunman, and retreated down a ladder back to the ground shortly before the first gun shots rang out. Ikmxx (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Source seems to be the AP, which says the gunman pointed his rifle at the officer. In that case, noping the fuck out of there seems less like "doing nothing" and more like "basic common sense". (Or maybe you could say doing nothing is basic common sense in that case.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I added this in response to the initial use of Sky News Australiain this edit. It took an opinion by Brad Polumbo (who doesn't seem reliable) and laid it out as "One female security agent was seen struggling to put her gun back into her holster, while another female agent was busy putting her sunglasses back on, while the former President was being whisked away". After another editor removed Sky News Australia source, I substituted it with negative reactions - blaming the female agents - as well as Kim Cheatle's response, which highlights Tara Setmayer's strengths. Yoshiman6464♫🥚18:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Yoshiman6464: I'm still not sure I see it as being any more relevant than one of the officers maybe being Japanese, Irish, gay, Catholic... at least not for the purposes of WP. It's a pretty major historical event. There's going to be waves of stupid opinions from stupid people for years, if not decades. We probably address them best by ignoring them as dismissably stupid. GMGtalk18:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in reactions? Maybe a subsection? There's content there from various public officials commending the Secret Service, so it stands to reason that content like claims of DEI causing USSS failures that led to the shooting would belong there too. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I said this in one of the sections above, but I think that there is reasonable basis for having at least some corner of the "reaction" section set aside for stuff like this, which may well be stupid or false, but is nonetheless relevant for having made some impact on popular/media discourse about the event. I think we should be careful not to let it grow into a gigantic peanut gallery of every time someone said something dumb online, but if it hits the major points, it should be fine and WP:DUE. jp×g🗯️08:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it a major point? DUE is a pretty heavy lift for something everyone everywhere is opining on. GMGtalk11:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No mention of Maxwell Yearick?
Latest comment: 12 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Definitely could be included on the Reactions section, alongside "Mark Violets" and other folks falsely identified as the shooter. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Mass shooting categories
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
After several discussions over the last couple of days (1, 2, 3), there is consensus against describing this as a "mass shooting" in the infobox, templates, categories, etc. Editors are reminded that infobox parameters, templates, categories, etc., must be supported by the body of the article with WP:RS. Discussions about whether the event does or does not meet various definitions of "mass shooting" are irrelevant and contradict the WP:NOR policy. If RSes use the term "mass shooting," and that content is added to the article, then "mass shooting" infobox parameters, templates, categories, etc. can be revisited. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the other discussions regarding these categories have become stagnant with no solid consensus, I will start a new one and provide reasoning for and against including categories relating to this event being a 'mass shooting'.
For
This shooting resulted in four gunshot-related casualties, including Donald Trump (not including the shooter). This would fit the definitions of a 'mass shooting' set by the Gun Violence Archive and the Mass Shooting Tracker, both of which are considered as acceptable definitions in the article List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024.
Both the Gun Violence Archive (see here) and the Mass Shooting Tracker (see here) have considered this event to be a mass shooting.
Several news articles, though not many, have called this event a mass shooting (or implied it to be one). 1, 2, 3, 4
There is no valid reasoning given that would not make this event a mass shooting, other than citing arbitrary definitions of the term 'mass shooting'.
While motive may be considered important, there is nothing that states a mass shooting must be committed with the intention of mass casualty. (See the 2016 Wilkinsburg shooting, 2024 Kansas City parade shooting, Wallasey pub shooting and 2022 Sacramento shooting as examples of mass shootings where many of the casualties were believed to have merely been bystanders caught in crossfire, rather than a result of an intentional attempt to cause mass casualty.)
Additionally, it can be argued motive is not important, i.e., a mass shooting is a mass shooting.
Categorising the event as a mass shooting does not affect the article in a significant way and will not detract from the content of the article. It will also improve the article's discoverability.
Against
The majority of articles do not call this event a mass shooting, potentially causing issues regarding reliable sources. (It is unclear if the aforementioned sources are considered reliable enough to stand up on their own.) This is the main issue.
To classify this event as a mass shooting may mislead readers into thinking that this event intentionally targeted more people than just Donald Trump, which is not confirmed at this time. On the contrary, to not classify this event as a mass shooting may also mislead readers into thinking only Donald Trump was targeted, which is also not confirmed at this time. To remedy this, a note in the article could be useful to explain this.
Anyway, that was all I could think of. Personally, I think mass shooting categories are applicable to this page, as certainly the Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting Tracker can be considered reliable sources and it plainly fits the definition of a mass shooting set by those organisations, which Wikipedia utilises in several of its articles. Macxcxz (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Starting a new discussion on this because the other ones did not gain consensus could be considered WP:TENDENTIOUS.
Additionally, please read WP:CATDEF, which states A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to suggests we shouldn't use this, because reliable sources do not commonly and consistently refer to this event as a Mass shooting. Additionally, you'll see in the footnote for that particular policy: in declarative statements, rather than table or list form suggests the two sources you've mentioned above would further disqualify the inclusion as a category. I'd also refer to the editing guideline regarding categories which states, A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
It didn't "come to no solid consensus" -- my memory is that it was more or less unanimously agreed by everybody except a single participant that this was a bad idea and should not be done. I second the request for this section to be hatted. jp×g🗯️14:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
to not classify this event as a mass shooting may also mislead readers into thinking only Donald Trump was targeted what do you mean by 'targeted'? All initial RSes seem to say (IMO) that Trump was the only one targeted - the shooter simply (mostly) missed the target. 185.62.159.164 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Butler Township officer injured ankle when he fell
Latest comment: 12 days ago31 comments9 people in discussion
I added the Butler Township officer who encountered Crooks to the injury count while specifying it was a non-gunshot injury.
Excerpt from source: 'Butler Township Manager Tom Knights said the officer lost his grip and was not retreating when he fell 8 feet (2.4 meters) to the ground.
“He was literally dangling from the edge of a building and took the defensive position he needed to at that time. He couldn’t hold himself up,” Knights said.
The officer, who has 10 years of experience in law enforcement, severely injured an ankle in the fall and was in a walking boot, Knights said.'[4]Raskuly (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@Bohbye Pinging you because you reverted the edit with the reason "Reverted good faith edits by Raskuly. Not a shooting injury". The injury total specified it included a non-gunshot injury so that doesn't appear to me to be a good reason for a revert. Raskuly (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Also I forgot to mention you reverted much more than just the total injury count, but also any mention of the Butler Township officer being injured. Raskuly (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The shooter did not injure the officer not by a firearm or punching him off. The officer fell and hurt himself. Bohbye (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
If it is clear that the person is injured, then I support adding it. Otherwise, we got two versions of the event that don't line up completely. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The injury is related to the chaos resulting from assassination attempt so it make sense to include so long as reliable sources are including it in the totals. Kcmastrpc (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Non-gunshot injuries have been included in similar articles and this is not some random dude, it is the officer who attempted to confront Crooks just before he opened fire on the former President.
I used the past tense: "engaged". It is at this point that I know you are not discussing in good faith, but are instead trolling. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I notice that you seem to be extremely fixated on the idea of adding more people to the total injury numbers, as in addition to this section there a second one directly below this where you're talking about WP:SYNTHing stuff from sources to say that the other random guy in the audience should be counted in the total because he got "grazed" (to an unspecified degree), and a different one from yesterday where you were saying we needed to WP:SYNTHly categorize this as a "mass shooting" by counting the assassin (who got shot by the police) as a victim of himself.
I really don't think that it is helpful to keep making a dozen different proposals to include every single random thing that happened that day in the article to get the number up, solely so it can be metamorphosed into a "mass shooting". jp×g🗯️07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
WWGB, "Klutz" is a violation of WP:BLP policy. Any more violations may lead to a block, so be cautious. You are talking about a human being who was likely doing their best at that particular moment. Do you have any solid evidence to the contrary? Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not WWGB, but I did mention the Sherriff's words in a different discussion which seems relevant to quote right now: The officer hoisted himself up on the roof to check on reports of a suspicious man, Slupe said. But the officer, who was not able to access a gun because he was gripping the edge of the roof, had to drop down when the shooter aimed his weapon at him, the sheriff said. “He lets go because he doesn’t want to get killed,” If the Sherriff's account is believable, the officer did drop to the ground to avoid getting shot. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm fixated on improving the article. "and a different one from yesterday where you were saying we needed to WP:SYNTHly categorize this as a "mass shooting" by counting the assassin (who got shot by the police) as a victim of himself." I did not say that. "I really don't think that it is helpful to keep making a dozen different proposals to include every single random thing that happened that day in the article to get the number up, solely so it can be metamorphosed into a "mass shooting"." Per our own article on the topic it already does qualify as such regardless of whether or not Jackson's nephew is included in the total injury total. Raskuly (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
You said To me it seems like an appropriate thing to add as it has been so far reported that there were at least five casualties. One attendee was killed, two attendees were injured, Donald Trump was injured, and the perpetrator was killed. It is indeed possible, if you go out of your way to use weird nitpicking technical definitions for every single word in the definition of "soup", to say that a bowl of cereal is a "soup". You are correct: nobody can definitively disprove that something described by every source as a cereal is technically a "soup", or that an event described by every source as an assassination is technically a "mass shooting".
The issue is that this is not the actual term that is used, by actual humans on the planet Earth, to describe the thing in question. jp×g🗯️10:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a consensus against adding mass shooting to the article, so we should move past that. Right now, all we seem to have is different accounts of the incident that don't fully line up. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It was a very minor injury (arguably) not part of the actual; incident as it was not gained by either trying to stop the shooter or protecting Trump (but rather in disengaging with the (at that point) not shooter, who (as the police said) at that point was breaking no law). Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
How was it not part of the actual incident? The guy fell after having Crooks point the gun at him. The Associated Press article used as citation: "The officer, who has 10 years of experience in law enforcement, severely injured an ankle in the fall and was in a walking boot, Knights said." That is a more serious injury than a graze which Trump received, so with that logic Trump shouldn't be included in the injury total either. Can you give me a source with this police statement? Raskuly (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not really, as Trump was the target, the police officer was not (and was not shot). He was injured before the incident took place during an attempt to disengage from the (at that point, not) shooter. This was not some hero cop injured in the line of duty, this was another cop deciding discretion was the better part of valour. And (as I said) the shotting had not started, so he was not part of this incident. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I took a look at your page and I've come to the realization that there is nothing to gain from engaging with you. Goodbye. Raskuly (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Worse still, it might be revealed that he listened to dangerous/immoral/harmful content like syncopated musicjazzswingbig band musicrock 'n rollhard rockheavy metalgangsta raphyperpoppodcasts (fill in as necessary) jp×g🗯️05:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like skinhead or neoNazis music might be notable to determining motive if it were found. Or extreme religious music. Never know what evidence might be useful EvergreenFir(talk)19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
GoFundMe blacklisted
Latest comment: 12 days ago15 comments7 people in discussion
The fact that we are allowed to talk about the GoFundMe campaign but we can't link it as reference is ridiculous
It was blacklisted because of frequent spam. You can add it to the external links section, but it is a primary, self-published source and should not be used as a reference in the article. CFA💬18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No, a GoFundMe should not be in the external links section either. Wikipedia is not social media. GMGtalk18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
A link to this specific GoFundMe would be allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL: "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided..." Since it is an "official link" (controlled by Donald Trump and relevant to why the subject is notable) it is exempt from WP:ELNO #4 ("Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages."). Again, I don't see the point in including it, but it is technically allowed. CFA💬18:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
GoFundMe isn't the subject of the article. This guidance allows for something like a link to the Pepsi website on the article about Pepsi. GMGtalk18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No, but it "primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable". The GoFundMe, in a way, is the official website of the subject (the assassination attempt). CFA💬18:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
You shouldn't be linking to the primary source, but to a secondary source discussing it. I see no reason the link should be whitelisted for this article. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
At any rate, it seems to have raised about $4.8m of a $1m goal, so I suppose we can be glad that this is accounted for regardless of inclusion. jp×g🗯️19:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Infobox image - Consensus seeking discussion
Latest comment: 12 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The image in the infobox has been a focal point of editor attention and has been subject to edit-warring, without discussion or consensus, since yesterday. I'm opening this section for editors to secure a consensus on where the image should be displayed. Should it be retained in the infobox, or moved to the section in which the image itself is discussed? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Unless and until we have a better image to replace the current Vucci photo, we should be using it for the infobox. Users, please feel free to upload and propose any images that you feel would make good replacements. Ideally, even if we don't use it this instant, it would be nice to have a good replacement handy just in case the Vucci photo gets deleted. Joe (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The use in the infobox does not meet our guidelines for fair use of copyrighted material. We can only use the image for discussion of the image itself. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We really need something better than the current image for the infobox: it is not even an image of the location at the time of the event, and as it is, at the resolution Wikipedia displays images at, it's largely indistinct. Joe (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"USSS Uniformed Division policemen on guard outside the White House the day after the attack"
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is it not normal for Secret Service to be on guard outside the White House or how is this related to the subject at all? Trade (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
AfD Iranian plot article
Latest comment: 12 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following article was made in haste within the last hour: Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump. I have nominated it for deletion here ([5]), and I assume that many of the editors on any side of the Wikipedia spectrum here would be interested in partaking in that conversation due to the related subject matter. TNstingray (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Misinformation and conspiracy theories section
Latest comment: 11 days ago63 comments12 people in discussion
Adding more info under the 'misinformation' category
I see a lot of people posting that it was an inside job, talking about how it took the Counter Assault Team a "long time" to respond and "let him climb to the roof" or that "they waited till Trump was down to shoot". Should this be added? Moirrey22 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The BBC article on disinformation is currently cited as follows in the article "On social media, there were widespread claims by left-wing accounts stating that the event was a false flag, and that Trump was not shot. According to BBC News, "lots of the most viral [misinformation and conspiracy theories], came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views."" If one were to ignore half the article, that might be considered a neutral summarization. The entire section seems to be based entirely on the author quoting random youtube comments as well as a tweets that was deleted with the author apologizing. After that follows a section on right-wing conspiracies which got many times as many views and include an actual Congressman blaming Biden. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyr7pyd0687o) At least from what I've seen, most of the false flag comments came from ideologically confused right-wingers or not overtly political conspiracy enthusiasts. One notable sentiment echoed on the left was that this incident, and the iconic photo, would almost certainly assure a Trump victory. (Not sure if theres good articles on that yet). Another factor is that efforts to replace Biden as the democratic nominee seem to haven faltered after the shooting, which is a notable consequence (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democratic-effort-replace-biden-comes-standstill-trump-rally-rcna161751https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-democrats-scramble-after-trump-rally-shooting-upends-campaign-2024-07-14/). Kremlin statement should probably also be included (https://www.thedailybeast.com/russia-gloats-over-shooting-trump-has-bidens-balls-in-his-hand).
This is a long-winded way of saying this is not a neutral summary of the article and the whole section needs work. — jonas (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources note it, @Jonas1015119:. The section starts off by saying: BBC News noted the current normalization of both across the political spectrum, noting that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe". What exactly is objectionable here? There's never a claim that "left-wing conspiracy theories were a majority" or a minority. KlayCax (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this whole section is silly: do we really need a compilation of times that some guy on social media said something dumb, and then a tally of how many of them were libs? Should we go to the article for Chicago and make a huge section called "harmful misleading narratives" and then list all the people on Twitter who said it was in Indiana and not Illinois, which was baseless untrue damaging evidence-free extremely dangerous misinformation thoroughly repeatedly discredited disproven and debunked by expert fact-checkers? Who cares? jp×g🗯️20:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
We include a conspiracy theory section in other articles. Two paragraphs is entirely WP: DUE. It's received overwhelming attention in WP: RS's and it's going to be something remembered for a long, long time.
Let reliable sources decide what is relevant and due and not waste our time overthinking it. CNC (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't have to think about it very hard to notice that people often say stuff online about ongoing breaking-news events, which turns out to later be untrue, and this is not really a coordinated action, or evidence of societal decay, or part of some sinister scheme. Like, do we need to accompany every single news event with a running feed of "at 1:45 PM, some guy on /pol/ said it was yet another perfidy of the Jew, meanwhile at 1:49 PM @hoxhaistcatgirl said on Twitter it was another fake KKKapitalist action movie staged by the united snaKKKes of ameriKKKa, make sure to get all your news from a reputable source like the New York Times, special introductory offer of just $4.99 per month"? These people say the same crap every day, and for that matter so does the newspaper (e.g. "you should buy a subscription to us!"). jp×g🗯️21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Your examples have nothing to do with the content in question. At least question the content, not theoretical examples. That's why I repeated that you're overthinking it, or arguably not thinking critically enough. Overall it seems like a reasonable summary of conspiracy theories from a diverse perspective, aside from some unnecessary additions; "LinkedIn co-founder...", "Alex Jones livestreamed...", and "Georgian prime minister...". No offence but that's how you criticise content, rather than speculating theoretical exmaples. CNC (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Re your edit: Unlike Alex Jones, Reid Hoffman is a far more influential figure. It's completely due to include his comments given the piece in Semafor. — hako9 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting to remove this also, or return the other examples? Bare in mind it's irrelevant how influential Reid Hoffman is, if there is only one source regarding this content (thus unlikely to be due). I'll remove Jones for now, for balance, as specific individual opinions aren't necessary. CNC (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Unlike Jones, Hoffman isn't someone who is just running his mouth and dabbling in a conspiracy theory. He actively pushed reporters to consider the attack as staged. Warrants inclusion imo.— hako9 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think it's best to stick to weight of RS and summarise as such, but you do you. I'm not here for an edit war so be bold. CNC (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no question of edit warring over this. We disagree on a point. That's perfectly fine. I won't restate. — hako9 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It's conceivable that a section on social media rumors could be warranted, but repeatedly editing everything about it (including this talk page section header) to push the sensationalized POV buzzword "misinformation" I think is completely unnecessary. jp×g🗯️22:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't get your idea of "POV buzzword". RS clearly identifies conspiracy theories and misinformation, I don't know where you got the idea of "rumours" from. What RS do you have that describe this predominantly as rumours, rather than conspiracies and misinformation? CNC (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours". CNC (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This needs immediately reverted ASAP, @CNC:. He just turned the section into a textbook WP: BLP violation.
Please stop edit-warring, and please stop lying about what the edits do: you have, multiple times, done reverts to 'remove BLP violations' that do not actually remove the sentence you claim is libelous. jp×g🗯️00:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
An editor recently removed "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" from the section and changed it into a version that suggested that there were valid theories that this event, among other things, was a false flag planned by Donald Trump and a right-wing "deep state" in the Secret Service. This is a textbook violation of WP: BLP and I reverted it under exception #7 of WP:3RRNO: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." This is a blatant violation of policy and is borderline libelous. We should absolutely not amplify any of this or give it credibility. These claims have already been debunked by multiple sources. I don't want to start an edit war here, nor am I asking for anyone to be punished, but this is grossly irresponsible and everyone involved in this definitely knows better: the involved editors making these changes - judging from their long history on Wikipedia and contributions - should absolutely know about WP: BLP before making a change like this. Pinging involved editors @CNC:, @JPxG:, @Hako9:. Also asking for other editors feedback. Thank you. KlayCax (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a wildly incorrect claim, and you are completely out of line by falsely accusing me of "giving it credibility". The edit I made mentioned, multiple times, that the claims were unverified and untrue; in fact, I added this, in a place where there had previously been a meaninglessly ambiguous soup of buzzwords. jp×g🗯️23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Your changes absolutely do give it credibility. Changing "misinformation" (which isn't a buzz word) and "conspiracy theories" (which isn't a buzz word) to "rumors" (which implies that the claims might be true) implies that the claims might be true.
Not only that: but then you reverted back (on a WP: BLP issue no less) despite multiple editors telling you to get consensus on talk.
No: you are lying. Here is the text of my revision.
Rumors on social media
Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media. According to The Washington Post: "As more Americans lose trust in mainstream institutions and turn to partisan commentators and influencers for information, experts say they are seeing a big uptick in the manufacture and spread of [left-wing] conspiracy theories, a sign that the communal warping of reality is no longer occurring primarily on the right."
BBC News said that "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe. According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views". Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump.
On X, NBC News said that conspiracy theories "gained traction" and "flourished" in the minutes afterwards, with the word "staged" becoming the second-highest trending topic immediately after "Trump". Right-wing conspiracy theories were also posted. "Antifa" also became a top trending topic after posts on X blamed the shooting on a "prominent Antifa activist", falsely identifying him as "Mark Violets" using a photograph of Marco Violi, an Italian soccer vlogger. QAnon-related accounts shared names of high-profile Democrats and Republicans, accusing them of colluding with the CIA.
The text says: "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media."
That directly implies that many of the claims made in the subsection are unverified but have significant plausibility. Multiple editors (including me) interpreted it that way. So it's not a ridiculous claim. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not mad at you, or accusing you of lying, or anything else, and I asked for this to be discussed on talk before any reversions were made. It's definitely true that unverified (but plausible) claims have been made about the event.
But by renaming the section from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "rumors" and without specifying which events have been debunked - while suggesting to many viewers that some of the wild claims listed are plausible or rumors that may have happened - it unambiguously crosses over into WP: BLP territory. Particularly on the extraordinary nature of the claims against a well-known figure. KlayCax (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
You're invoking 3RRNO over
−
Manypeoplepostedincorrectorunverifiedclaimsabouttheincident on social media.
+
[[Misinformation]] and [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] have spread wildly on social media.
Yes; they have been continually reverting to this version and refusing to explain why. I have just taken out the section entirely, so maybe we can discuss this on the talk page rather than 5RRing on the article (e.g. creating ECs for everyone else trying to edit it) jp×g🗯️00:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that POV-based language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false or untruths (and deliberately intended to deceive). We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".
Your changes imply that the claims are rumors or misinformation. Making the claims made in the conspiracy section sounding like credible "rumors" about Trump. That's a clear WP: BLP violation. KlayCax (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.
"Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
"Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)
The edits you made, as noted above, could easily be read (and I interpreted this way as well/along with CNC) that there are "unverified claims" that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" within the Secret Service (along with the other claims made) are presently unverified but plausible. That's massively problematic to say the least. This is exactly a case where "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." applies. I asked you to respond in a civil manner on talk. I definitely didn't lie. I simply asked for this to be discussed on talk before what looked to multiple editors (including me) as a massive violation of policy.
So, you're claiming 3RRNO for using rumors rather than misinformation and conspiracy theories? Where is there a suggestion that any were true, especially dealing with a false flag? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
1.) The removal of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" with "unverified claims" and "incorrect claims" (see above)
2.) The claim that this is a WP: NPOV violation. (See here.)
Note that the original edit he made completely removed any mention that it was debunked, and left this paragraph, under a section that was renamed to "rumors on social media": According to BBC News, much of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views".[178] Many left-wing accounts claimed that Trump was not shot, that the blood on Trump's ear was from a theatrical gel pack, that the shooting was a false flag coordinated by the Secret Service in collaboration with the Trump campaign, and that crisis actors were deployed by a right-wing "deep state" to reelect Trump. I would call the practical effect, even if not in intention, a clear case where WP: BLP comes into play. KlayCax (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
If you bring that to BLPN, which you should anytime you're using BLPRESTORE, I think you'll find there is little support that what you're describing is the clear and unambiguous BLP violation severe enough to excuse edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Suggested content for "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" for more objective presentation of data concerning the rumors and misinformation across the political spectrum:
In the aftermath of the incident, social media platforms were flooded with unverified claims and conspiracy theories from across the political spectrum.[1] According to media reports, the spread of these theories highlighted a growing distrust in mainstream institutions and a tendency for people to seek information from partisan commentators and influencers.[2]
The rhetoric has ranged from people across the political spectrum concocting 'false flag' conspiracies and even blaming innocent people for either committing this crime or inspiring it, and inciting fear of a civil war.[3][4][5]
Fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets worked to debunk these claims, emphasizing the lack of evidence for any conspiracy theories. Misinformation experts are calling on the public not to share unconfirmed information.[6]
What's "non-objective" about it? We don't need to say "according to media reports" (which is verbose and vague). The other suggested changes are even worse, obscuring what the articles state. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
^ [misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online. misinformation experts urged the public not to share unconfirmed information online.] {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Needless to say, all these so-called "rumours" are described as either conspiracy theories, misinformation, or otherwise condemned/identified as disinformation (ie intentional misinformation, as opposed to potentially unintentional). I even searched for "Trump assassination rumours" and there was only the BBC article referenced above, that as identified refers to "false" or "unfounded rumours" - so as to avoid the implication that they could be true.
This seems good. I would propose we use the section previously in the article as a template, since there does not seem to be any consensus substantiating the alleged BLP concerns (e.g. that calling something an "incorrect claim" meant we were endorsing it, and therefore violating BLP).
I am not sure what the significance is of repeatedly quoting specific words (e.g. "rumor", "misinformation", "unsubstantiated claim") -- I assume this is related to the extremely long chain of (untrue) accusations made in the BLPN thread that I was trying to somehow whitewash or justify the claims by calling them "incorrect" or "untrue" rather than, specifically, the word "misinformation" verbatim. jp×g🗯️14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The source analysis is so we can decide on the best header and description for the section. Based on weight of sources, I suggest "Conspiracy theories and misinformation", as "rumors on social media" isn't referenced by RS (or even accurate). There's an argument for "Conspiracy theories and disinformation", but I think it's best to play it safe as not all the misinformation is described as such.
The previous section could be used as a template, but in retrospect only two reliable sources (BBC/NBC) of two dozen were used (the other two I'm not convinced about), so starting from scratch using the wealth of RS available might be a better idea. It "just" needs someone motivated to go through the sources and write a summary based on what's due. Given the number of sources available, no doubt most of it won't be due for inclusion unless referenced multiple times. There's enough sourcing on this topic it could even be a standalone article at this point, if editors believe there should be more indepth coverage available. I'm not convinced but not opposed either.
I figured that you were collecting these sources to write the article, not solely to insist on a specific phrase being used as a section header. I have to admit I am still rather mystified as to the extremely-literal approach you insist is required here, and nowhere else. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that strictly mandates the use of verbatim words from newspapers, and forbids the use of any summary/paraphrase/synonym whatsoever. Per MOS:W2W, there is quite a bit of language we are supposed to be actively avoiding, specifically editorial language and journalistic jargon. For example, in your list of headlines, there is lots of stuff that would obviously be extremely inappropriate to write in a Wikipedia article.
"conspiracies outpaced reality"
"conspiracy theories flood the internet"
"unleashes a flood of misinformation"
"disinformation swirls"
"sparks flood of wild conspiracy theories"
I understand that these phrases are florid, emotionally evocative, and that they give a compelling, dramatic image of a dangerous threat. However, it is explicitly the purpose of Wikipedia's house style to avoid florid language that evokes emotionally compelling, dramatic images. This is the exact opposite of what we are supposed to be doing!
Indeed, in one of the versions of the section that was repeatedly restored, it said not only that conspiracy theories were "posted on social media", but that they were -- direct quote -- "spread wildly" [sic]. This is, to me, blatantly editorializing and unencyclopedic; that's why I had started to copyedit it (I was not finished, as I was actively prevented from doing so). I am strongly opposed to the idea of having a section in the article that uses gimmicky language like "spread wildly", such as the one that you've repeatedly attempted to restore. jp×g🗯️16:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Overall I agree that these (bolded) descriptions are not encyclopedic and that these descriptions shouldn't be included, so no arguments there. "Spread wildly" would be better written as "spread to X number of users" or simply "became widespread". It does remind of an argument I had a long-time ago over the use "spread misinformation" vs "posted misinformation". The former implies the dissemination of misinformation, the latter implies only publishing it, whereas there is a distinct difference. But otherwise, this has nothing to do with what I proposing regarding the header or otherwise description or the section.
For reference sake I didn't take issue with certain copy-editing that you undertook, for me it was based on the header description, as well as unncessary removal of a basic summary. Unless the sources state "unverified claims", we shouldn't be implying this. To clarify also, I never attempted to repeatedly restore any gimmicky language - you will find no diffs of this, so no need for accusations. To the contrary, I suggested that a section should be written from scratch from a batter pool of reliable sources.
I think it's best to try and get to bottom of this, so as to explain issues with inaccurate language. No one is suggesting to use verbatim language, but simply to use the language which is most accurate. Here are some Oxford Language definitions for context(*):
Rumor: "a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth".
Misinformation: "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Conspiracy theory: "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon."
This should make it quite clear the difference between the three terms. When reliable sources document false information "deliberately intended to deceive", then we shouldn't be describing it as "uncertain or doubtful truth". The former confirms the claims as false as well as the intent, the latter describes a level of ambiguity with lack of intent. This is unquestionably not a question of using buzzwords, but accurate use of language from an encyclopedic perspective . If you know of any alternatives words to use, then I'm all ears. "Deceptively false or inaccurate information" doesn't sound like a good header though when a single word could replace it.
I'm otherwise currently not motivated to put in the work to comb through all these sources in order to write a section that I have good reason to believe will be stonewalled, given your aversion to the use of such language. I'm otherwise concerned that based on how deep you've unconditionally dug into this, that other editors won't be motivated to try and write another section either.
I support a section summarizing what reliable sources have reported on this subject, and I also strongly support using the previous section heading - Misinformation and conspiracy theories. Yes, leave the buzzwords out and use neutral terms, but there is no reason that a summary of what reliable sources have published should be excluded from this article.Isaidnoway(talk)21:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Section title
@CommunityNotesContributor: I see you have reverted someone else to restore the section title -- okay, I guess -- and it is now unbelievably long, to the point of looking like satire; it's longer than the entire section about every reaction from world leaders combined. I would still really prefer you take an approach other than repeatedly editing the article to say what you want. jp×g🗯️16:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't revert someone this is false. I changed it from "Conspiracy theories" to "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" per @Isaidnoway's suggestion above.[6] "Conspiracy theories" alone wasn't accurate to reflect the content, that is instead predominantly misinformation, as well as some conspiracies here and there. I was consequently thanked by @Ocaasi who had changed the title from "On social media" to "Conspiracy theories" (I assume that's the revert your describing).[7] So there appears to be rough consensus for this, rather than being based on "what I want", as I had no issues with the original title but clearly others would prefer a more accurate version, so I respected this. Depending on what other editors think is best, being titled "Misinformaiton" may be simpler and in line with your desire of a more concise header; based on all conspiracy theories being a form of misinformation, but not all misinformation being conspiracies. CNC (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
CNC, there is nothing wrong with the sub-section heading, thanks for changing it. And it is notunbelievably long, to the point of looking like satire, that's hyperbolic nonsense. I'd also note the sect. heading is supported by sources:
Per the headlines and articles posted here, would you say that these are encyclopedic ways to describe when false information is posted on the Internet (and not merely encyclopedic, but required to be used over other phrases)?
"swirling", "flooding", "sparking a flood", "dominating", "flourishing", "deluging", "taking flight", "spreading", "flying", "flooding the internet", "unleashing a flood", "providing cannon fodder for a barrage", "surging", "overwhelming"
being "weaponized", "pushed", "ignited", "spread", "spiraled", and "unleashed"
I just really don't think that we should be using breaking-news articles as binding requirements for what words we use to describe things. It's one thing if there is a specific technical term being used, and there is some concrete reason why this term must be used, and absolutely no synonym is permitted -- but my understanding of the term "misinformation" is that it simply refers to "information" that is "untrue". Is there some other meaning to the word, which it is crucially important that we preserve? jp×g🗯️20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what the list of WP:HEADLINES have been posted for, we simply go by what RS reports in body. Do you have examples of sourcing to headlines, or is this just theoretical? Either way not going to argue that guidelines on headlines is important to uphold for all editors, but best to provide examples if it's being breached, as I haven't seen an instance of this. Otherwise as already documented above, misinformation means "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive" (emphasis added), so is distinct from simply false information. CNC (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate content
@JPxG. The following paragraph in "On social media" (confusingly the previous header title of Misinformation section), was removed as it was duplicate content of that section, as explained in the edit summary "remove duplicate content" [8]"
"While some people on the Internet (including left- and right-wing users) suggested or claimed that the attack had been staged as a false flag, and the words "Trump" and "staged" were briefly the two highest-trending topics in the period immediately after the attack, no evidence emerged to support that this was the case."
I see you've now restored, claiming the the removal was "unexplained".[9] So as to elaborate, the misinformation section clearly documents the left-wing and right-wing theories in detail, both "false flag" and "staged". So what is the benefit of duplicating this content within the social media section? CNC (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally "prominent Antifa activist" is referenced in both sections; as an example of a hoax in the social media section, and with more context in the conspiracy theory section. These examples appear to be a WP:CONTENTFORK, given the misinformation and conspiracy theories section predates this "on social media" section. There's otherwise two paragraphs left that still works. CNC (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
You explained above that you're drawing a distinction between "misinformation" and "false information".
You have, at great length, insisted that the "misinformation" section title not mention social media, and that the content not be edited or expanded to cover social media reactions more broadly.
If you want to own the section -- you've been quite clear that I am not allowed to edit your section, that your section isn't about the reactions on social media, that you do not want anything in your section to be about people's reactions more broadly, and it is exclusively to be about coverage of conspiracy theories and misinformation. You have said many times that your "misinformation" section is NOT for general reactions on social media -- okay, great. There can be a different section for that then.
I am trying to assume good faith here, despite the increasingly convoluted objections to nearly every single edit I make on the article, but last night several hours were wasted in a BLPN thread where you persistently advanced the bizarre (and wildly against consensus) claim that using the words "rumors" and "false and unverified" instead of "misinformation" to describe something was somehow defamatory. You made up fake quotes and attributed them to me multiple times. This is dumb.
I asked you then: please leave me alone, please let me work on the page, and please do not deliberately waste my time with nonsense. jp×g🗯️22:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Safiel (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This whole section has been removed and the suggested changes clearly aren't non-controversial. Jamedeus (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)