This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 StatesPresidents of the United States
A news item involving Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2024.
Wikipedia
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Can we add the Medical Documents that show the wound and the number of stitches or the name of the plastic surgeon that rebuilt the ear. Cause an AR Hit would have destroyed the Ear. Period.
Wrong. The entry wound for a 5.56 round is millimeters big. Almost impossible to see sometime, and the ear is too thin to cause a real substantial exit wound. Tell me you don’t understand the physics of a 5.56 round without telling me. 202.47.239.86 (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't "shot in the ear" technically. He was grazed. A graze injury isn't medically a gunshot wound, but it is inflicted by gunfire. Therefore, to say he was "shot in the ear" isn't a giant stretch from the truth but it's slightly misleading. Overall, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by saying this. There are photos online of a bullet passing by Trump's head. There isn't some giant conspiracy here. The only people who believe ANY of the conspiracy theories aren't led by facts, they have a confirmation bias because they want to win political points. MountainJew6150 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2025 (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]
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]
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. EF520:15, 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. EF520:20, 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]
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. EF520:01, 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]
Wasn't there already a consensus to include the image, since it had been a part of the article before? I remeber there was a lot contention before its inclusion.
As for WP:NFC#UUI rule number 6, it states that it is forbidden "to illustrate an article passage about the image". Including the image for its own sake in a relevant article is *not* illustrating an article passage about the image. These are two separate uses and hence I don't see how the rule would apply here. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with other recommendations that the famous photo be used for the article. It is iconic and regardless of political persuasion, this is the image that will be used in the history books - contributing greatly to Trump’s electoral victory. 2601:8C3:8600:D00:6D6A:B832:DB6F:F771 (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but notice that the conspiracy theories revolving around this shooting are extremely prevalent online and even well over a year later, we still have people who sincerely believe one or another conspiracy theory revolving this incident. Whether the Democrats tried to kill Trump or if Trump staged the assassination attempt for votes, both are insanely common everywhere. Online, day-to-day people, and even polls suggest hundreds of millions of Americans cling to some assassination attempt conspiracy theory here.
The sections on this page for misinformation and conspiracy theories are immense and I think it really does deserve its own page. And ironically, when I entered this talk page to write out this split proposal, I was immediately greeted with a user expressing doubt that Trump was shot at all. That really is the proof we need for the conspiracy theory page to exist. Having a concise name for it will be very difficult, but Donald Trump attempted assassination in Pennsylvania misinformation might be the best we can do. Alternatively we can replace 'misinformation' with 'conspiracy theories' but the title is already lengthy as is. MountainJew6150 (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
