Talk:2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect needs fix

The WP redirect to this article needs to be corrected from "Michael sandford" to "Michael Steven Sandford" by a WP editor with skills of editing redirects.2001:558:6008:3B:82C:C6AA:3835:4D74 (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Man who tried to assassinate Trump says voices ordered him to kill

Man who tried to assassinate Trump says voices ordered him to kill New article says that Michael Sandford now claims that he was hearing voices telling him to kill Trump, which is a common cover story among terroristic-style mass killers and assassins with no apparent political motives who appear to be mentally ill, yet they select targets, plan and prepare elaborate tactics and methods and use cover stories similar to a covert operative mission. Florida Airport Assailant May Have Heard Voices Urging Violence, Officials Say By LIZETTE ALVAREZ, RICHARD FAUSSET and ADAM GOLDMANJAN. 6, 2017The Fort Lauderdale airport shooter also heard voices "Federal law enforcement officials said they were investigating whether the gunman who opened fire on Friday at the airport here, killing five people and wounding eight, was mentally disturbed and heard voices in his head telling him to commit acts of violence." Bachcell (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The first part could be added to this article about Michael Sandford's claims. However, the second part about being a "cover story" isn't for us to decide per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ^Falling_Gravity 17:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee

By June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, as evidenced by stories at the time in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and BBC News. He was not a dark horse candidate or even merely the odds-on favorite. By June 18, his nomination a foregone conclusion. This article said he was the presumptive nominee and someone took it out. I put it back with three references. The references can go, but the status of Donald Trump as presumptive nominee is part of the story and should remain. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2017‎ (UTC)

. . .

At about the time of my above comment, I edited the article page with this summary:

• update Chicago Tribune/Washington Post link to go straight to The Washington Post; Wikilinks; update URLs; 'presumptive' nominee with three <ref>s (piling on; OK to remove 2 refs and 'presumptive' comments); italics/not; improve <ref>s;

Niteshift36 reverted that edit with this summary:

• Some say it, some don't. The LEAD, above all, should be NPOV. Also, don't restore other material with a blanket revert. I get it, you're a Trump fan, but try DISCUSSION first.

Confusion 1: Niteshift36 says, "Some say it, some don't." That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not require every source to say A is B in order for Wikipedia to say A is B. If several reliable sources (or even one reliable source) say A is B, and no reliable sources say A isn't B, we can say A is B in Wikipedia. I offered three reliable sources from around June 18, 2016, saying that Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee. To avoid any doubt, for named refs, where one can't alter the reference with a quote irrelevant to other uses, I put an HTML comment next to the <ref>. The three sources from that version are, with the external links intentionally removed:

1. Michael E. Miller (June 21, 2016). "British man accused of trying to kill Donald Trump acted 'weird' and 'nervous' before rally". The Washington Post. "the presumptive GOP presidential candidate"
2. "Trump suspect Michael Sandford was a 'very quiet lad'". BBC News. June 21, 2016. "the presumptive Republican nominee"
3. Maggie Haberman; Vindu Goel (June 19, 2016). "Apple, Uneasy Over Donald Trump, Won't Support Republican Convention". The New York Times. "Trump, the party's presumptive presidential nominee"

The first two sources are named references and the quotes are in HTML comments. The third source has the quote along with the full reference. I could easily have used more than three references, but Wikipedia:Citation overkill warns against it, and in light of Wikipedia:Citation overkill I specifically stated in my edit summary

• 'presumptive' nominee with three <ref>s (piling on; OK to remove 2 refs and 'presumptive' comments);

intending that, once Niteshift36 accepts undeniable reality, some editor or I would remove most of the references to this point.

Confusion 2: Niteshift36 says, "The LEAD, above all, should be NPOV." That is fine, but saying that by around June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party is consistent with WP:NPOV, which begins, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Saying that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party was:

• fair
• proportionate (it isn't excessive or extreme)
• without editorial bias
• supported by three reliable sources

So my edit was consistent with NPOV.

Confusion 3: Niteshift36 says, "Also, don't restore other material with a blanket revert." Forgive me if I misunderstand this, but this seems to mean, "I, Niteshift 36, realize that you, Anomalocaris, made many changes to the article along with stating that by around June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, and because I am more special than you, I have a right to revert your edit in order to get rid of the part I dispute, but you don't have the same right; if you want your other changes you have to do them all by hand." This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If Niteshift36 had a legitimate problem with the statement that by around June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Niteshift36 should have removed that statement and left the other edits alone.

Confusion 4: Niteshift36 says, "I get it, you're a Trump fan," which is not supported by my edits of this or any other Wikipedia article, and even if true, would be irrelevant to this dispute. I have endeavored to edit this and any other article relating to Donald Trump in a neutral and fair manner, and I believe I have been successful in this endeavor. Moreover, there are abundant citations establishing the fact that by around June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party; it is neither pro-Trump nor anti-Trump to acknowledge this.

Confusion 5: Niteshift36 says, "but try DISCUSSION first." I did that. I started this discussion right here on this talk page.

In summary, Niteshift36 is confused about 5 things:

1. How Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is used to support the text we put in our articles.
2. How Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies.
3. How Niteshift36 isn't more special than Anomalocaris.
4. How allegations of bias are out of place when there is no evidence to support the alleged bias.
5. How Anomalocaris did discuss the matter right here on this talk page.

In light of this discussion, I am restoring my previous edit. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• You sure said a lot to actually say very little. And finishing with "in light of this discussion" is pretty much a lie. You've engaged in no actual discussion at all.

Your "confusion 1": Some sources were calling him the presumptive nominee, some didn't. True, Wikipedia doesn't require unanimity, but it does look at the general trend. Because you cherry picked 3 sources that did use the phrase doesn't make this a settled issue. That's where discussion comes into play.

Your "confusion 2": I feel it does create a bias.

Your "confusion 3": Ignoring your overly dramatic, borderline personal attack, it means that you restored other items not related to the "presumptive nominee" issue without any sort of discussion about them.

Your "confusion 4": The fact that you continually tried inserting this event into another list, again without discussion, despite the fact that it didn't meet the list criteria, does seem to indicate an affection for the topic. Or it could be ignorance on your part. I picked affection over ignorance, but if you want to contradict me on that, I'll go with that.

Your "confusion 5": Across 2 articles, you posted a single statement. You've made numerous reverts before that single statement. Stop pretending like you've "discussed" anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36: When replying to a user anywhere but their own talk page, it is polite to use {{Reply to}}, or, as I do, simply mention them in a [[User:...]]: reference.

If you think I said very little, that's your problem. Calling me a liar is unsupported by any evidence and goes against WP:Assume Good Faith.

Confusions:

1. Wikipedia doesn't require a "general trend"; it requires a Reliable Source. I provided several. I didn't cherry pick. I looked at articles already reference in the article, dated within the first few days after the event, and two of the first three articles I opened used the word "presumptive." Then I went to The New York Times and did a search for "Trump Vegas" (without the quote) for a range of dates from the date of the event to a few days after, and the first article I opened used the word "presumptive". So it wasn't cherry picking. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hypothetically, had I opened 50 articles in quality media such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, and BBC News, and found only three articles saying that Trump was the presumptive nominee, and had I not found any articles that said that there was a significant probability that he would not win the Republican nomination, that would have been sufficient to use "presumptive". But never mind the hypothetical. In fact, I looked at four news stories from the time and three said that Trump was the presumptive nominee; the fourth didn't address the matter.
2. You haven't explained why it is biased to say that Trump was the presumptive nominee, when numerous reliable sources say he was the presumptive nominee.
3. The personal attack was you against me, not me against you. You are the one who privileged yourself as having the right to undo an edit making many useful changes, only one of which you didn't like, and denying me right to restore my edits except painstakingly by hand. Now you try to evade responsibility by suggesting (without any supporting evidence) that the other changes I made in the edit you reverted are controversial and needed discussion in advance. I don't think it's controversial to change a link from a story in the Chicago Tribune republished from The Wfashington Post to link to the original in The Washington Post. I don't think it's controversial to add Wikilinks. I don't think it's controversial to update URLs. And even if any of these changes are controversial, they don't need discussion in advance. Furthermore, contrary to your mistaken claim that I "restored other items", most of these changes I made in the edit noted above were new changes I had never made before. In short, you reverted my edit without even examining it, privileging yourself over other editors.
4. One editor's speculation on another editor's alleged affection for a topic has no bearing on what is appropriate for any article.
5. If this is not a discussion, I don't know what is. [Edited: More to the point, the fact remains: Niteshift36's reversion edit summary said "but try DISCUSSION first" many hours after I had already begin this very thread on this talk page. I pointed this out above, and rather than acknowledge that it was an error to demand that I try discussion first when I had already done so, Niteshift36 tried to pretend the problem away by demanding "Stop pretending like you've 'discussed' anything." —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)]

• In light of established facts about the state of the world around June 18, 2016, cited in several independent reliable sources, this discussion has wasted a ludicrous amount of time.
• And now, I present proof that Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee by around June 18, 2016. The final primary was Washington, D.C., June 14, 2016, four days before the attempted assassination. There were no more primaries for other Republican candidates to pick up delegates. Six days later, on June 24, Bloomberg published an article showing that Donald Trump had 1,543 pledged delegates, with only 1,237 needed to win: "Who's Winning the Presidential Delegate Count?". Bloomberg Politics. July 24, 2016. In other words, Trump needed at least 50% of the delegates and he had over 62% of the delegates. His nomination was a foregone conclusion. He was the presumptive nominee. You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. This really ought to end the matter.

Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The New York Times also tracked pledged delegates, and archive.org has the Delegate Count page from June 18, 2016:

• Wilson Andrews; Kitty Bennett; Alicia Parlapiano (June 17, 2016). "2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 18, 2016.

The page archived June 18, 2016, shows Donald Trump with 1,447 pledged delegates, plus 95 superdelegates who theoretically had the right to move their support to another candidate (which total to 1,542, one less than Bloomberg reported 6 days later). Even if all 95 of Trump's superdelegates changed to another candidate, the 1,447 pledged delegates Trump had on June 18, 2016, were still well over the 1,237 needed to win. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody on the planet disputes that he was a Republican candidate. It is subjective to call him the "presumptive nominee", even if SOME reliable sources used that terminology, some did not use that terminology. ALL sources agreed that he was a Republican candidate. So please explain what the article is less informative by using the undisputed, completely nonsubjective terminology instead of the subjective, non-unanimous term. In other words, what does adding your terminology truly add to the understanding of the event? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36: I edited this Wikipedia article to include a fact (1) supported by reliable sources (2) disputed by no reliable sources (3) objectively established using the actual pledged delegate count and therefore (4) not subjective. You have again reverted my edits and demanded I go to the talk page, even though we already hashed this out on this talk page. In this discussion, you have not grappled with

• How Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is used to support the text we put in our articles. Hint: the requirement is for at least one reliable source, not some general media consensus.
• The plethora of reliable sources by the date of the attempted assassination stating that Trump was the presumptive nominee.
• The lack of any contemporaneous reliable sources disputing this fact.
• The delegate count, which guaranteed that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination.

Even if the term "presumptive" is deemed subjective, there is no Wikipedia rule saying we can't use it. If a reliable source says something happened on a sunny day, we can use that fact even without an objective definition of "sunny day".

You ask how the article is improved by saying that Trump was the presumptive nominee. A reader of this article may know that Donald Trump was eventually the Republican nominee for president of the United States for the general election of November 2016, but may not know that on the date of the assassination attempt, he had the nomination sewn up, with well over 50% of the delegates pledged to him. It is helpful to inform the reader of this fact, and the word presumptive does this elegantly.

Before I edit in an ongoing dispute, I go to the talk page and read the discussion carefully. Before you reverted my last edit, did you review this talk page, including the part above where I showed the archived delegate counts?—Anomalocaris (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: Niteshift36: Your previous article edit summary included "you're restoring much more than just the 'presumptive part." Yes, I also restored media Wikilinks. I believe that references should include Wikilinks to media sources. Benefits include that this helps disambiguate, e.g. ABC News from ABC News (Australia), and helps readers identify newspapers with articles at names different from the newspaper name, such as The Hill. Why do you unilaterally remove such links that other editors put in? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinks are there to enhance the understanding of the article. Repeatedly linking BBC or Washington Post doesn't do that. "Presumptive" is subjective. The very nature of the word is to "presume" something. I don't see where your reasoning about the helpfulness flies, but let's see if you can gain any consensus for your position. Thus far, one other editor has opposed it in another discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36: Thank you for your thoughts on this matter.

It is customary to indent talk page replies, and when you want to revert to the left edge, it is customary to precede such entries with {{outdent}}, which generates the following symobol:

which helps clarify that the even though the following comment is left justified, it is still a reply.

Regarding wikilinks in the reference section, these are clearly authorized. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repeated_links, which says: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes...." I restored repeated wikilinks in the footnotes, as authorized by the manual of style.

Let's look at the definition of "presumptive" at Dictionary.com:

adjective

1. affording ground for presumption :

presumptive evidence.

2. based on likelihood or presumption:

a presumptive title; the presumptive nominee.

3. regarded as such by presumption; based on inference.

Our case fits all three definitions.

1. affording ground for presumption: We base our presumption that on June 18, 2016, Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee on the fact that that he had well over 50% of the delegates pledged to him; there are both party rules and state laws requiring pledged delegates to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged unless and until released by that candidate; and in the long history of American political party nominating conventions, nearly all pledged delegates have abided by this rule.
2. based on likelihood or presumption: Given the ample margin above 50% of the delegates pledged to Donald Trump and the historical pattern of nearly all delegates abiding by the rule requiring them to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, the likelihood is extremely high.
3. regarded as such by presumption; based on inference: Numerous reliable sources do make this presumption, and I presume that they do this based on the same inference that I do, viz. the inference noted in points 1 and 2 above.

So, Niteshift36, that establishes the correctness of the use of presumptive in this context. It's supported by reliable sources and it fits the dictionary definition. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for needlessly defining the word presumptive (I have dictionary.com too), then giving me your personal interpretation of how you think it fits. Whether you feel that there is grounds for a presumption of not, it is still a presumption, which requires a certain amount of "fill in the blank". Note "based on likelihood" (demonstrating that it's not a fact) and "based on inference". Again, the fact that he was a candidate is indisputable. Using the "presumptive nominee" terminology, is a matter of interpretation and using selected sources. It truly doesn't seem to add anything substantial to the article, so I'm not sure why the insistance is so strong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36: Thank you for your reply.

• Let me acknowledge good faith on both sides of this dispute. I strongly believe we both want "what's best for Wikipedia" — we simply disagree on what's best in this particular case.
• As I reminded you at 09:02, 1 June 2017, when replying to a user anywhere but their own talk page, it is polite to use {{Reply to}}, or, as I do, simply mention them in a [[User:...]]: reference.
• Defining "presumptive" was not "needless"; I needed it to show that that by June 18, 2016, Trump was the "presumptive" nominee by all three definitions.
• My argument consists of facts and logic. Calling it "personal interpretation" does not undermine its validity in any way.
• It is incorrect to call it "personal interpretation". The facts and logic that I applied above are exactly that, facts and logic. If I have reliable sources saying "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man" it is not "personal interpretation" to conclude that "Socrates is mortal." I provided the dictionary definition of "presumptive" and used facts and logic to show that it applies here.
• If you want to cast doubts on my facts and logic, please do so by citing reliable sources that disagree with my facts, or explain the errors in my logic. But remember, even if you can cast doubt on the fact that on June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican party nominee, you still have to overcome the plethora of reliable sources that say that he was the presumptive nominee, because Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not necessarily by what is "true".
• Your criticism of the use of the word "presumptive" is "it is a presumption". Yes, as of June 18, 2016, we could say "It is a presumption that the Republican Party will eventually nominate Donald Trump as its candidate for president of the United States in the 2016 general election." And that presumption is based on the overwhelming delegate advantage, with well over 50% of the delegates pledged to Trump, essentially assuring the inevitability of his nomination. So I don't see how "it is a presumption" undermines my argument in any way. Yes, it is "based on likelihood." Yes, we could dream up numerous scenarios as of June 18, 2016, under which Donald Trump wouldn't get the nomination. He could have, well, been assassinated. A meteorite might have fallen on him. He might have died in an elevator malfunction. We can think of thousands of such scenarios. But with the the nominating convention only one month away, the probability was extremely high that Donald Trump would get the nomination, and that's what "presumptive" means.
• I have already explained how including the fact of presumptivity benefits the reader.
• From the Milky Way's Galactic Central Point, nothing that happens in the Solar System is of much significance, but to inhabitants of Earth, the detail that by June 18, 2016, the nomination of Donald Trump was a foregone conclusion is worth the cost of a few additional bytes in the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
• You say "is a matter of interpretation and using selected sources."
  • It's not "interpretation" when reliable sources from the weeks before, the day of, and a few days after June 18, 2016, say exactly what I'm saying, "Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee."
  • It's not "selected sources" when every reliable source from that time that I checked says he was the presumptive nominee and no reliable source from that time said that he was not the presumptive nominee.
• Wikipedia content is determined by reliable sources, and several reliable sources support the word "presumptive", while no reliable sources undermine this in any way.
• Wikipedia acknowledges this fact elsewhere. In Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Republican Party, it says:
  • Without any further chances of forcing a contested convention, Cruz suspended his campaign and Trump was declared the presumptive Republican nominee by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus on the evening of May 3. Kasich dropped out the next day. After winning the Washington primary and gaining support from unbound North Dakota delegates on May 26, Trump passed the threshold of 1,237 delegates required to guarantee his nomination.
• So in addition to all of the reliable sources I've already listed, we also have the statement of the chairman of the party's national committee on May 3, 2016, more than six weeks before the assassination attempt, not that we need any more reliable sources at this point.

References

—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please stop with the "it's polite to notify..." I see you doing this to other experienced users as well. Clearly you have the page watchlisted, as do I. There have been a number of exchanges. You're obviously not missing the responses, so please stop trying to force others into doing things that are merely your personal preference.What Wikipedia "acknowledges" elsewhere is of no importance since Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and consensus can be different in different articles. It is "selected sources" because I can easily produce sources that report the same incident and don't use the terminology "presumptive nominee". Once again, that he was a candidate is not in dispute. You've shown no compelling reason to change it. I don't see any consensus to change it. I do see at least one other experienced user who opposes this terminology (albeit in a different list discussion). I do, however, appreciate that you feel we're both doing what we think is best for the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36:

• My previous comment was indented with three colons. You indented your reply with two colons, which made it less indented than my message, so I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of inserting two more colons in your reply for proper indenting.
• I do not have this page watchlisted.
• Since you object to "it's polite to notify" I will not remind you again in this way. (Nobody else has asked me not to do this.)
• Please use {{Reply to}}, or [[User:...]] when you reply to me on any talk page except my own.
• What Wikipedia says on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Republican Party is a fact sourced with reliable sources. Reliable sources determine what can be included in Wikipedia.
• The fact a something has been in several other Wikipedia articles for a very long time without objection does not prove that the item is correct, but it adds weight to the overwhelming case I have presented.
• Compelling reasons to include that as of June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican nominee include:
  • By the definition of "presumptive", the pledged delegate count, party rules, state laws, and longstanding U.S. customs and traditions, Trump was the presumptive nominee.
  • Political operatives including the chairman of the Republican National Committee said it.
  • Many respected news organizations ("reliable sources") said it.
  • No reliable source has been identified casting doubt on it.
  • The Wikipedia standard of inclusion is one reliable source.
  • It informs a reader who does not know whether the assassination attempt was before or after the date on which the Republican nomination of Donald Trump became a foregone conclusion, based on the pledged delegates. It is one thing to attempt to assassinate a candidate who has a chance to win a major party nomination. It is another thing to attempt to assassinate a candidate who, by party rules, will get the nomination.
• I have established the fact that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee, supported by numerous reliable sources. I have established its relevance. A consensus is not needed to include such a fact. A consensus would be needed to exclude such a fact.
• If someone had attempted to murder my father a month before he married my mother, I wouldn't describe my mother as my father's "friend" or "acquaintance". I would describe my mother as my father's "bride-to-be", because a month before the wedding, my mother was my father's presumptive future wife. Similarly, a month before the Republican nominating convention, Trump had the nomination sewn up, and we do a disservice to our readers to pretend that he was just some random Republican running for president who just happened to pick up the nomination later. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Niteshift36: Postscript: Why do you keep bringing up the fact that reliable sources exist that don't mention the fact that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee? That is not how Wikipedia works. If there is a reliable source for something, it can be included in Wikipedia. It is not necessary that every news story of the day mentions it. If I have a reliable source that says that a book's author was born in Cincinnati, I can use that fact, even if not every book review happens to mention this fact. One source is enough, and there are many. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One more point: Presumptive nominee redirects to Presidential nominee#Presumptive nominee, which says,

• In United States presidential elections, the presumptive nominee is a presidential candidate who is assumed to be their party's nominee, but has not yet been formally nominated or elected by their political party at the party's nominating convention. Ordinarily, a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee of their party when their "last serious challenger drops out" or when the candidate "mathematically clinches—whichever comes first. But there is still room for interpretation." A candidate mathematically clinches a nomination by securing a simple majority (i.e., more than 50 percent) of delegates through the primaries and caucuses prior to the convention. The time at which news organizations begin to refer to a candidate as the "presumptive nominee" varies from election to election. The shift in media usage from "front-runner" to "presumptive nominee" is considered a significant change for a campaign.

Niteshift36, as you know, on May 4, 2016, the last serious challenger, John Kasich, dropped out because Donald Trump had mathematically clinched the nomination. Don't even think of arguing about "room for interpretation." That's for borderline cases, such as a candidate who has just barely enough delegates and not all of them were pledged. By June 18, 2016, Donald Trump had hundreds more pledged delegates than the 50% required. In response to "You've shown no compelling reason to change it" is the additional reason: "The shift in media usage from 'front-runner' to 'presumptive nominee' is considered a significant change [emphasis mine] for a campaign."

References

—Anomalocaris (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• If you haven't watchlisted the page, that's your choice, but you're obviously not missing the responses, so please stop telling me that something completely unnecessary is needed. You have demonstrated a propensity to call things a "fact" when you feel like using the word. What is an undisputed fact is that he was a candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I was invited to this discussion by Anomalocaris, because I was apparently the first to add "presumptive" to the article, way back when. (Havent't checked.) Whether or no, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly object to calling him the presumptive nominee at that point in time. The primaries were over, he had more than enough delegates to win the nomination, the other candidates had all withdrawn, and the Reliable Sources were calling him the "presumptive nominee". There was and is nothing POV about it; even sources that had bitterly opposed him were calling him the presumptive nominee, because that was simply the reality of the situation. I am baffled why anyone wants to remove this word - much less argue against it it at great length. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Actually Melanie, the primaries weren't really over and there was still plenty of discussion about a brokered convention at that point. The fact that he was a candidate is indisputable and not subject to any guess work or mathematic possibilities. Yes, some sources were calling him that, while others were not. I see no value in using that terminology in place of the indisputable "candidate" terminology. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The primaries WERE over. The last primaries were June 9. This happened on June 18. There has been plenty of evidence offered here that the term was appropriate and in widespread use. Your opposition is apparently based on your statement that you "see no value" in the word. You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is based on consensus. Has anyone else argued to remove the term "presumptive nominee"? --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: It's unclear from all the bickering above who wants to be pinged and who doesn't, but just in case I am pinging. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• In all this "bickering", you have been the sole person to support inclusion (after being canvassed). This very same terminology was discussed at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, where another experienced user has opposed it as well. And again, whether the primaries were over or not, he wasn't the nominee, presumption is...well, presumption....the convention could have ended without him being nominated. Instead of going with the terminology that some sources used, why not go with the indisputable fact that doesn't rely on "presumption".? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I was also invited to comment. From the time from when Ted Cruz dropped out of the race until officially nominated by the delegates, Trump was considered the presumptive nominee. Hypothetically, something g could have happened, such as a rules change, which could have resulted in something else. But, he was almost certainly going to be nominated. Therefore, the media and RNC chair, Reince Priebus used the term presumptive nominee. That term should be used in the article because it is the most accurate term in this context. jvikings1 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I agree with the statement made by jvikings1. Trump was the presumptive nominee following Cruz's (and Kasich's) withdrawal from the race, which happened in early May. Orser67 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, Anomalocaris has done quite the job of canvassing. Selecting editors that were specifically the first to use his preferred terminoloy in other articles. No, that doesn't look like canvassing at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Feel free to try to find people who agree with you that it should be omitted. I believe you mentioned User:John from Idegon; there, I just canvassed him for you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Presumptive nominee

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Only user opposing "presumptive" will not contest it further. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

---

There is an ongoing dispute at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and also at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots over whether it is appropriate to say that as of June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support use of "presumptive nominee": Sourced in numerous prestigious reliable sources; no reliable sources disputes it; fits dictionary definition; helps readers who do not know that by May 4, 2016, 45 days before the event, (a) Trump secured over 50% of the delegates; (b) his last declared opponent dropped out of the race; (c) RNC chair, Reince Priebus had declared he was the presumptive nominee; (d) U.S. media began calling Trump the presumptive nominee in both news reporting and opinion pieces. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support use of "presumptive nominee": it's true, it's well-sourced, and there hasn't been a convincing substantive argument against including it. Cjhard (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support use of "presumptive nominee". By that date he was virtually universally recognized as such, and the designation makes this attempt more notable than if he were merely a "candidate". (I personally kind of doubt this incident deserves to be dignified as an "assassination attempt", but that's another issue.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support The final 5-state voting round was in 7th June 2016 - he had it in the bag (with the assumption delegates wouldn't revolt). He was the presumptive nominee at some point back in May.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose At this point, enough supporters have been canvassed to make it a lock, so this is probably pointless. The fact that Trump was a candidate is indisputable. Adding "presumptive nominee" is speculation... a presumption. It was a good presumption, but still a presumption. There was still plenty of discussion of a brokered convention etc. Adding "presumptive nominee" actually adds nothing to the article (and yes Melanie, it would have still been called an assassination attempt). While we use selected sources to say "see, it is sourced", we ignore an equal number of sources that reported the same event without using the terminology. What EVERY source agrees on, and uses, is that he was a candidate.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Well within our policies and guidelines, and no reasonable arguments to the contrary; should be closed early per WP:SNOW. Why am I not surprised to see who is perpetuating another ridiculous dispute? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Glad you could come by to engage in a personal attack @DrFleischman:. I wouldn't want you to miss an opportunity to let you nurse your grudge a little more, as well as feed into your own revisionist history. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support This dispute was brought to my attention by Anomalocaris, but I nonetheless agree that Trump was widely described as the presumptive nominee at this point. Also, subjectively (and not as importantly), I don't think that the term "presumptive nominee" implies a 100% chance of winning the nomination; instead, I'd say it means the candidate will be nominated barring unforeseen and very unlikely events. Orser67 (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• If it were 100%, it wouldn't be a "chance", would it? And that's sort of my point.... since it is presumptive and not 100%, why are we using it? Many of the sources reporting on the incident weren't using it. What IS 100% is that he was a candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Niteshift36: This dispute has gone on for five weeks. In this entire time, except for an incorrect claim that "the primaries weren't really over", which was corrected by MelanieN, you have never disputed:

• Numerous reliable sources of the time called Donald Trump the presumptive nominee.
• No reliable sources of the time said that Donald Trump was not the presumptive nominee.
• Wikipedia's standard is one reliable source, not a "general trend".
• The term "presumptive nominee" has an accepted definition, which is objective, not subjective.
• That definition includes that the candidate has a majority of the delegates and all other candidates have dropped out of the race.
• By May 4, 2016, Donald Trump met the accepted definition of "presumptive nominee".
• Between May 4 and June 18, 2016, the only change was that Trump gained even more delegates.
• Donald Trump had not only a majority of the delegates, he had hundreds more pledged delegates than the number needed to win.
• The transition of a candidate from "front-runner" to "presumptive nominee" is considered a significant change for a campaign.
• Readers who do not know that by June 18, 2016, Trump met the definition of "presumptive nominee" are helped by including this.

The fact that we have many reliable sources, with only one needed, should have ended this dispute long ago.

The fact that conditions are met and greatly exceeded for the accepted definition should have ended this dispute long ago.

Your objection now is that there was a chance that Trump wouldn’t get the nomination. You are correct, there was a chance, and this precisely the meaning of "presumptive nominee": The candidate will get the nomination, unless something unlikely and unexpected happens such as the candidate's death or debilitating illness. This circumstance, of a candidate having the mathematical lock on the nomination and all other candidates having dropped out, so the candidate will get the nomination, unless something extremely unlikely happens, is so politically significant that we have a term for it. That term is "presumptive nominee", and that is the term we should use in Wikipedia.

By now, not counting users I canvassed, three users have supported my position on the use of "presumptive nominee" and no users have joined you in opposition. Wikipedia:RFCEND lists five ways to end a Request for comment. Do you agree that the community's response became obvious very quickly and I can close this RfC, or should we invite an uninvolved editor to do so? —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that you heavily canvassed this RfC, I stopped commenting on this a week ago. But I will correct some of your false "facts". Yes, "numerous" sources used that phrase. Numerous sources also reported on the incident and called him "candidate", not "presumptive nominee". There isn't a need for a source to say he's not the presumptive nominee. We don't need to prove a negative. Yes, WP:V does require one source....but WP:UNDUE says just because a source says it doesn't mean it gets put in the article. As for the rest..... you're simply not worth the time any longer, nor is the topic worth the time. Reword it however you want. I've moved on to other things. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2017 (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.

This is an extraordinarily poorly sourced article for the title

This guy did not try to assasinate Donald Trump. He wasn't charged with anything remotely approximating such a crime. If he had indeed done so, we'd have 100 mainstream sources from around the world reporting that. Instead we have some tabloid stuff and some BBC video projects. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought this incident was kind of a tempest in a teacup. But he DID try to grab an officer's weapon, and he DID declare his intention to kill Trump. It's true that he never got anywhere close to actually being able to do so. He got convicted of something minor, served a year, and got deported back to the UK. As attempted assassinations go it was pretty thin gruel. But I can't offhand think of a good reason to delete it or merge it somewhere. Can you? --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It was AfDed back in January and the result was Snow Keep. Maybe you are thinking of changing it to a different title? --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)--MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Crazy guy shows up at Trump rally!" This title is really ridiculous. Attempted presidential assassins don't get charged with rowdy misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could think of a better NPOV title. Have you done a search to see what Reliable Sources are calling this incident? --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandford has stated on multiple occasions including following his release that his intention was to kill Trump. The BBC describes the incident as a "death plot" and an "apparent assassination bid". Let's not try and rewrite history because we think Trump is a meanie. McPhail (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Plots like this are a dime a dozen. My intention is to be rich and famous and good-looking. How about you? This is very poorly sourced, largely to one or two sources. And lots of the text fails verification. For instance @MelanieN: -- he was charged with illegally controlling a firearm at the practice range, not at the Trump rally. He never got control of a weapon at the rally, but I see that you've undone my removal of the statement that fails verification. Do you have an alternative reference that says he got the security agent's pistol? I think this needs to be removed again. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, there are 34 sources, not "one or two", amongst them the BBC, The Times, and The Washington Post. I am happy to add more if you can provide examples of sources you feel are credible. In regards to the charges against Sandford, he was originally charged with two counts of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, one of which was dropped. It's not clear from the sources which of the two firearms charges was dropped and it would be inappropriate to infer either way. McPhail (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You didn't read my edit summary. I said nothing about whether he did or did not get the agent's gun. I said what he pled guilty to. That is an undisputed fact. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, have you read the cited source? Per my comment the charge and his plea and conviction related to his control of a handgun at the practice range beforehand. The current juxtaposition makes it sound as if he controlled a firearm at the event. A quick or careless reader would reach that conclusion. If that had occurred, it would have made this a notable event and a much more serious matter. We need to be careful not to SYNTH here. This article looks a bit like some of the fake news bits that have had their day in the sun. Yes I know it survived AfD but on the other hand Murder of Seth Rich survived 3 AfD's before the consensus rewrote it as a story about fake news rather than about the purported subject. The current story doesn't look significant enough that we'll ever find out how it was promoted as a significant news event and pushed to the British media. SPECIFICO talk 03:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Certainly I agree that the lead as written is misleading and should reflect that the conviction for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm pertained to an entirely different incident. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? There were two firearm charges of which one was dropped, but I have not been able to confirm which. McPhail (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly interesting question. I can't find one, which I didn't expect, and I agree that it can't be altered without a source (it seems obvious that the charge that was kept pertained to the June 17 incident where he was actually in possession of a firearm, but no source, no edit). If someone has access to the PACER system for US court documents it would be most helpful if they could dig it up. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That does seem the likely conclusion but (a) it is possible that trying to take physical possession of a gun could be considered unlawful possession of a gun in the eyes of the law and (b) I can see that the prosecutor might have assessed hiring a gun at a firing range as being less serious. The media reports aren't clear on which of the two charges was dropped and why. McPhail (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

He was charged with the less serious, possession of the gun at the practice range. If he had actually been in possession of a gun in close proximity to the candidate, that charge certainly would not have been dropped and would not have gotten him such a light sentence. I saw a source for this but it's not one of the ones in the article and I did not make any note of it, so I can't help with the citation, which has now been demanded. Frankly, the revert seemed uncalled for to me, as the current version is SYNTHY and will lead many readers to think he had a gun right near Trump. SPECIFICO talk 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Name proposals

I agree that the current name is bad. However, without a specific alternate name or a merge/AfD proposal, there's nothing to do about it. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Title: "Delusional individual at 2016 Trump rally" SPECIFICO talk

How about 2016 Las Vegas Trump rally incident? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The Trump fans here would never allow a name change. They are very proud of the claim that there was actually an assassination attempt on him. Well, proud isn't the right word, but they would insist that the incident not be "whitewashed". (In fact I seem to remember there used to be several other Trump "assassination attempts" reported on Wikipedia, here or somewhere - before they were removed as being no such thing.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether anybody is a Trump fan, but this story is fake news, just like (although less significant than) the "Murder of Seth Rich" bit and others. We should not legitimize this kind of garbage. I don't see any significant US coverage or any lasting coverage at all. It should be deleted or it should be cut back to whatever is convincingly sourced. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• It is not "fake news". It is an extensively reported event that was the subject of a criminal trial and a BBC documentary. The only reason to want to delete this article is because you would prefer to pretend it did not happen. McPhail (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion is not on the table. The article has been Kept at an AfD discussion. Only another AfD could delete it, and such an AfD would almost certainly not be successful. --MelanieN (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I found the previous item I had remembered: Assassination threats against Donald Trump. Per an AfD it was deleted, then redirected to this article. The article was massively over-hyped; it counted things like the White House fence jumper, and every time a celebrity said anything negative about Trump, as an "assassination threat". This remaining one has at least some substance to justify the title. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say Sandford's attempt has many parallels with Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate Ford - an eccentric individual with a crude plan. The major difference is that Ford was president at the time. McPhail (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And that Squeaky was close enough to have actually injured or killed him - if she had known how to fire the gun! --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's getting into hypotheticals - no-one knows what would have happened if Sandford had gotten hold of the gun. McPhail (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And Squeaks had a g-u-n. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A mis-loaded gun. Which is, in practical terms, the same as no gun. McPhail (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

By its nature, fake news is widely covered. WP policies provide a remarkably robust system to weed it out, but policy must be applied and enforced uniformly. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content for reinstatement

The text "He was briefly sectioned at the age of 14" has been removed from the section on Michael Sandford. I believe this should be reinstated as it is an important element of the background to the incident relating to his mental health. McPhail (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump → 2016 Las Vegas Trump rally incident – It's unclear whether the subject of the article was an "attempted assassination"; see for example Man who attempted to grab gun at rally wanted 'to kill Trump': "Police police said Sandford tried to pull the officer's service weapon from its holster... On June 17, he practiced shooting a gun for the first time at a gun range in Las Vegas... The Secret Service says it has charged Sandford with violating two federal laws following the incident, including assault, and he could face up to a decade in prison if convicted." Post-conviction coverage: "'He never even watched the news' – the Brit who tried to kill Trump": [Judge at sentencing:] “You’re not evil or a sociopath like a lot of people we have. I don’t think you wanted to kill anybody. This was just some crazy stunt that your mind told you to do.”" To call this an assassination attempt seems overblown. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Sandford has given interviews since his release making it clear that his intent was to kill Trump: "I was hearing voices telling me to kill Donald Trump...Then one day I saw he was speaking in Las Vegas and I decided to drive there and do something myself...I reached down to try and pull the officer’s gun but it got stuck in his holster and he pushed me to the floor. Then the secret service arrested me...The crazy side of me was disappointed that I’d failed but the rational side was really glad no one had been hurt." "Las Vegas Trump rally incident" fails the tests of Recognizability and Naturalness. The current title is consistent with similar articles such as Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This was clearly an assassination attempt and it should be named as such. McPhail (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

My intention is to eradicate Malaria. That doesn't mean that an encyclopedia will ever describe me in those terms. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Certainly it was an ill-conceived and poorly-executed attempt, but that is true of many such attempts. In the case of the Barack Obama assassination plot in Tennessee, the perpetrators were arrested and convicted before any real planning had been carried out. McPhail (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss the topic at hand, not Tennessee. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- in the Tennessee case, the perpetrators got 10 and 14 years. In this case, the perpetrator plead guilty to disrupting an official function and with being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 12 months. The charges do not suggest an assassination attempt to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The charges Sandford was facing carried a maximum prison term of 20 years. The short sentence was due to a plea bargain. McPhail (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Note also the wording of Sandford's guilty plea: "I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with, and I'm pleading guilty." McPhail (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And plea bargains are due to circumstances that make the strict application of statute inappropriate. They don't drop from the sky. The wording of his plea, per that bargain, is irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It may have been a half-baked idea from a crazy person, but he did get to the point where he COULD have carried it out. And he made it clear that was his intent. The proposed title means nothing to anybody. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There was not a fro-yo's chance in Nevada that he could have pulled this off. He is a frail inexperienced troubled soul with plenty of tough guys and fresh air between him and the Candidate. Lee Harvey Oswald he is not. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's probably true. But we can't just insert our own opinion ("this had no chance of succeeding so we shouldn't even call it an attempt") in place of all the coverage. (I can't see any justification for just ignoring things like a documentary called "The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump"!) Besides, the proposed title means nothing to anybody. I would bet that not a single source, anywhere, has ever referred to this incident this way. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Brits have a sorry national fetish for lurid tabloid nonsense. It's not my OR -- the judge went out of his way in a rather extraordinary denial of the charges against the guy whom our infobox currently smears as the Perp of the Attempted Assasination. This is ugly and beneath any of us individually or as creators of WP. Frankly, this article is suffering from an overbearing ownership that's prevented a lot of sorely-needed clean-up. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you have had a lot to say here, from which we might be able to infer your position. But you haven't commented, formally, on the question of retitling the article. Are you in favor of the proposed move? --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's much better than the current title, but I haven't said so because I think somebody might propose an even better one. But I think it would be a good change and would help us to pare down the article content which is currently overblown and puts too much stock in the Brit tabloid telly tale. Thanks for asking. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to have been an attempted suicide by the troubled Brit. His expectation that he would be slain seems far more likely than the possibility he would get to the point where Trump would be in any danger from his actions. The article could be Attempted Suicide at 2016 Trump Campaign Rally. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems fairly speculative - Sandford stated that he thought he would die, but never that he wanted to die, and the information that has been released from his post-arrest psychiatric evaluation has not said anything about him being suicidal. McPhail (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Speculative? Back atcha on that. He regretted the whole incident afterward, and unsuccessful suicides are usually one-time incidents followed by an awareness like what he expressed. This article is spinning the incident way far afield by following the narrative of Brit tabloid exploitation. The judge practically gave him a hug in the courtroom. Not how judge types treat heinous acts, whether sane or temporarily crazed. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Sandford has repeatedly said he intended to kill Trump. Sandford has never said he intended to commit suicide. See the difference? Let's stick to what the sources say. McPhail (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. What interested you about this to have devoted so much time to so minor a subject? I think it's way overblown here. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above oppose reasoning and the article's sections 'Background' and 'Details of the incident'. The language and intent described, especially in those sections, justifies the present title. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: the current title is accurate, and the proposed title is too vague to inform a potential reader what it's about. The fact that the culprit was mentally I'll didn't prevent him from forming the requisite intent -- he wasn't insane. He told the police he wanted to kill Trump and that he would do it again, and subsequent remorse in court doesn't change that retrospectively. He considered using a rifle before he decided on a handgun, so it wasn't just attempted suicide by cop. The judge was lenient because of the defendant's mental health, which was a mitigating factor, but he wouldn't have accepted the guilty plea if it had been equivocal (i.e. "I'm pleading guilty but I'm not really"). There's no reason not to call it an assassination attempt, even if it had no prospect of success. Richard75 (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't insane? Who's insane nowadaze? See the Judge's statements. How does "incident" not describe an incident? SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It was an attempted assassination, REGARDLESS of the sanity or not of the perpetrator. John Hinckley Jr. was found to be legally insane - "not guilty by reason of insanity" - but his actions are still described as Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't compare this guy to violent madman Hinkley. BLP respect. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. What Las Vegas incident? Oh, the assassination attempt covered in the BBC documentary The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump.LM2000 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox photo

In my opinion, the photo is not very useful, as it was taken four months before the attempted assassination occurred. wumbolo ^^^ 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• It's an article about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Trump is the subject of the article and so should be pictured. Not sure why the date matters - the photo on Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. is from four years before the assassination occurred. McPhail (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Attempted assassinations of Presidents of the United States?

I'm confused how this category applies to this page. Trump wasn't President of the United States at the time of this assassination attempt, or even President-elect. He was a presidential candidate. ^Falling_Gravity 08:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say it's in the same category as the Baltimore Plot. McPhail (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Why is that? As I said, Trump wasn't President or President-elect at the time. The article you link to (Baltimore Plot) mentions that Lincoln was President-elect at the time. ^Falling_Gravity 02:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is racist towards Filipinos and African-Americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.198.85 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

change article name?

I think there have been more threats against Trump. We have such an article for Obama so why not Trump IsraeliIdan (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Reaction and analysis section

• Callum Borchers suggested that this was due to the "feebly unsophisticated" and "poorly conceived" nature of the attempt (drawing parallels to Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, who made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Barack Obama in 2011) and due to Trump's lack of interest in using the attempt to lobby for increased gun control. - Borchers is offering analysis on why the media coverage was limited and on why Trump did not make reference to the event. This is clearly relevant.
• A number of conservative news outlets made accusations that the media was intentionally providing little coverage of the event. - this is clearly factual. It may not be a true accusation, but it is by no means disproportionate to note that the claim was made by several outlets.
• In her 2017 book The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain, Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi argued that the limited coverage of the attempt was part of a concerted effort by the American and British media to present terrorism as "a Muslim issue" and that that Trump himself had downplayed the event as "a white British non-Muslim man did not fit his narrative of 'threat'." - analysis of the media response to the event by a senior politician is clearly relevant. Analysis of Trump's response is clearly relevant.

Paring this down to The assassination attempt received very little coverage in the American media (and arbitrarily removing several sources in the process) is removing clearly relevant content. McPhail (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's stay on point here. I stated in my edit summary why I removed the content and why it does not belong in the article. "Arbitrarily" will only confuse the issue for other editors who come to participate in the discussion. The opinions are WP:UNDUE and they are not directly related to the event that is the topic of this article. Moreover they are primary sourced and so we have no independent authoritative vetting of their noteworthiness for the article. The factual statements as to the coverage were left undisturbed and that is the only content in this section that is independently sourced fact. "senior politician" is your opinion of Warsi, and although she is notable in other contexts and has her own WP article, you have presented nothing to support your contention that her opinion is noteworthy and deserves WP:WEIGHT in this article. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rather than getting into a drawn out debate, in the spirit of compromise here is a proposed revision of the text:

Current: The assassination attempt received limited coverage in the American media. Writing in The Washington Post, Callum Borchers suggested that this was due to the "feebly unsophisticated" and "poorly conceived" nature of the attempt (drawing parallels to Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, who made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Barack Obama in 2011) and due to Trump's lack of interest in using the attempt to lobby for increased gun control. A number of conservative news outlets made accusations that the media was intentionally providing little coverage of the event. In her 2017 book The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain, Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi argued that the limited coverage of the attempt was part of a concerted effort by the American and British media to present terrorism as "a Muslim issue" and that that Trump himself had downplayed the event as "a white British non-Muslim man did not fit his narrative of 'threat'."

Proposed: The assassination attempt received limited coverage in the American media. Several journalists and political commentators proposed explanations for this, including the "feebly unsophisticated" and "poorly conceived" nature of the attempt; Trump's own disinterest in making political capital from the event; and alleged liberal or anti-Muslim media bias.

In my view, a single sentence summarising some of the analysis as to why the media coverage of the event was muted is not disproportionate in a section dealing with the media coverage. McPhail (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. I think that "and alleged liberal or anti-Muslim media bias." kind of hits the reader out of the blue and it's really off-topic in discussing the incident. It would likely be interpreted in a variety of ways by our diverse readers. It's more about how media or public opinion treats politics or treats Trump and that kind of content is covered in great detail on various politics and Trump articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable - I've edited accordingly. McPhail (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed "limited" to "little". Even the most "round the clock" stories are capped at 24/7 per American media outlet, and while they may seem infinite, they're only a tiny handful at the root. Sort of like certain people, if relative ratings sensation Stormy Daniels wasn't kidding about her "off the chart" adventures in the Mushroom Kingdom. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Bump perp to top

"Crazy" to start and finish discussing everything we know about one man's deed, then introducing him. People could figure it from the lead summary, but it should make chronological sense in the full story, too. I can't paste, though, can you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the better option is to have removed it; merging anything relevant to the event to other sections. Per BLP1E, we should not have an article on the person; even embedded in another article. - Ryk72 ^talk 15:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

BBC Documentary - Broadcast vs Streaming

This edit [1] introduces text which highlights that BBC Documentary on the article subject was made available on their streaming service, BBC iPlayer. The edit summary, "not on broadcast BBC - add context from cited source" indicates a belief that the show was not broadcast on BBC TV channels. However, the referenced source [2] clearly states that the documentary was broadcast on:

BBC One (excluding Scotland) Sunday 29 Jan 2017 23:20

BBC One (Scotland only) Monday 30 Jan 2017 00:20

BBC Two Sat 25 Feb 2017 03:20

Suggest reversion of the relevant article text to the previous version. - Ryk72 ^talk 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• From my understanding of the BBC iPlayer page, those are all streaming media.

They're directly under a section heading Broadcasts. Also, BBC iPlayer is on-demand streaming, so streaming doesn't have specific times; these have specific broadcast times. - Ryk72 ^talk 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

From The Guardian [3] on 27 Jan 2017: "The Brit Who Tried to Kill Trump is available now on BBC3 on the iPlayer and is on BBC1 on 29 January at 11.20pm." - Ryk72 ^talk 16:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

In The Express [4] on Monday, 30 Jan 2017 a review of the 29 Jan 2017 BBC1 broadcast. - Ryk72 ^talk 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving

I am about to move the article to a different name due to the severe BLP issues repeatedly identified in the AFD discussion. This name will only be temporary, we need to come up with an appropriate name here, but that does not excuse leaving BLP issues in place. --Nat Gertler (talk)

At the AfD a number of us, including me, favored an expansion, to include a few other incidents and rename this to Threats against Donald Trump or Assassination threats against Donald Trump (currently a redirect), comparable to the existing article Assassination threats against Barack Obama. If this approach is chosen, I will help with the expansion of the article and rewrite of the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Potentially controversial moves have to be moved through a requested move. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. I also do not understand what's the sudden BLP emergency given that the title was the same since February 2017. Reverting. --Pudeo (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns override other concerns, and the idea that its okay to continue to ignore the BLP concerns because we ignored them before is not a reasonable attitude. I would, however, be fine with blanking the page until we could come up with a title that was not a BLP problem in itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, the need for a move was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (2nd nomination). Part of that closure decision was the conclusion that the article should be renamed, which establishes consensus to change the title to ... something. This retitle was described as temporary, a "holding position" to follow the directions of the AFD closure. We should discuss titles here, come up with a proposal, and then work to get consensus. In the meantime I am going to restore the temporary title and move-protect the page, until we have consensus for a permanent title. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Respectfully, that close says that issues with the title, can (could) be resolved by a move; it does not say that they should be; nor does it say that there is consensus for a move. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I don't think I've ever seen a move discussion bypassed for BLP reasons. The treshold for doing that should be extremely so that BLP does not become a trump card (see: WP:CRYBLP). I recommend standard WP:RM procodure. --Pudeo (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflic) Ryk72, thanks for your thoughts, but it seems to me the closer directed a move: They (discussants) also allege BLP problems, but these seem to be largely an issue of the title accusing the man concerned of attempted assassination, of which he was not in fact convicted. This can be remedied by renaming the article, and deletion is not required to resolve this problem. I read it as a directive to fix the BLP problem by renaming the article. Basically, the AfD conclusion was that consensus was to keep but retitle. I don't think the current title is ideal, but it responds to the directions at the AfD - and now let's get to work finding a title that works. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, and again respectfully, because I hold a deep admiration for the even-handedness of your work on AP2 topics, I don't believe that that is a reasonable reading of the closer's comment. But, they're only just over here... Sandstein. So let's ask.
I do agree, however, that a move discussion should be held; but not that it should be predicated on the previous title not being a valid option. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that ping worked. @Sandstein: We have conflicting interpretations of your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (2nd nomination). Any clarification appreciated. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Accusing someone of an assassination attempt is pretty darn severe, and the idea that a strong BLP issue trumps discussion is built into WP:BLP ("removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"). The damage that can be done by such an accusation is real; the damage that is done by having the page under another name while a discussion is taking place is tiny in comparison. (And to others in this discussion - no, I do not think that the title I gave it is optimal, just something accurate without BLP implications. I am with those that feel that this is best carried within a larger topic, such as "Incidents at Trump rallies".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD closer's comment: @MelanieN and Ryk72: My authority as AfD closer is limited to determining whether there is consensus to delete or not. In this context, I found that the BLP problem is not a compelling argument for deletion because, if it exists, it can be fixed by renaming. Whether the BLP problem does in fact exist and whether (and how) the article should be renamed is a question for which, in my view, no consensus emerges from the AfD. It therefore needs resolution through additional discussion. In my view as an editor, the people who raised the BLP concerns do have a point and the article should be renamed. But I have no opinion as to what the proper name should be. Sandstein 09:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Following Sandstein's comment, I have restored the longstanding title, until editors suggest alternative names via the standard WP:RM process. @MelanieN: It seems you move-protected the talk page, not the article, so that they are now out of sync. Could you please move the talk page back to its original title as well, and get rid of the move protection? — JFG ^talk 01:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I did. Fixed now. May I suggest that we use an informal process to determine the preferred title, rather than going straight to an RM? RM works best if proposed titles have already been narrowed down by an informal discussion. If after an informal discussion we have a clear alternative choice, we can either move it directly if the preference for it is clear, or launch an RM if there is controversy whether to move the page or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And within just a couple hours, the article was moved to "disorderly conduct" again, still out of process. I'm bowing out at this point; let admins deal with it. — JFG ^talk 11:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The move is uncontroversial. Please review the policies. Let the Admins deal with important matters. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RMCM: a move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies: 1) there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; 2) someone could reasonably disagree with the move. This is without a doubt a "potentially controversial" move. Not going to revert again because page move edit-warring is very disruptive. In any case, there is no consensus for the present title but not for the previous one either. --Pudeo (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I have removed the name of the individual (perhaps clumsily; I am editing using a phone at the moment, not my usual habitat.) Please do not restore it until we no longer have a title accusing someone in Wikipedia's voice of a crime they've not been charged with, or until there is a strong consensus that such BLP concerns don't matter. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

What should the title be?

At the recent AfD the concern was raised that the title "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" was inappropriate for BLP reasons. This article has thus been moved to a temporary title, namely, the thing the perpetrator was actually convicted of, while we figure out what to call it. Suggestions below please! -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• A suggestion I heard at the AfD was to expand this article to include a few other incidents and call it Threats against Donald Trump or Assassination threats against Donald Trump (comparable to the existing article Assassination threats against Barack Obama). -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There were enough disruptions of varying source at Trump rallies that I bet we could find a source covering them as a unit, and that would lend to an article. Disturbances at Trump rallies or somesuch. But I'm too hectic at the moment to do the research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

They were other disturbances. This one happened to get sensationalized but had no lasting impact. This should just be a (shorter) entry in List of threats against Donald Trump at the most. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think they are mostly inconsequential. Unfortunately this inconsequential disturbance got lots of press due to initial misinformation and prosecutorial overreach that was quickly scaled back. Because there has been no coverage after the week of his release from prison, I'm struggling to understand what's notable here. We had one editor on a mission to make a bloated narrative out of the initial confused media and a lot of cherrypicked tabloid and other bad sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do stick with this one instance as an article unto itself, Disturbance at Las Vegas Trump rally should do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, or you could add 2016 to the title. BTW, I assume there's no point avoiding the bloke's name here. It was in the press for a while, and the narrative is fairly NPOV at this point. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My proposal during an unsuccessful renaming (#Requested move 6 September 2017) was 2016 Las Vegas Trump rally incident. As being discussed, Disturbance at 2016 Las Vegas Trump rally would also work. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t think we should focus on just this one incident, whether we call it an “assassination attempt” or a “disturbance” or what. According to this article there have been three threats against Trump serious enough to warrant arrest. IMO they should be combined with this material into a single article, called something like Threats against Donald Trump or Assassination threats against Donald Trump. I prefer “threats” over “attempts” because in one of the cases there was no overt act and in the other it consisted only of sending a letter with crushed castor beans in it. And this would be exactly comparable to the existing article Assassination threats against Barack Obama. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. After two AfDs, this event has proven to be independently notable. A separate Assassination threats against Donald Trump (which should probably exist as more than a redirect) may include this incident, but this entry should remain an independent article.LM2000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• It survived AfDs due to media coverage, and I don't know what "independently notable" means or has to do with anything. This incident was sensationalized but has zero lasting impact. It should just be an entry among a list of Threats against Donald Trump. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course it survived AfD due to media coverage; that's what we call GNG. On the other hand, I don't see any reason why we can't keep this full article, change the title to plural "threats" or "attempts", and add the other two incidents at the end.

In the meantime I think "Disorderly conduct at Trump rally" or anything similar is a horrible title. Can someone please suggest something better? My suggestion is above. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do that, I anticipate that there will be much less detail about the other two incidents. That might lead us either to keep this separate or to greatly reduce the material about the individual's personal profile and behavioral issues. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly right, there will be much less detail about the other two. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that says all the examples in an article like this have to be balanced equally. It's all a matter of the weight of the coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I support the recent renaming of the article. My own view is that the current title "Disorderly conduct at Donald Trump rally" is acceptable. That is what Michael Sandford was found guilty of in 2016 and imprisoned for. The title might not sound perfect, but it's acceptable. Two AfD's have concluded that this article is notable enough to keep. It's not intended as any criticism of fellow editors to suggest that perhaps one or two editors in the AfD discussions displayed some signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in terms of the article content, which is supported by multiple reliable sources like The New York Times, The Washington Post and the BBC. I'd personally be opposed to the article being cut in half and merged into another article. In my view, and in the conclusion of the AfD's, it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I suggest the name be tweaked to state "Disorderly conduct incident at Donald Trump rally" since this is about a single case, and the current title suggests broad disorderly conduct at rallies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Disorderly conduct incident at Donald Trump rally" makes sense to me. Feoffer (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

How about "Disorderly conduct at 2016 Donald Trump rally". Or perhaps "Disorderly conduct incident at 2016 Donald Trump rally". The former suggestion would be more concise than the latter. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What the . . . ?

Why isn't this culprit identified, and why is this article written using Commonwealth English when the event took place in the United States? I started to edit this, but there is just too much left out for a simple copy-edit job. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Because, as you will see if you read above discussions, the individual was being accused by the article title of a crime that he had not even been charged with, much less convicted of. See WP:BLPCRIME. Now that the article has been retitled (again), that conflict has gone away (for now.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In this case, we can omit the name of the individual with no loss of clarity whatsoever to the reader. It doesn't matter one iota if his name is Michael, or Tom, Dick, or Harry. Including the name in the article text serves no purpose and should be removed. Feoffer (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I support the recent renaming of the title. Given that the title is currently "Disorderly conduct at Donald Trump rally", there is, in my view, no BLP violation in naming the person found guilty and imprisoned for disorderly conduct as Michael Sandford. His name has been widely reported by multiple reliable sources as the person who was imprisoned for the offence and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no violation of Wikipedia policies in naming him as Michael Sandford. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME very much does suggest the name should not be included. 86.53.252.13 (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. In this case, the name has been widely disseminated. It's a matter of public record at this point and should be included. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Misleading title.

How did this article get such a misleading headline? It makes it sound like it is an article about conduct in general but it is actually about a specific incident. How about "Disorderly conduct incident at June 2016 Donald Trump rally"? -Asterelo (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Disorderly conduct at Donald Trump rally → 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident – Per the above discussion, I think we should move the article title to something that sounds more specific and accurately describes the situation at hand. The current title gives an impression to the uninitiated (and it certainly does seem like only people in the UK would be even vaguely aware of this incident even happening in the first place) that the article will be covering general behavior at Trump rallies. This kind of generalization does not accurately reflect the topic at all. Therefore, I think a title modeled after 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest would be more appropriate for this topic. It's still neutral in respect to WP:BLPCRIME by avoiding loaded terms like "assassination attempt", which the perpetrator was not convicted of. Love of Corey (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support, seems more informative. McPhail (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support good point. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Done -- Five agreements and no objections Feoffer (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2020 (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.