Splitting proposal
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)
- I feel like a better title would be "Misinformation related to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania" PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. "Misinformation about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania" is what I had in mind. — W.andrea (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose that's fair, I'm just afraid of us ending up with a ridiculously long title. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- well we could do Trump assassination attempt conspiracy theories PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposal, but the title should be "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania" to cover both aspects. BasicWriting (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I would only support “Disinformation about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania”. A lot (or most) of this isn't just getting a fact wrong (misinformation), it's lies (disinformation). Nutella lover • [ chat│supervise ] 12:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose that's fair, I'm just afraid of us ending up with a ridiculously long title. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. "Misinformation about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania" is what I had in mind. — W.andrea (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to put it as a separate page. YachtSee (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah especially with the recent Thomas Crooks stuff PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree, it can be easily covered here, we do not need to go into details about memes and piss takes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point but it's very present even after the fact. Pretty much every time Donald Trump speaks on the issue, people become more skeptical of the official narrative. All while you still have Republicans who swear up and down that the Biden administration hired an assassin. I understand that the theories are absolutely ridiculous, but belief in them is very prevalent as of right now.
- This according to a study conducted in October 2025: Of those who had heard the theory that the shooting was planned by Democratic operatives, 13% thought it was “very likely” to be true and 16% thought it was “somewhat” likely to be true. Meanwhile, 12% of the people who had heard it was planned by Republicans thought it was “very likely” to be true and 17% thought it was “somewhat likely.”
- The math means that 29% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats that were polled are to some extent, conspiracy theorists when it comes to his incident (or otherwise open-minded to the conspiracy theories). Regardless of how you look at it, that is a lot of people. Almost 1 in 3 for both parties. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Seems like it might prove necessary to make an article about all the conspiracies about all the assassination attempts. Just minutes ago shots fired at the WHCD and comments sections are already flying off into conspiracies (eg "Another attempt for fake sympathy" and "Sure. Anyway, release the Epstein files!" (distraction theory].) There's plenty to go around about the golf course guy, they caught him, no shots fired. Ukrainian connection. Can't remember all the details.
- I honestly don't quite favorable split though. There's not actually a lot of talk aboutthe conspiracies, just the conspiracies. Not good sourcing... ~2026-25438-52 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Apparent attempt on Trump's life
Has it been established or otherwise that the person killed during the incident was the intended target, or someone else in the crowd was the intended target? Given the angles, is it not more likely that the apparent injury to Trump was debris or blood from those killed or injured nearby? As far as I can ascertain there is no visible sign of scaring to Trumps ear that is consistent with a gunshot wound caused by a riffle projectile. ~2026-22063-66 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- No, but RS assumes Trump was, so read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2026
The quote may be accurate, however, according to Emerson Brooking, senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank, the majority of misinformation is not from left leaning accounts. Please add that for clarification. Change BBC News disinformation and social media correspondent Marianna Spring said, "the real change... is how this kind of lingo is being widely used by the average social media users" rather than being on the fringe, adding that many of the "most-viral" false posts "came from left-leaning users who regularly share their anti-Trump views".[25]
Add: “Focusing on Russian and foreign audiences outside the U.S., the propaganda has seized on the attack on Trump as a sign of American instability and hinted or alleged without evidence that anti-Trump elements in the federal government were somehow behind it.
After the news broke that Trump had been shot, pro-Kremlin bloggers and proxies “leaned immediately and deeply into conspiratorialism, into the idea that it was the Secret Service” that orchestrated the shooting, said Emerson Brooking, senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank.
The Russian state news organization Sputnik International plastered its homepage with articles blaming the Secret Service and the Biden administration for the shooting, including “How Secret Service Failed Trump and Why Responsibility Could Lie With Top Dems” and “US Secret Service Suspiciously Slow in Protecting Trump — Psyop Veteran.”
There’s more information in the article but the point is there’s no accurate way to infer that left leaning accounts share more misinformation considering there were outside sources spreading conspiracy theories. I’m not sure how you want to word that and I’m sorry if I didn’t do this correctly. Thanks so much! ~2026-24296-92 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think you actually need to provide sources before this is gona be done. Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Suggestion to include a raised-fist photograph in the article
I would like to propose that this article include, or feature as the lead image, one of the photographs showing President Trump raising his fist immediately after the shooting. The raised-fist image has become one of the most widely recognized and historically significant photographs associated with the event. It has been extensively reproduced and discussed by major news organizations and has come to symbolize the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt. Including this photograph—either as the lead image or prominently within the article—would help illustrate one of the event's most notable and well-documented moments. I welcome other editors' views on this. ~2026-37081-24 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)