Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack on Paul Pelosi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 14 days

Attack on Paul Pelosi is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) at 01:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: 2022 assault in San Francisco, California

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph of of Paul Pelosi be added to this article.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Adding the 911 call recording and bodycam video to the article

I think it would be useful for the recordings that were released by the court on Friday to be included in this article. I don't know what the copyright status of those recordings are though. News outlets seem to be including them in their articles without issue; can we do the same? – Anne drew 16:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we don't have to host the video/audio ourselves. I've added external links to YouTube. – Anne drew 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health issues turned into character assination

I am concerned that those allowed to edit this page have had such an easy to not only project their opinions on someones character but also create a link between a history of mental health issues and a list of bigoted statements which have no factual backing.

social media follower of people who a minority claim are 'far right'. Sexist remarks? Racist remarks? Firstly, who decides if online posts are sexist? And is Wikipedia, supposedly a home for truth and knowledge the place for personal opinions and bias?

Then there is earlier point I raised, that the editor of this page was very sloppy and outright disgusting in connecting mental health issues with making sexist and racist remarks, oh and following who, Jordan Peterson. That is some severe dehrading work there. so many people suffer from various forms of mental health, myself included, that does not make me a racist and sexist also. This section needs editing asap.

I still cannot understand how fabricating a complete character assination of the attacker is useful. The history of metal health issues may be useful but the reeks of MSM click bait.

You wiki marshalls, need to stop abusing your positions. 195.213.58.151 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of post I would normally remove from talk pages. You did not specify which group of sentences is "incorrect", you provided no sources, and your post is written like a general complaint. You need to be extremally specific about your complaints if you want anyone to pay attention to your posts. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation and disinformation section largely opinion based

Currently the misinformation/disinformation section reads only as the author's opinions. In cases like this where there isn't strong evidence either way for the motives and what actually happened, it is merely an opinion of the author of this section to characterise and dismiss the concerns over the overarching narrative as "misinformation". The line mentioning a "fake news website" does not name the website in-article (so that it can be verified as fake news) nor does the title of the reference contained in the endnote, relying on readers to simply not check the source and take it at face value. Like most articles on the platform, this entire article reads as a hit-piece against any discussion/investigation of the incident and isn't balanced to 50/50 right vs left perspectives as is required. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia does not balance issues "right vs. left", all significant points of view are to be covered, regardless of political slant. Paul Pelosi was attacked by a violent man who opposed his more-famous wife's political point-of-view. The notion that there was anything more to this event that that is fringe conspiracy, and does not get equal placement in this article. The misinformation and disinformation section is based on reliable sources, and will not be altered to include conspiracies. Zaathras (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump...claiming that the attack was a false flag operation

There's a citation later in the article about other figures implying it was a false flag. But I don't see any reference in the citation that Trump himself claimed outright that it was a false flag. See Elon Musk, right-wing figures push misinformation about Pelosi attack. Could the lead use similar language to the body, using 'implied' rather than 'claimed'? Faolin42 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 01:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few small contributions to this article, but nothing significant. I am confident I can provide an impartial review of this article against the Good Article Criteria. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review by section

Lead

Overall, the lead seems like a good summary of the article body. After doing a spot check, it seems like of the information is verifiable, either in the article body or using inline citations.

There are, however, a few additional aspects of the body that may be worth summarizing in the lead:

Life prior to the attack. Would it make sense including a sentence or two on DePape's nationality and his past political history?
Reactions. The lead does a good job summarizing the misinformation spread about the attack, but I think it should also mention the condemnations of the attack that were made by both Democratic and Republican officials.
Lasting impact. For completeness, it might be worth adding a sentence on the lasting impact to the Pelosi family and Mr. Pelosi's health in particular.

– Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break-in and attack

The house image is tilted at a strange dutch angle. I think it should be rotated and cropped. I'm happy to help with that if you want.
The intruder woke Pelosi and demanded to speak to "Nancy"

While this is correct and verified by references, I think we could make it clearer that Pelosi was intentionally awoken by DePape in the bedroom, rather than Pelosi been awoken from the sound of the break in.
Pelosi called 911 on his cellphone at 2:27 a.m.

The sources are inconsistent here. This one states that the time was 2:23. It's not really a material difference, but an additional source confirming one time or the other would be great.
The call prompted the 911 dispatcher to send police to Pelosi's aid for a wellness check

This is verified, but we don't need five separate sources here. I'd recommend moving some of the citations at the end of this sentence to more relevant locations. See WP:OVERCITE.
The released body-cam footage of San Francisco police officers capture the door opening as DePape struggles with Pelosi

Nitpick, but this could be smoother/more grammatical.
swinging the hammer overhead toward his head.

Another nitpick, but the hammer actually struck Pelosi in the head, it didn't merely swing "toward his head".

A few small things here, but in general this section is informative and well-referenced! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

naming California Governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden as prospective targets

Small thing, but we might want to include a description of Hunter Biden since we have one for the other targets listed. Maybe we can change this to:

naming California Governor Gavin Newsom, actor Tom Hanks, and Hunter Biden – son of President Joe Biden – as prospective targets
Although Pelosi received more violent threats than any other lawmaker (and, as speaker, she was accompanied by a security detail when traveling), her home did not receive round-the-clock live protection.

This feels a little editorialized, and it also repeats information from the previous sentence, that her home wasn't continuously monitored when she wasn't home.

Otherwise no major issues with this section! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator

Review comments will go here

State and federal prosecution

Review comments will go here

Reactions

Review comments will go here

Overall review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Reviewing...
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Reviewing...
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Reviewing...
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Reviewing...
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Reviewing...
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Reviewing...
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Reviewing...