This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pittsburgh Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance). Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

	Page history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I attempted to revive this discussion back in October 2024, but nobody responded to it, which was somewhat disheartening. Anyway, I'll try again.

I am again proposing the addition of categories relating to this event being a mass shooting, for example Category:2024 mass shootings in the United States. I believe that the current content of the article supports this, and that there is now enough reliable sources calling either this event a mass shooting or Thomas Crooks a 'mass shooter' so that further content supporting this could be added to the article if necessary.

Previous discussion concluded that "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". I believe that this is now the case. The "Motive" section states, among other things, that "The assassination attempt fits some definitions of a mass shooting, but it is unclear if this was intentional on Crooks's part."

As I wrote in my October talk page topic, I also found several additional reliable sources that qualify the event and/or Crooks as a mass shooting/mass shooter, so if what is already written in the Motive section is not satisfactory for other editors, those sources could be inserted into the article. I do not personally think that it is necessary, so I have not added them myself yet, and I will wait to see what others think. I am also reluctant to add this information in the body of the article given that the outcomes of previous discussions on the "mass shooting" topic might result in its premature removal by other editors anyway, so I'd rather discuss it before adding this information.

So, main point is that I believe that the article has changed enough since previous conclusive discussions so that these categories are now appropriate. This discussion is basically just seeing if people agree with that, or believe that more supporting content needs to be added. Macxcxz (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources argue that this was a mass shooting, but as far as I can tell, that's not widely accepted, and not how the event is commonly described. Yes, there are several sources that use the words mass shooting, but that doesn't prove much, because I'm sure we can easily find hundreds of sources that don't use these words. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I appreciate your bringing it up and providing sources. I hope others will voice their opinion! — Chrisahn (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This event was panned as staged because the ap news sources reported on it before it took place. 67.146.12.55 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — EF5 ^(questions?) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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