Talk:Rust shooting incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reactions section

Please explain the need for a "Reactions" section in this article as introduced with this edit. In addition, the White House statement (the only component in that section) is quite clearly the expected statement of concern and sympathy for the family, and not of any encyclopedic value concerning the subject event. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEARS. General Ization ^Talk 04:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@NDNSWMI: Please stop reintroducing the content and discuss its purpose here. See WP:BRD. General Ization ^Talk 05:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a quote from an alt-right commentator, which was cited to Twitter. Even if there is news coverage, I'm quite doubtful that it's relevant. The International Cinematographers' Guild and Shannon Lee responses are certainly relevant, and The Rookie particularly so, as it demonstrates a change in the industry. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The reactions section is good now. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What details are known?

Here are a few details that the extensive coverage of this event has not definitively disclosed: 1. What did the script, stage directions, etc. have Baldwin and the other actors doing in this scene? Was Baldwin to fire the weapon, and if so in which direction? 2. Did Baldwin intend to follow the script or were there any ad libs? Some sources indicate that he fumbled the weapon when drawing if from a holster; is that true, and if so is that a departure from the script? 3. What is the exact make and model of the firearm? Since Rust was to be a western, set in 1880 (or thereabouts), one would assume that it is a revolver, but I have seen no other details on this. 4. Most sources suggest that only a single round was fired, has this been confirmed? 5. If it was a revolver, were other cartridges in the cylinder? 6. Since there are conflicting reports, was it a blank round or one containing a bullet. 7. And (the ultimate question) if it contained a bullet, what the heck was a "live round" doing on the set? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

These are all good questions. I agree that the gun would probably have been a period revolver which raises the question of how it could have been accidentally discharged. Double action revolvers are judged to be relatively safe guns and usually have no safety. The most common way such a gun could be accidentally discharged is when it is cocked. So If the hammer was cocked and discharged after getting caught on Mr. Baldwin’s holster from which he was drawing it, one would think it would have discharged on a downward angle, hitting the floor or even his own foot. If the revolver was cocked, then the question arises as to why that was. Also, is it clear that just one bullet was fired hitting both victims as you ask?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, so please disregard. Revolvers of that period would have been single action so the hammer would have to be cocked before firing which would explain why Mr. Baldwin's revolver's hammer would have been cocked for historical accuracy's sake. Because of that it would seem certain that only one bullet would have been discharged, hitting both victims.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alec Balwin was being handed a prop gun and being told to shoot directly at the camera. The director yelled "cold gun", meaning the prop gun being used didn't contain any live rounds. If that's true, then the main incident paragraph needs to change (i.e., "Baldwin then unintentionally discharged the firearm while unholstering it"). XXzoonamiXX (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@XXzoonamiXX Are you saying the gun was not accidentally discharged, but rather Mr. Baldwin was in the process of a rehearsal and deliberately fired the weapon per direction? If so, I’m not at all suggesting any blame would lie with Mr. Baldwin as he simply did what he was told to do with a gun that he was told was not loaded. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read the cited references, they answer some of your questions. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting: "Halls said that he only recalled seeing three rounds in the chamber ahead of passing the gun over to Baldwin." https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/rust-assistant-director-who-gave-alec-baldwin-gun-didn-t-check-all-rounds-before-fatal-shooting-warrant-reveals/ar-AAQ1ytF?rt=0&ocid=Win10NewsApp&item=flights%3Aprg-mobileappview Halls saw three "rounds" in the "chamber" (I assume he means the cylinder). If so, why did he tell Baldwin it was a "cold gun"; did he think only the round under the hammer counts? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP?

Not sure if it's a WP:BLP violation yet or not, but here's a source with some allegations about Dave Hall's safety record on previous films. To include or not to include? Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

May be just a disgruntled former employee. We should exercise caution until more RS run the story. WWGB (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN now reporting it, based on what two people who worked with Halls said. I didn't want to go and add it anywhere so quickly, but that's another RS reporting it today. --Chillabit (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

More generally, this article is ripe for BLP issues, and editors should be vigilant for them and remember that an unsourced or poorly-sourced negative statement about a living person should be removed immediately. I've commented out a poorly-sourced claim about Gutierrez-Reed (commented rather than removed since it may well be true; it's just that one publication quoting an unnamed source without independently verifying isn't enough), and have added {{BLP editintro}} as an editnotice for this page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Organization

Please don't permit content on the incident to be added to the film article, since this article has been excerpted there per WP:SYNC. This is to prevent duplicate and incongruent coverage (WP:CONTENTFORKING). If something good is added there and not here, just move it here (remove from there), and add the obligatory copying note to summary. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Manslaughter

Doesn't the incident meet the definition of manslaughter? Why do we need a source to say its manslaughter before we can count it as manslaughter? Unless it doesnt meet the requirements for Manslaughter, in that case, tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATrainLoadedWithDynamite (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@ATrainLoadedWithDynamite: It does not meet the requirements. Not yet. If there has not been a charge, we can not say it was manslaughter. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Manslaughter (United States law), manslaughter is a crime in the United States. To date, no-one who handled the gun (Baldwin, Halls or Reed) has been charged with manslaughter. According to WP:BLPCRIME, editors should not suggest a person has committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. So, until a manslaughter charge is laid, or until reliable sources refer to the incident using that term, we do not call this incident manslaughter. WWGB (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait until the investigation is complete and reliable sources directly support such charges. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"Some could face charges of involuntary manslaughter, depending on the outcome of the investigation," was said in recent "Experts predict the legal fallout from the Alec Baldwin prop gun shooting". So rather "not yet". Flipping Switches (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pure speculation, not encyclopedic.50.111.2.158 (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming film

Should we continue to use "upcoming film" when describing Rust? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Already did that! XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@XXzoonamiXX: I meant that since production is suspended, the film might be canceled. As a result, having "upcoming" could be misleading and sources should be added about whether it will be released. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The statement "Rust is an American Western conceived by Joel Souza and Alec Baldwin" is very misleading, as it implies that the movie is already being released. We don't have any legitimate source that it's canceled due to the accident. I've never heard any film being canceled due to the fatal movie accident on set, not even the Twilight Zone accident stopped Warner Bros. from releasing the film a year later. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@XXzoonamiXX: Category:Cancelled films (here's an example). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Most examples you listed were due to production problems not relating to fatal accidents onset or never made into fruition. But speaking on Wikipedia guideline basis, we currently don't have any reliable source that the film is canceled forever. It's better for now to use "upcoming film", because the film is currently being suspended, not canceled, until reliable sources said otherwise. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Has there been an announcement that the movie won't be released? In the past, movies have been released (even though tragedy occurred during filming), see the 1983 movie Twilight Zone: The Movie, as an example. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That film was basically finished. From the interviews, etc., on live news tv shows, it appears this movie had a lot of work left to finish it - and under the current circumstances, I doubt it is ever picked back up for completion.50.111.2.158 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to wait until there's actual confirmation that the film is canceled. For perspective, Brandon Lee died on set, and his movie was still released anyways. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

True, of course, RS must always exist for inclusion. However, the Crow movie, like the Natalie Wood film Brainstorm, were both basically finished. Some of those involved with Rust said less than a third of the film had been shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.158 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well actually, there has been a movie cancelled over an accident. If you look on Wikipedia, Midnight Rider was one of the films that has been canceled. Filming had already begun before the director had pleaded guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:203:5110:89B6:673C:3305:D6C4 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"and was noted for instances of inappropriate sexual behavior"

The article tells about one person, "and was noted for instances of inappropriate sexual behavior". I think that should be removed - I am not convinced of justification for keeping it. (If a person had stolen chocolate as an adult, or been caught for speeding, then I am not sure that we should have mentioned that. Disclaimer: the one type of crime is by many standards, more serious than the other.) 89.8.155.66 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree; I've removed the comment for now. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The investigation led to the behavior being revealed. It is important to note. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Including this is an element of a typical coatrack attack article. It isn't quite as bad since it isn't extensive, but it moves things in that direction. We should remove it first, and discuss potential inclusion. Let's err on the safe side of BLP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removal, besides being irrelevant to the article I believe this falls under WP:BLPCRIME - these are accusations, and only brought up to reinforce negative character claims. Issues at hand are how he handled set safety and how that related to this incident. Strangerpete (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I think I'd argue that inappropriate sexual behaviour on set is directly related to set safety - it's the type of action that does make a workplace less safe. It also relates to the bigger context that the accident took place in - the debates about working conditions on films, the IATSE strike, etc... I think it's a lot more relevant than, say, a speeding conviction that happened off-set and on that person's own time. NHCLS (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You are not wrong in terms of overall set safety, but in the context of this incident no one is claiming that as a factor, and its still an unsubstantiated accusation. I really feel adding this claim here is inappropriate until more information is available. Strangerpete (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically: How does including this make the article better? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If the IATSE strike resulting from this incident ever becomes notable enough to merit its own article, and if the harassment issue proves to be a significant factor in that movement, then I think there'd be a case to be made that the information belongs in that article. But for now it seems merely adjacent, not connected, to the subject of this particular article. The subject of this article is not "Workplace safety concerns on the set of Rust", but one particular instance of unsafety.Wemedgefrodis (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the gun that killed Hutchins had been used earlier that day by members of the film crew, with live ammunition, to do target shooting at a location near the film set. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions to find out the answers to: which crew members were doing the target shooting, and why did Hannah Gutierrez-Reed allow the gun to be used in this manner? Had she allowed guns used in the filming to be used for similar target practice (using live ammunition) on previous days, and is such behavior normal and ethical? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

For now, this is just rumour and speculation. It will be added to the article when it is confirmed by police or reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos

Photos of those involved could be added to the article. Aside from the existing photo of Alec Baldwin (who shot the gun); those that may be added would be Joel Souza (director, who was shot), Halyna Hutchins (DP, who was shot and killed)), Hannah Gutierrez Reed (film set armorer), Dave Halls (1AD who provided the gun). -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@64.229.90.53: Wikipedia can only use images that are not copyrighted. Baldwin is currently the only person with a free image, as he was photographed at a convention by Gage Skidmore, a Creative Commons contributor. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And someone reading this comment could provide such. It is an image request. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Day of the walkout

An affidavit released on October 27 says the camera crew walkout happened the day before the incident. This goes against this article from October 22, which says the walkout happened on the same day and six hours before the incident took place. Should we add it? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"Last night we wrote resignation letters" is the part that most sources ommit, which creates confusion (but NYPost got it wrong that the prop master was "just brought in"). Flipping Switches (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"A handful of members of the camera crew quit the production on Wednesday night,″ a spokesperson for Rust said. Flipping Switches (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the disgruntled staff filed their resignations on Wednesday evening, then turned up on Thursday morning to collect their stuff from the ranch? WWGB (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That is how it was described (somewhere - but I couldn't find it again), with the commentary that it's usual for productions in such case to pause for a day to hire new crew members but this one didn't. Flipping Switches (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Better title?

For some reason, the current title (Rust shooting incident) seems inadequate and/or lacking. Shouldn't the title be something more along the lines of "Killing of Halyna Hutchins" or "Death of Halyna Hutchins" or "Shooting of Halyna Hutchins" ... or some such? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that there are few film death incidents that have their own standalone article. Most film set deaths are incorporated into the bio article of the deceased. Perhaps in time, the shooting may be contained within Halyna Hutchins#Death. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the title you're proposing implies that there's been some homicide or some sort. Admittedly, I'm no expert in this, but I think it's too early to say about changing the title when the event is still recent at the moment. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The suggested titles also leave out the fact that the director was wounded. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought. The other guy happened to be injured in the movie. Hence, the current title is appropriate. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Side note: @Some Dude From North Carolina:, your user-name made me think you were describing the director as 'some dude from North Carolina'. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"A homicide requires only a volitional act that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm." This incident is a homicide.Kire1975 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "homicide": If the investigators say that, we should tell about that. If the court system says that, we should tell about that. 89.8.166.1 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, articles involving movie accidents don't really describe titles like "Killing of Halyna Hutchins" or "Death of Halyna Hutchins". It feels too much like as if someone intentionally commit murder like Gabby Petito and would not discriminate. Titles should have "accidents" or "incidents" attached to it when fatal movie est accidents happens. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Big oppose for me, Hutchins was not the only person shoot and injured in this case.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• You could have Shooting of Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza or Shooting of Halyna Hutchins and Joel Souza by Alec Baldwin, which would be perfectly descriptive, without the weird implication of someone named Rust shooting something of the current title, instead of say Alec Baldwin shooting incident. The film article title should also be revisited, Rust (upcoming film) seems odd when combined with the existence of this article. Rust (2021 film production) might be better if it gets cancelled. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • To avoid the "someone named Rust" problem, what about Bonanza Creek Ranch shooting? I don't know if it would be well known or accessible that way. I'd shorten it to Rust shooting personally, I don't think we need "incident". A shooting is already an incident. Maybe Rust revolver shooting to make it clearer what was shot? WakandaQT (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The current title could equally apply to a shooting in Rust Township, Michigan. Also, we need to avoid the double meaning that "shooting" can apply to both a gun and a film. I don't have any strong ideas for a better title, but something like Rust film set shooting incident would be a sharper title. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a separate issue deserving of its own discussion, but given that the points of notability, and, indeed, the contents of this article, have expanded beyond the mere scope of the shooting itself, maybe we've reached the point where the title and the focus of this article should be something more along the lines of Rust film set safety incidents, Rust film set safety conditions or Bonanza Creek film crew situation or some such variation. WIs that playing too fast and loose with any existing WP policies or guidelines? It seems there have already been some attempts to include tangential details to this article about other matters on the set. Up until this point, those attempts have mostly, rightfully, been thwarted, given the current stated subject of the article, but maybe that subject is now too narrow?Wemedgefrodis (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Cold Gun quote

We have sources saying that Dave Halls (who handed Baldwin the gun) shouted cold gun

• https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035483 "On Friday, authorities said assistant director Dave Halls had handed the weapon to Baldwin and announced "cold gun", indicating it was safe to use."

But I noticed another source indicates that multiple crew members (perhaps Halls at at least one other?) said this:

• https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set " Crew members had already shouted “cold gun” on the set"

Do we have any indication of the name(s) of other crew members besides Halls who said cold gun? WakandaQT (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Pietta type

Present text:

an FD Pietta Colt .45 revolver

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-bullet-gun-fired-alec-baldwin-fatal-movie/story?id=80813700:

the F.LLI Pietta Long Colt .45 caliber revolver

So is it "FD" or "F.LLI" ?

I think it would also be useful to mention details like the type of action this gun had. For example, has anyone reported on whether it had a rear loading gate (usually on the right side on colts), a top-break cylinder, or a swing-out cylinder? This would influence how easy it would be to check the cylinder contents. WakandaQT (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"F.LLI" is an abbreviation for "Fratelli ", which means "Brothers" in Italian. The translation of the company name would be "Pietta Brothers" in English. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

times of the day

Having read that the cameraman wasn't sure if the gun had been safety-checked (something about him taking a five-minute break) and something about there being a lunch break makes me wonder: do we have some specific hour/minute mark that the gun went off, and other key times, like when police arrived, maybe when there was a lunch break?

This all seems useful for a timeline of events (understanding time passing between events) yet the article only presently mentions the date but not the hours aside from 1:50pm. WakandaQT (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

About producers

To be fair, LA Times reported about Rust producers too, on November 7. Flipping Switches (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

Why is the costume designer Terese Davis' account barely mentioned in this article? It seems to directly contradict multiple of the assertions made (hotels were provided, the set was safe, multiple safety meetings were held, the union backed production's hotel proposal, the non-union members hired were recommended by the union, etc.) and has been published in multiple other publications. Leaving out a primary source like this seems to display bias.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-costume-designer-halyna-hutchins-brightest-light

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-defense-repost-terese-magpale-davis-halyna-hutchins-joel-souza-1234866703/

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/alec-baldwin-instagram-rust-denial-1252454/ Whitegreenblueyellow (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Because (my guess) the statement a) was never made by that person openly and Baldwin's repost of it was later hidden or deleted, b) was claiming that something didn't happen because they didn't witness it, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Flipping Switches (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Live round means blank?

The claim "In the film industry, a "live round" usually refers to a gun loaded with any material, most commonly a blank." is suspect as again, cites anonymous source in the union, and industry safety bulletins define Blanks and Live Ammunition separately (SB1,SB2.) In addition the union that originally made the statement knows the difference between blanks and live ammo, and I doubt they'd make the statement without meaning projectile ammo. I think it should be removed but open to discussion since it is from a RS Strangerpete (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Strangerpete: The statement was discussed in this article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and I forgot to clarify my original quote was based on the one cited from the LA Times. I think the quotes in the article you provided reinforce 'live' isn't a blank. Unless a qualified person makes the statement that blanks are called 'live', I still think it is inaccurate. Strangerpete (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the statement and cite originally. If we remove it now we should also remove the sentence "An email from the IATSE Local 44 claimed that a live single round was the cause of the incident" because otherwise the reader could easily be misled by the seeming ambiguity. Thincat (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the only confusion would be implying that it was a blank, but I'd be ok with removing the email quote too since that was an early, private email to members and not a public statement Strangerpete (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see "Some Dude" has now made this change.[1] Thank you. Thincat (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's what you need to know:

• Live Round means a shell with gunpowder and a slug (bullet). What we know as bullets/real ammo. The real deal stuff that people use to shoot things. Makes a noise and emits a high velocity hunk of metal. Can kill or is explicitly designed to kill. For weapons of war/hunting/target shooting at a range. No place on movie sets beyond for security, or maybe scenes that demand it and are filmed with essentially a vacant set, like when Arnold uses the minigun in T2 on the cop cars. That looked real...
• Dummy Round Looks like a "live round", but is filled with inert and loosely packed fill like BBs, contains no gunpowder, cannot be shot, may have identifying marks on the outside, in addition to the noise it makes when shaken, for identification. For visuals (loading, visible from exterior of revolver, etc.)
• Blank Round Contains gunpowder but no slug. Looks different, without the pointy tipped slug. Makes noise and optimally doesn't shoot anything out (should still be treated with caution, as loose "wadding" can be ejected at a high speed and can kill if shot into heart/skull, I believe there was one such example).
• Prop gun Any gun on a movie set, whether it can shoot or not.
• Gun A firearm that can shoot ammo.
• Fake gun Looks like a gun but is made of rubber or wood, so it can't fire anything.

What Baldwin shot was a live round. If he was falsely told "cold gun", it was mistakenly thought the gun either had "dummy rounds" or no rounds in it.

I don't think "blank" is the right terminology here, whether describing what should have happened or what went wrong.

Per RS interview with Steve Wolf, weapons expert, and maybe some other sources... Here is one such: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/us/2021/12/03/alec-baldwin-abc-interview-safety-expert-reaction-sot-newday-vpx.cnn 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

New Crew Perspective

Per the below article, much of the background statements have been directly contradicted or disputed.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/rust-cast-crew-letter-alec-baldwin-1235059967/

Almost all of the background statements are written to clearly frame the set as unsafe per anonymous sources. However, 24 crew members have signed a letter with their actual names (unlike these "sources") directly attacking that narrative. For example, below are a few excepts.

“Unfortunately, in the film industry, it is common to work on unprofessional or hectic productions to gain experience and credits. Many of us have worked on those types of productions. Rust was not one of them. Rust was professional. We do acknowledge that no set is perfect, and like any production, Rust had areas of brilliance and areas that were more challenging. While we stand firmly with our unions and strongly support the fight for better working conditions across our industry, we do not feel that this set was a representation of the kind of conditions our unions are fighting against,”

They go on to write "the disgruntled few do not represent all of us. On Rust, our working hours were fair and consistent with expectations. Twelve-hour days and turnarounds were standard... Housing was provided as required by the Union. Payments were made, generally on time, and amounts were as agreed upon, per individual or department deals."

What is currently written is below. Furthemore, Terese Davis (signatory to the letter) directly disputes the lack of safety meetings, the lack of hotels (also rejected in the letter), etc.

https://deadline.com/2021/11/alec-baldwin-shooting-rust-movie-defense-repost-terese-magpale-davis-halyna-hutchins-joel-souza-1234866703/

The absence of a medic during the construction of the film's sets was an early concern.[5] Firearms safety protocols were not distributed with the call sheets and were not strictly followed on the set; only three safety meetings for the crew were held during filming, including one on October 21.[a][5][4][19][20] From the start, the production assured crew members that it would cover hotel room expenses. However, at the start of the second week of filming, hotel rooms were no longer provided and crew members were mocked for wanting to avoid a one-hour drive from Albuquerque.[5] Several crew members also cited that they were not being paid and began advocating for safer work conditions.[4][5] A crew member added, "We cited everything from lack of payment for three weeks, taking our hotels away despite asking for them in our deals, lack of COVID safety, and on top of that, poor gun safety! Poor on-set safety period!"[21] Furthermore, before the incident occurred, two prop guns had previously fired a total of three times unintentionally (Baldwin's stunt double had accidentally fired two blanks when he was told a prop gun was "cold", and a young woman had shot herself in the foot with a blank round).[5][4][22] However, the production did not launch an investigation into the negligent discharges and later claimed they "were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set".[23][24] Costume designer Terese Magpale David later said that claims of "unsafe, chaotic conditions are bullshit".[25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3520:11D0:A8DC:DA27:9BB0:EACE (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Should it be the other way?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've heard that there's a discussion about if the article about the movie should be merged into the article about the shooting incident. But, I feel like it should be the other way. For one, I think there would be a lot of people wanting to look at the article to the movie itself. And an article about a shooting incident that tells about the entire movie seems weird. I think the incident article should be merged into one section of the movie article. What do you think of this? Thanks. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed If they are merged, this article should be moved into the other one. This would be consistent with the death of Sarah Jones in Midnight Rider (film), where information on the incident along with all subsequent lawsuits are discussed in the article about the non-canceled movie. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we not have a separate discussion. Put any opinions in the technically-still-ongoing one above. Kingsif (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2022 (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.

Should something be added about Baldwin's denial that he pulled the trigger?

It seems that Baldwin told Stephanopolis that Baldwin did not pull the trigger. Should this be added? (FairNPOV (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC))

Yes...the claim has been repeated/echoed by other sources, so notability is def established. I think the claim implies that it was a spontaneous fire/slip of the hammer, but we should be very careful in paraphrasing/how it's worded. After that interview, no fewer than 80,000 bearded gun enthusiasts somehow popped up on their youtube channels and gave their take on his claim, saying it was a stretch (the less nice ones said b******). More RS interviews (CNN, etc.) with gun experts seemed skeptical of Baldwin's claim, and said it was likely that he didn't realize his finger was on the trigger when he cocked it, so when he released it, the hammer went down. "I would never pull the trigger" doesn't mean he didn't have it pulled prior to pointing it at her, which resulted in her sealed fate, after his releasing the hammer. It sounds Bill Clinton-ey to me. But we can absolutely include what he said, as long as we make it clear it's his claim. And my hunch is, the experts were in pretty strong unanimous disagreement, and we can include their responses too, assuming we have the sourcing (the RS experts, not the backwoods ones lecturing from their youtube channels, although plenty of them seem pretty knowledgeable). 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment by sockpuppet of User:PeacePeace striked and noted per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article needs expansion with respect to Baldwin's ABC interview. It shouldn't reach a conclusion, but it should take note of Baldwin's claim that he fired the gun without pulling the trigger, and cite a rebuttal. By the way, as a "backwoods expert" who owns 17 guns including one whose action is the same as the one Baldwin used to shoot the cinematographer, I took note of that baseless, smug, arrogant, condescending insult. I reply that we backwoods Bubbas actually know what we're talking about. This is in sharp contrast to whomever puked out that insult. Along those lines, I believed that the death was a matter of civil negligence until I saw that interview. I tested Baldwin's story three times, and could not get my single-action, four-position hammer revolver to replicate what he said he did. I am very far from alone in this regard. People who know single-action revolvers universally scoff at Baldwin's claim. Of course, we're bearded gun enthusiasts rather than Kumbaya-chanting vegans, which is a real problem unless you want to actually know or learn anything about firearms.

I realize the ban on research here, and would not suggest that mine be in the article. But someone's ought to be. To put it mildly, it was not the smartest idea for Baldwin to try to float that story in a country with 80-100 million gun owners. So yeah, the "backwoods experts" are dummies, except that we will forget more about guns than non-gunners will know. Any gunner who saw that interview laughed at Baldwin's lie. That said, the article should simply tell both sides of that "triggerless fire" story. I would do it myself, but I stopped editing Wikipedia articles a long time ago after encountering the know-nothing juvenile flash mobs that dominate. From time to time, I'll throw in a comment like this one, knowing that it won't make one single bit of difference. 97.73.100.158 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Prop" gun?

Everybody I know uses the phrase "prop gun" in a way that excludes "real gun". A "prop gun", in the usage of everyone I know, wouldn't be capable of shooting real ammunition with bullets. A "prop gun", to them, is a "fake gun" that meets a movie's or play's requirements. (So, "prop gun" excludes a fake gun carved out of black clay to be used in a bluff.) So, we are at first bewildered when told that someone was fatally shot with a "prop gun". It is apparent to me as I read this talk-page that that is not how industry insiders use the phrase, but Wikipedia isn't being written for industry insiders. I would change "prop gun" to something like

QUOTE:

prop gun (which, in industry parlance, includes real guns (such as this one) used as props)

UNQUOTE

or just change it from "prop gun" to "gun". What would be the loss if "prop" were deleted? Would it make any reader think that a props-department staffer handed Baldwin a gun for a purpose other than its use in a movie, for instance, in case of coyote attack? I think not.2600:8804:8800:11F:8D51:1B8B:3E43:2793 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Absolutely agree about the term. To non-specialists (which is why any encyclopedia exists to begin with), that label is misleading. It implies that the firearms on sets aren't real. This is sometimes the case, but most guns on movie sets are just as real as any other gun. This was the case with the Baldwin shooting, so at the very least that section should be edited to make this clear. 97.73.100.158 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

With production having been indefinitely suspended on Rust, it's no longer clear that the film actually needs a standalone article as a separate topic from the shooting incident anymore. A separate article about the film can always be restored in the future if the film ever actually resumes production and gets released (which is highly unlikely, but I won't say never) — but we really only need one article here, covering the film and the shooting incident as a single topic, rather than two articles treating them as two distinct topics. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I support merger. The article is short and unlikely to be expanded. It is especially short when overlapping content is taken into account. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a merger. If they ever start the movie back up again we can split them. —valereee (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

i dont support the merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5701:F6D0:B0DF:938C:90F3:7B03 (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide an actual reason for not supporting it, instead of just saying "I don't support it, the end"? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It might be better to merge this article into the film article so as to make it easier to keep all of the content of both. I would agree to a merge if all of the content of the film article would be added here. Currently, the content would be the Premise, Cast (could be condensed to a sentence or two), part of the Development, and Spider bite incident sections. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a formal proposal? Either way, I would say no for now. Independent of the other existing, each article could be standalone, and we shouldn't needlessly merge when it really isn't clear which is the "parent" - the specific shooting incident couldn't happen outside the production of the film, but the film's production is not defined by the shooting incident; but the shooting incident has far surpassed the rest of the production in general knowledge and encyclopedic content. Even if the film is firmly cancelled, I don't think either subject becomes so reliant on the other for notability that a merge is warranted. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It isn't about notability. The thing is that the film article is short and unlikely to be expanded (WP:MERGEREASON). It's unique content that doesn't overlap with this article is 1-2 sentences long (spider incident notwithstanding which IMO shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia...). It is simply opportune to combine the two articles into one, the way Super Goku V described above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It is about notability, the way both of us have described it: there is content about the film that is UNDUE at this article but still warrants encyclopedic coverage. If the shooting incident hadn't happened, the film article would still be fine to exist even if not expanded beyond its current status. Notability for inclusion is met, and notability of separate production details is also met. The film was notable enough for inclusion before the shooting incident, so necessarily there will be details which do not belong at the article of the shooting incident and which we aren't just going to delete from Wikipedia because one (a few?) editors think the shooting incident has effectively superseded the movie. If you're desperate for a merge, it should really all go into the film article actually, as the shooting incident could* be seen as derivative to its production, while the wider details of the planned film will never belong in the shooting incident article.
*"could" is also generous. I think especially the wider concerns of safety on film sets that have sprung discussions from this incident make it a separate enough topic that it shouldn't just be treated as a production detail of one film. Any merge would be inappropriate, at least for now. Kingsif (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The production "details" (terse as they are) are already included in the incident article. The small part that isn't included would nit be undue, it would be okay. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Really? Ignoring the spider bite incident, the plot and cast sections could not be incorporated as they are into the shooting incident article, and would have to be awkwardly stated in an extended background section before likely being removed as undue (same goes for the production section parts on order and timing of casting and the plot's source material); the Baldwin-Souza development process and the related films parts would likely also be removed as too fine detail on something tangential to the shooting incident, as would the budget and pre-production distribution deal unless sources exist that connect these to the shooting incident (I could see sources speculating that budget constraints made firearm safety lax, and if the film gets completely cancelled, some legal issues with distribution already having a paid deal - but these sources do not currently seem to exist) - without the sources, any attempt at connecting such production details to the subject (rather than just vomiting all the movie's finer details into a fluffy background section that would be quickly decimated) would be SYNTH. As in, everything at the film article besides the two sentences on the shooting incident would be rife for removal if someone tried to include in this article; the fact that the film article existed before the shooting incident shows that these details are worthy of encyclopedic coverage - but at the appropriate place. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thus this merger is artificially and needlessly creating potential for problems. Flipping Switches (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't support merger. Flipping Switches (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide an actual reason for not supporting it, instead of just saying "I don't support it, the end"? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with reasoning provided by Kingsif. I see no logic in creating the need to potentially leave out parts of either article to fit the format of the merged one or to resolve chicken-egg problem, when things are OK the way they are now. It's not like we have a goal to have less articles in Wikipedia by 2022. Flipping Switches (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned about information being left out as well, but Alalch Emis believes that all can be merged into the article without being undue based on their most recent comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Then they're woefully misguided. It would probably take until the incident is no longer considered current, but even just the cast list will be inevitably removed with edit reasons like "actress who was going to play aunt irrelevant because she wasn't involved in shooting incident"... Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose merger, broadly in line with Kingsif. At the very least, this decision could wait until after Rust either comes out or is cancelled. Tisnec (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the merger because it's about the suspended film itself. We should wait until we hear whatever or not it is cancelled before we go there. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be the other way, with this article being merged into the movie article, rather than the latter being merged into the former. My reasoning is because it would be weird to have an article that is presumably about the incident to have all the info on the movie itself as well. Rather, it would make more sense to merge it that way so the article title matches the content of the article better. I think either that, or just no merger at all. Thank you for hearing me out. P.S. I just realized someone else said this, so I agree with @Super Goku V:. Sincerely, CertifiedAmazing2 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And someone else (me) already said that there would be a need to consider the fact that this incident has far surpassed the movie it stemmed from in notability and coverage. There is no good way to merge the articles. I mean, even just look at the length of this compared to the movie's article, and remember that the main focus of any text at the movie's article should be the movie - this incident should be a footnote there, as it is. Basically, there are two main topics, so two articles. If/when things change, more proposals can be made. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support there's no need for two articles with lots of overlap regarding the controversy. If production ever resumes, then I have no prejudice against later restoring the film's page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the suspended movie is famous, and interwiki to other languages shows a "need" for this article in English.--This article has details that will be lost if merged into another article. 89.8.150.53 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. Even if they share a lot of the same information, they are about two different things, and some details could be lost. It’s totally unnecessary to merge these articles. The Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany articles share a lot of information, The Pripyat and Pripyat Amusement Park articles do as well, but they are separate for a reason and merging them would lose a lot of information. It’s also easier to find information relevant specifically to what you’re looking for. I wanted to find the budget and premise of the movie, this article was more focused and relevant to that information. This is honestly a silly request and I really wish people could go 5 minutes without requesting to merge every article because they want to brag to their uninterested date about how they’re some sort of “major contributor” to Wikipedia. Redundant details are ALWAYS better than missing details, especially for a bloody encyclopaedia. George Shardell (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"California judge"

The article says that "On January 23, 2022, Baldwin and other producers filed a memorandum that asked a California judge to dismiss the November 17, 2021 lawsuit by Mitchell".

Maybe the article should explain why that lawsuit is in California.--I am guessing that a production company has its address in California. 89.8.150.53 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Clearer title?

Note that the italics in Rust don't show up in all contexts. Without them, the article sounds like it's talking about shooting rust. Even with them, it still kind of sounds like it's about shooting rust and that the italics are just misplaced; it's not clear at all that they refer to a film. Complicating the issue, the shooting happened while they were shooting Rust, for a different meaning of the word "shooting".

I don't have a clear candidate for what to rename it, but surely there's something better. Maybe "Fatal firearms incident during Rust filming"? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That's because no titles automatically have formatting - just add the italics every time you see it missing somewhere. Rather than invent an unwieldy and uncommon name. Kingsif (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it never appears in lists like "related changes"; there's no way to add it there. But the main point is that even with the italics, it's just not a very clear name, for three reasons:

1. Most people don't know about the movie Rust, or at least not by name.
2. The word "rust" is too common in its ordinary meaning.
3. The word "shooting" is confusing because you also "shoot" a film.

I don't think WP:COMMONNAME really applies here, because I don't think there is a "common name". I'm willing to be proved wrong on that — if you can show that the incident is referred to by the three specific words "Rust shooting incident" a large fraction of the time in reliable-source coverage, that would be a strong argument. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone recommended "Shooting of Halyna Hutchins" as a better title. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's better. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The question is, would the incident have become notable enough for Wikipedia if it wasn't during a film shoot. I would dispute that Most people don't know about the movie Rust, or at least not by name. - it is at least known for this, so as well- or more known than Hutchins' name. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think you're just incorrect on the second point. Lots of people — I would guess at least the majority of Americans — have heard that Baldwin was holding a gun during a film shoot and it killed someone. I doubt one in fifty could actually name the movie.

The "would it have been notable if..." argument would actually suggest calling out Baldwin by name in some way, rather than the film. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP probably prevents us from naming Baldwin in the title. But then what about Joel Souza being shot, too? The death, was tragic, but the notoriety, as we say, came from the circumstances involving "film set" and "Alec Baldwin shot someone", and would be the same if Souza or another crewmember died. Perhaps the most accurate and BLP-abiding name would be "2021 film set gunshot incident", but then why not name the film? Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Because no one's ever heard of the film, and because its name sounds like the common noun "rust". --Trovatore (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually I would be curious to hear your reasoning of how BLP stops us from putting Baldwin's name in the title. --Trovatore (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

1. conjecture, 2. Baldwin in the name would imply responsibility (WP:BLPCRIME) -Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Both of those reasons are invalid. It is not conjecture that it was Baldwin holding the gun, and that's ample reason to have his name in the article title, regardless of responsibility. --Trovatore (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't referring to COMMONNAME, I was saying that the formulation (like, phrasing) of the proposed name was uncommon, not something someone would naturally call the incident and not a likely search term for it. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reassessment

I have just reassessed the article to C-class in all WPs; I intend to do a review for B-class shortly to make sure there are no major issues; if someone wants to go ahead and to that, please feel free. The article is in good shape overall. Ppt91 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Insurance?

Should there be any discussion of the production liability insurance involved here and how/if it responded to this incident? I think there should be. 24.212.225.190 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you find some citations that discuss the production liability insurance then we will include it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-insurance-policy-6-million-hutchins-souza/

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/10/28/639522.htm 24.212.225.190 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you think anymore details are needed. It would help if you suggested prose as I do not like to write. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Production never resumed

In the opening of the article, it says production was suspended until January 2023. I don't think it never resumed production. Cwater1 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Per reliable sources, producers of the film actually had announced it would resume production in January, but you're correct that it didn't happen. They're now giving a new time frame. However, per WP:CRYSTAL, I've removed any reference as to when filming will resume. If and when it happens, content can be added to reflect that. Stoarm (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just thought I could point it out. Want to avoid information that isn't no longer true. Cwater1 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Production has now been reported to have restarted, as shown in this article by the BBC. OneRandomBrit (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now. That is good news. Cwater1 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge articles

I imagine it has been brought up before but I feel like these articles (Rust shooting incident and Rust (upcoming film) should be merged together. Sadly, it seems the entire article about the movie itself wouldn't even exist without the article about the shooting. Just a thought! conman33 (. . .talk) 03:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Problematic description of responsibilities for Hannah Gutierrez-Reed

"Gutierrez-Reed's last day in the role of armorer was October 17th. On the day of the incident, October 21st, she had no armorer responsibilities and was contracted solely as a prop assistant"

This is an inaccurate characterization of her responsibilities on the 21st. If she prepared a functioning weapon for filming, then she had the responsibility of armorer. The union contract with any production requires that that person be paid as an armorer for that day.

The document that this line references also provides much more context that is not respected here. Documented messaging between her and the line producer show that she was expected to play a dual role as prop assistant and armorer. Her role did not change from armorer to prop assistant. Nor did the verbal limit to the number of armorer days constitute any sort of contractual agreement. The production put her in the role of armorer when they asked her to unlock the arms safe 2600:4041:127:9700:0:0:0:100A (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Previous incedent disputed

Regarding the claim made by source 18

"Reached Tuesday by TheWrap, a producer of “The Old Way” denied the incidents and denied that anyone ever asked for the armorer’s dismissal. “I have no such recollection of this event on our set. I asked my partners the same,” the producer said. “The details on some of these accounts specifically when it pertains to ‘The Old Way’ have been blown out of proportion.”"

From https://www.thewrap.com/rust-armorer-inexperience-hannah-gutierrez-fired-nicolas-cage-film/ 2003:F7:7723:8B00:59D0:DB53:2AE3:3473 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)