Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi/Archives/2022/November

regarding the examples of what he posted

IE he is accused of denying holocaust and so on. In addition to the secondary sources which paraphrase him doing that, would there be any objection to the inclusion of the primary sources (presumably archive.org records of his facebook/wordpress/frenlyFrens before all three were taken down?) with the literal quotations which correlate with these summaries? HearthHOTS (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That amounts to a violation of the No original research policy because it puts Wikipedia editors in the position of sifting though his writings and deciding what is important to mention and what isn't. That is not our role. That is the job of professional reporters and editors employed by reliable news sources. Our role is only to accurately summarize those published news sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

FrenlyFrens is mistakenly registered from Richmond, Alabama not Richmond, California

https://www.whois.com/whois/frenlyfrens.com

Street: 1822 shasta st

City: richmond

State: AL

This appears to be a mistake, because there is only a Shasta Street in California, not Alabama.

It looks like Wix who sold the website to him did not catch this error. I assume WhoIs just reports whatever Wix does? HearthHOTS (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a routine clerical error of no consequence. There certainly is a Shasta Street in Richmond, California but no Shasta Steeet in Richmond, Alabama. Not a single reliable source I have read mentions an Alabama connection. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Trish inclusion

NBC has also made reference to a neighbor named "Trish" so I think we can include this now.

"What we know about David DePape, the man accused in the Pelosi home invasion and attack". NBC News. 28 October 2022. A Berkeley resident on Friday said she last saw DePape at a neighboring home two weeks ago. He was near a school bus parked in front of the home. Trish, 32, said DePape lived for a time in the school bus and in a second school bus parked in the home's driveway that advertises "natural addiction treatment." She said he appeared to be part of a "hippy collective" that stays at the home. A sign that said "Black Lives Matter" could be seen hanging in a window at the home. In the front yard, a flag with a marijuana leaf and the colors of the pride flag was draped from a tree. Trish said that people who stay in the home were unlike "any other happy-go-lucky, peace, love and friendship hippies. They're aggressive and they're mean and they start problems for no reason." She said that people in the house regularly accused her and her partner of plotting to break into their home or steal from them. She said one allegation happened on Christmas Eve a few years ago, when she said an officer knocked on her apartment door. The officer said authorities had been told that someone in her home was planning to steal a guitar from the neighbor, she recalled.

NBC has also independently confirmed that a BLM sign is seen in the home he stayed in. HearthHOTS (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I notice you cut out the counter-claims by residents in the article. This all looks like a petty squabble. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There is zero evidence in reliable sources that DePape himself supported Black Lives Matter or hung that sign or lived in that house since he broke up with Gypsy Taub in 2013 before BLM existed. He visited there from time to time because he had relationships with Taub's children. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The neighbor interviewed (Trish) says she saw him inside the parked bus two weeks prior to the attack. It's unclear whether NBC interviewed her separately or were relying on this interview conducted by Michael Shellenberger but either way that seems like strong evidence he hangs at that bus reisence. HearthHOTS (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per BLP. Some random woman named Trish claims DePape lived in a school bus owned by neighbors she has a dispute with. Even if everything she's says is true, everyone agrees he didn't live in the house, so it doesn't matter what flags they flew or what disputes they had with neighbors. Feoffer (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Trish isn't a 'random woman' NBC agrees with other sources which deign to mention her that she is a neighbor. As for the other testimonies, those are the ones to question since they don't even have a first name or video on the record. HearthHOTS (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody contests that DePape lived in that house for several years until 2013 or that he sometimes slept in a schoolbus parked there or that he visited the young people who live or lived there. What I object to is the spurious and evidence free implication that he is a Black Lives Matter supporter, and I presume that other editors agree with my concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You keep mentioning this "2013" thing. That year isn't mentioned once in the article. What is your source for this unique year, which you used in an edit summary to revert an edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, This New York Times article quotes Gypsy Taub's daughter Inti as saying that DePape was out of that household eight years ago. Many sources report that Gypsy Taub married another man in 2013. The eccentric wedding was covered in Bay Area media back then. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say the hippy house with the BLM flag is the same place? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, there is only one Berkeley house being discussed. It is on Woolsey street in south Berkeley. I have known that neighborhood very well for 46 years. Nobody has reported on any other house. Here is local reporting on the house and how little connection DePape had to it. He has been living in Richmond recently. Cullen328 (talk)

I think it's a little too early to try to pin-down this guys political ideology two days after the incident with the information available. People that get involved in stuff like this tend to end up diagnosed with a mental illness and don't posses any coherent political philosophy, at all. See Jared Loughner. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to "pin down" the suspect's ideology. Instead, it is our role to accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about this person's writings and behavior, and so far, the reporting in reliable sources is pretty consistent about his views in recent years. As for "coherence", no reasonable person expects that in a case like this. Cullen328 (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that the Los Angeles Times disputes that he lived on the property in question. I haven't seen any reliable sources other than NBC News that say that he lived in the house--and I don't think we should be giving a lot of weight to a statement in a single news story that is attributed to a single person attributed by their first name only. (Even if the person did visit that home from time-to-time, I'm still not convinced that this should be included--visiting a home is a relatively passive action. If the suspect did mething more active, like write out social media posts supporting BLM or LGBTQ issues, that would be different.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

He definitely lived in that house on and off when he was Gypsy Taub's boyfriend, but was out of that household by 2013 or 2014, according to Taub's daughter Inti. He sometimes slept in an old bus parked close to the house and visited some of Taub's children. Cullen328 (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Inti mentions have 2 younger brothers, one of which allegedly remembered DePape molesting him and Inti. Who said DePape was visiting them specifically? I was under the impression that Taub kicked him out on Inti's 13th birthday and didn't allow him back. HearthHOTS (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Taub has been in jail or prison since 2019. Here is a quote from the New York Times: "A neighbor, Ryan La Coste, 35, said that Mr. DePape had been a semi-frequent visitor to the house and continued to stop by after Ms. Taub was incarcerated. 'I think he might have been helping out because the kids are still young,' he said. But mostly, Mr. La Coste said, Mr. DePape seemed to blend in with the cast of largely transient people who passed through the home." Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent article in the Los Angeles Times

Here is an archived version of an excellent article from the Los Angeles Times that addresses many of the falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Recommended reading for editors working on this article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

State charges

On the same day, the San Francisco District Attorney's Office filed state charges against DePape... This doesn't appear to be in the source cited. Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/us/pelosi-home-attack-suspect-charged.html: "All of it was detailed on Monday in a federal complaint against David DePape, 42, who was charged with attempting to kidnap Ms. Pelosi and assaulting a relative of a federal official. San Francisco’s prosecutor later filed six additional state charges against Mr. DePape. ... Later on Monday, Brooke Jenkins, the San Francisco district attorney, announced the additional state charges, which include attempted murder, residential burglary, elder abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment of an elder and threatening family members of public officials. Mr. DePape, who was treated at a hospital for what the authorities described as minor injuries, was expected to be arraigned in superior court on Tuesday." Neutrality^talk 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed that.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Lustful Goddess connection

I don't know what our policy is here about linking to pornographic content archived on the Wayback Machine but it seems pretty important to acknowledge here.

Gypsy Taub wrote about operating this company in a 2013 article. A warning to anyone clicking the link, it contains uncensored nude photographs:

• "An interview about the nudity ban in San Francisco and thoughts about body acceptance and body freedom". San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. 16 January 2013. Later in the US I became a strip dancer and then a nude model. About a decade later I started filming sex scenes of real couples. Here is my site:

The website is presently down but seems to have been active as late as January 2022 judging by the archives. The alias "Carmen" is used on the site by Gypsy.

One work copywritten in 2008 called "Pretty Bush 1" credits a David DePape as "Custodian of Records" and lists a Moscow, Russia address. HearthHOTS (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Why important?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Establishes ongoing connection w/ DePape until at least 2008, implies residences other than Canada/USA. HearthHOTS (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Making such a connection in this article would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Undue speculation

I'm seeing a lot of speculation and attempts to tie this to other hot-button issues. Let's try to only add relevant and pertinent information that can be reliably sourced. Any connections to conspiracy theories/conjecture/the Jan 6 protests etc.. should be met with quality sources. MasteredDegree (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Like we usually do. If it's somehow connected, we'll add it with sources. Where have you seen "attempts to tie this to other hot-button issues"? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 17:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The four sources currently in the article that discuss his spreading of right wing conspiracy theories are high quality reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a number of bits that tangentially attempt to connect certain political motives to the suspect. Stuff about the pillow man (lindell) and some connection to the Jan 6 protests. MasteredDegree (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose these edits. Read this Politico article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess if you want to use that source, you could say,"Although police have not found a motive, many Democrats have concluded that the attack was political in nature". Although that is pretty conspiratorial. MasteredDegree (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, what do you by mean "political"? The assailant was incontavertably attempting to murder Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is a high-ranking politician with whom the assailant had no personal connection whatsoever. He has been very clear and adamant on social media, however, that he violantly opposes Pelosi's politics. Maybe that doesn't fit YOUR definition of "political", but if so, I'd be very curious to learn what does. TheScotch (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well up to this point there's been no evidence that the attack was political in nature. This is mostly speculation on your part. MasteredDegree (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Presenting information about the attacker's past is not speculation. The reliable sources cover it and so should we. Reliable sources have already been cited in the article regarding his past. starship.paint (exalt) 02:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Speculation on my part"? How can you say that with a straight face? What specific part of what I wrote above do you deny? On what basis? What other possible interpretation is possible? If you don't have an actual argument, as you appear not to, then you need to cease posting here. You're just obstructing and wasting everyone's time. TheScotch (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're really worked up about this. I was saying that, without evidence (which there is none) that this is politically motivated, we shouldn't try to speculate or drive the narrative in the direction that it is. It seems like a crazy guy broke into someone's house and attacked them because that's what crazy people do. But if you wanna keep getting irate and accuse me of wasting everyone's time because I'm trying to be objective, go off, fam. MasteredDegree (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources routinely cite DePape's online postings. Feoffer (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

They sure do. But there's no evidence that this was political in nature. So let's try to show some free will here. MasteredDegree (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

MasteredDegree,
"But there's no evidence that this was political in nature"
Who said this was political in nature? We only mentioned politician's comments and the accused's beliefs and they're well sourced. Allow the readers to formulate their own viewpoints from reading this. Your comments here are not helping. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 16:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

By shoehorning every political opinion the man has ever had into the article, it heavily implies and skews the article in a direction it shouldn't go. MasteredDegree (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

He was attempting to kidnap a high-profile politician; his political views seem highly relevant to his motivation, his sanity, and how this might have been prevented, and that is reflected in the reliable sources which are cited. Are you arguing for the possibility that the kidnapping was motivated by something else, like being a jilted lover? Is there any evidence of that in reliable sources? -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A crazy homeless man broke into the house of an irrelevant old man and hit him with a hammer. All of the Original Research in the article is pure speculation. But nice try, trying to put words in my mouth. I'm suggesting we stop violating BLP guidelines and just report the truth. MasteredDegree (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Come on, Mastered. It wasn't some "irrelevant old man"; it was Nancy Pelosi's husband. And the attacker knew it, because he kept shouting "Where is Nancy?" He knew she lived there and he was purposely targeting her - for exactly what purpose we do not know yet. But she is a very important politician, so his motives are likely to be political in nature. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: We literally had to have an RFC to establish that Paul wasn't, in fact, some irrelevant old guy, so we could add details of a previous criminal charge against him. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That RFC was three months ago. It was decided then that he was already enough of a public figure that the details of his arrest could be added. So that issue has already been settled: He is not some irrelevant old guy. He is the husband of one of the most powerful (and most vilified) women in the country. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps. But the rush to speculate on motive is highly oppositional to BLP guidelines. I know that you guys know this. MasteredDegree (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

MasteredDegree, the San Francisco District Attorney stated unambiguously today that the motive was political, and the federal prosecutors said that the intent was to kidnap and kneecap the Speaker of the House, and these developments were reported by many reliable sources. This is not speculation. It is summarizing what the reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's actually speculation. There has been zero evidence to the contrary. MasteredDegree (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

MasteredDegree, please use the talk page for constructive activity related to the article. You appear to be new here, so I'll let you know that this is an unnecessary discussion that is resulting in no improvement to the article. If you have a specific complaint about the contents of this article, feel free to discuss it on the corresponding talk page. Be informed that the talk page is not a place for general complaints. Nythar (💬-🎃) 06:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the entire thread, you'll realize how silly you sound. MasteredDegree (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@MasteredDegree: You need to stop deleting the characterization of DePage's conspiracy theories. They're well-source and relevant -- your objection to this material has been heard and rejected by multiple editors. Seven deletions is enough: 1234 567 Feoffer (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My objections with the segment I'm editing is it's placement. Biographical information on the individual should not be in the section that the less-aware editors keep placing it in. MasteredDegree (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Should a separate section be added to discuss conspiracy theories related to this incident? Many people (mostly on the right) are claiming there is evidence indicating the attack was some sort of cover-up or hoax or false-flag event. Yodabyte (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

the 2nd hammer

Does anyone know which source reported the 2nd hammer first?

October 28th affidavit by FBI agent Stephanie Minor https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022.10.31_depape_complaint_and_affadavit_signed_0.pdf

"DEPAPE had zip ties, tape, rope, and at least one hammer with him that morning. The evidence further shows that DEPAPE assaulted Mr. Pelosi with DEPAPE’s own hammer."

October 31st justice.gov article https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-charged-assault-and-attempted-kidnapping-following-breaking-and-entering-pelosi-residence

"officers secured a roll of tape, white rope, a second hammer, a pair of rubber and cloth gloves, and zip ties"

Just curious when we moved from "at least one" to "at least two" here. I'm only learning of >1 hammer just now, most sources only seem to highlight the hammer which they were struggling over and which struck Pelosi.

Also I remember some fraudulent reporting that the hammer was owned by Pelosi, does anyone know which sites were spreading that misinfo? Affidavit clearly says DePape brought the hammer. HearthHOTS (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The first I heard of the second hammer is when the Justice Department released its charging document that described the contents of the backpack previously described as a "bag", which can be a vague synonym for a backpack. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of any reliable source reports that talk about Pelosi owning the hammer. That's from the conspiracy mongers. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press reported a second hammer here. --Kbabej (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section has experienced very heavy editing. As it stands now, one key paragraph reads as follows:

Prior to the attack, DePape had embraced various far-right political conspiracy theories, including QAnon and Pizzagate. Online, he made conspiratorial, racist, sexist, and antisemitic posts, and pushed COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and Holocaust denial.

References

Overall, I think this is pretty good. It is brief (we don't need to list every specific kooky thing he said) but also comprehensive and accurate (it gets at the high level of the kinds of things he was spewing). Magnolia677, I disagree with some of your changes to this language for 2 reasons: (1) it omitted "far-right" (this is a key part of the source material) and (2) it used words like "transsexual" which are not used in the sources cited.

Welcome the input of MelanieN, Cullen328, and others. Neutrality^talk 18:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Drug addiction, mental illness, delusions of grandeur, nudist lifestyle, homelessness and shifting living arrangements; there are a decade's worth of talking points about the accuser's background, yet this article's lead section seems to omit all of these in favor of a few months of online flaming leading up to the attack. The key paragraph addressing the attacker should cover the broad talking points about his past, but editors appear to be only interested in socially engineering a narrative about his political background. Uziel Grey (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's nice to line them up the before and after side by side:

−

Prior to the attack, DePape had published hateful posts about Jews, Blacks, transsexuals, and Democrats, and had embraced various conspiracy theories including [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)|Gamergate]], [[QAnon]], [[Pizzagate conspiracy theory|Pizzagate]], [[COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy|COVID-19 vaccine misinformation]], and [[Holocaust denial]].

+

Prior to the attack, DePape had embraced various [[far-right]] [[Conspiracy theories in United States politics|political conspiracy theories]], including [[QAnon]] and [[Pizzagate conspiracy theory|Pizzagate]]. Online, he made conspiratorial, racist, sexist, and antisemitic posts, and pushed [[COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy|COVID-19 vaccine misinformation]] and [[Holocaust denial]].

References

Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

First, it's interesting that some of his extreme interests were removed, just to so "far right" could be included. Second, it is unnecessary, and unencyclopedic, to add euphemisms for "Jews, Blacks, transsexuals, and Democrats". He actually attacked a Democrat; no need to change the words (The Washington Post calls them "trans"). Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Virtually all the sources say "far-right" so I'm not sure why you want it removed. I don't think "racist" or "antisemitic" are "euphemisms" at all. Not getting your angle here. Neutrality^talk 19:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that's a definite improvement, Neutrality. For one thing, for us to characterize his posts as "hateful" was non-neutral. I see that "sexist" has been added to the list; that was not in the original material, is it in the sources? As for "far right", that was in the headline of the LA Times article so it is certainly sourced. Overall, very appropriate for the lead. Additional detail should be in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Neutrality's edits were an improvement. Magnolia677 is once again engaging in subtle white washing whilst staying clear of bright line violations. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that "far right" is well supported in reliable sources for inclusion in the lead. As for "hateful", I recommend that be moved to the body, and attributed to a reliable source. What is missing from this part of the lead is DePape's support for the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. As CNN reported, Last year, David DePape posted links on his Facebook page to multiple videos produced by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell falsely alleging that the 2020 election was stolen. He advocated killing reporters who told the truth about the election, after all. It is plausible (I think highly likely) that the election lie was his main motive. I share the concerns about "subtle white washing" and trying to downplay core aspects of this story. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Neutrality^talk 21:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

requesting source quotes about the where-is-Nancy+where-is-Nancy question witnesses

I can see this:

the assailant was reportedly shouting, "Where is Nancy, where is Nancy?"<ref name="WaPoInfo" /><ref name="NYT1031" /><ref name="Politico 2022-10-28" />

This line follows "After police ordered the two men to drop the weapon" does this mean the two responding police officers were witness to the man repeating this sentence? Or that DePape shouting this twice might be on police bodycam?

I tried checking the 3 sources but two (NYT and WashPost) are behind paywalls so I can't see the context. Can someone with access supply the relevant quotes?

The only one I can view (Politico) presents the sentence this way:

That was consistent with the revelation that the assailant, a 42-year-old Berkeley resident, had asked “Where is Nancy?” before his assault.

This only uses the sentence once (it does not quote it happening a 2nd time) and doesn't specify how far prior to the assault the question is asked.

Are these details clarified in the NYT/WP articles?

I tried to look to other accessible sources to answer this. https://fortune.com/2022/10/31/nancy-pelosi-david-depape-attack-break-kneecaps-elon-musk-conspiracy-theory/ mentions "DePape, who police say shouted out “Where is Nancy?” during the attack." This is only quoted a single time, I don't see it repeated.

Do we know which police officer made this statement? I'm not sure if this is saying the arriving officers stated they witnessed this, or if it is saying the officer giving a public statement said it. Basically I'm trying to figure who started reporting this phrase first.

I'm not clear on whether this is something Paul said was shouted prior to police arrival, if it was heard on the 911 call, or if it was heard by the arriving officers when the door was opened.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-attack says this:

The intruder shouted “Where is Nancy?” and said he was going to wait for the speaker to return home, according to a source briefed on the attack.

He shouted “Where is Nancy?” at least twice and later, as he tried to tie up Paul Pelosi and said he would wait “until Nancy got home,” the source said.

The source told CNN the intruder confronted the speaker’s husband in their San Francisco home shouting: “Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?”

So CNN as of October 28th supports the "shouted it twice" idea, although it remains unclear who their source is. Based on how CNN describes it, he shouted this prior to trying to tie up Paul.

This sounds to me like it was done prior to the police's arrival, because at the time police arrived and one of the two men opened the door for them, they were in the middle of struggling for a hammer, not tying each other up with zip ties. HearthHOTS (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not see this as a significant issue with the article at this time. Although Pelosi dropped to the floor apparently unconscious immediately after the attack, he was able to talk on the phone with his wife before going into surgery. It is plausible that he was also able to make a statement to police as well. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The source of the statement is important. MSNBC source says it was shouted twice prior to DePape trying to tie up Pelosi. I'm not sure if this happened before or after he turned on the phone, but it clearly happened before police got there since the cops said they were fighting over a hammer (not a zip tie) when they arrived. HearthHOTS (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the DoJ's release concerning the incident (https://web.archive.org/web/20221031190602/https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1548106/download) Paul Pelosi was interviewed by a SFPD officer while transported to hospital in the ambulance. While the literal phrase "Where is Nancy?" is not mentioned, DePape reportedly asked to talk with Nancy. Narunnaia (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph about side-switching cited to WaPo

In the context of our article, the paragraph makes little sense because we do not document the far-left (Stalinist? Maoist? Pot-Polist?) views that were harbored by DePape. WaPo does not document them either and Green Party is neither fringe left nor far-left. Unless more sources start documenting the subject's far-left views or the not-so-apparent side-switching, the content is UNDUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording somewhat, but the sourcing is good here (WaPo, quoting two experts on extremist and radicalization) and I do think some content noting the link between the attack to online radicalization is appropriate context. This was mentioned not just in the WaPo article, but also in other sources as well. I don't think we necessarily need a specific categorization of his views from many years ago to make the point. Neutrality^talk 21:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that online radicalization appears to be a factor here and indeed, has been covered by other sources. But my bone of contention is about the "side-switching"; no other source that I have come across notes the accused to have harbored far-left views at any point of time. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

On a careful perusal of the source, the WaPo article never states that DePape ever engaged in fringe/far-left activism; let's read their summary statement:

[E]vidence suggest[s] that DePape dabbled in fringe movements of all sorts before embracing the right-wing vilification of Democrats. The complex history of accused attacker David DePape’s radicalization unfolded over more than eight years and several different ideologies, moving from Green Party support and nudist activism, to [..]

Now, the word "left" is mentioned five times in the article:

• DePape’s evolving beliefs show how today’s extremist threat complicates easy left-right categorization

• Cannot be using this to brand DePape as a leftist at any point of time.

• Those details were largely ignored by right-wing figures — including elected Republicans and MAGA stars with millions of followers — who instead reached years back to portray him as a leftist, hemp bracelet-peddling “hippie,”

• WaPo is merely noting the RW accusations and stereotyping. Cannot be of any help.

• Calling this guy a left-wing fanatic today is disingenuous when his chosen path for the last eight years was clearly Alt Right,” extremism researcher J.J. MacNab.

• An expert calls out the RW accusations. Of no use to us though her first tweet appears to equate (?) left wing conspiracy theory with Green Party with nudism.

• Sometimes that leads to a melding of extremism — such as white supremacists borrowing Islamist militant phrases — and other times it can lead to a full flip of the political spectrum, such as moving from the far right to the far left, sometimes called “side switching.”

• A generic definition.

• In Germany, Koehler said, he sees the blurriness these days in anti-vaccination and covid-19 denial movements, where far-left protesters have openly mixed with white supremacists.

• The comment does not concern our subject and Koehler didn't study DePape's posts either. He was roped in for generic comments on the phenomenon of left-right switching having published some relevant scholarship.

Honestly, it appears that the WaPo journalists set out on binning DePape into the cases of side-switching (which, indeed, is very prominent in Central Europe etc.) but failing to come across specific evidence, published a generic article on the theme whilst staying clear of asserting that DePape ever partook in far-left politics of any kind. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All fair points; I'd be fine with conforming edits to the article to keep it within source. Neutrality^talk 13:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Paul Pelosi attack

Conspiracy theory not useful to improving the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Wikipedia account fails to mention that both Pelosi & his alleged assailant were found to be both half naked in their underwear both brandishing hammers. Also there was another young man, a 3rd individual there, who lef the police into the Pelosi residence. This individual has been said by some media sources as having previous charges relating to male prostitution. This 3rd individual said to police the canadian was a "friend". Other media sources in San Fransico claim police found no evidence of a forced entry. It would seem that it is quite possible that all 3 men there knew each other and had been together in the Pelosi residence for some hours before the "incident". One journalist in the UK asked "Why would you strip down to your underwear to attack someone in their residence?" Regarding the canadian who was fighting with Pelosi - described by other media sources as being a nudist hippie who loved hemp and who lived in Berkley - not exactly a Trump supporter profile. British media further mention that the house the canadian lived in also had several "left wing" posters such as BLM posters and flags. Ciahaconsulting2020 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Sources?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC) @Ciahaconsulting2020: regarding your statement "both brandishing hammers" I'm pretty sure the police testimony is that there was a single hammer and that both men had a single hand on the hammer. Not sure what the other hands were doing, but probably one opened the door. Police apparently were not sure which of the two opened the door. The "unknown party" statement about that has led to some confusion where people thought a 3rd party opened the door. I haven't seen any police testimony about there being a "3rd man" as you put it. As for the "underwear" meme, I've heard that on Fox but I'm not sure where it originated. I think we should look into which source first started reporting underwear to see if we can trace that back chronologically. Did any police actually say this? HearthHOTS (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC) This is a recapitulation of bogus and pernicious conspiracy theories. One kernel of truth is that the assailant brought two hammers with him. One was actively used to break through the glass paneled patio doors and to fracture Pelosi's skull. The other was in the assailant's backpack left near the back door. Everything else is complete bullshit, according to the federal charging document. The underwear thing was erroneous reporting immediately after the story broke, which was promptly withdrawn by local Fox affiliate. Pelosi may have been in his underwear for all I know because he was asleep when the attack began. But the attacker was fully clothed. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Don't bother, HearthHOTS. This is clearly political ax-grinding at play here. Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of infobox photo

I removed the infobox photo of Paul Pelosi, but it was added back. I don't think it adds anything to this article and should be removed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Since we have a good photo, I think it is appropriate to keep it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The notion that an excellent recent photo of the victim of the attack should be removed seems exceedingly strange to me. I support keeping the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I second this. We have an up-to-date photo of Gretchen Whitmer on the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot article too. Why shouldn't this? Love of Corey (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's silly, frivolous and redundant to include in the infobox. This isn't a biography of Paul Pelosi, and the picture does not clearly or professinally convey the subject "Attack on Paul Pelosi". It's about as useful as a picture of Oahu to introduce the Attack on Pearl Harbor. It's often better to have no infobox image than a misleading or non-representative one. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it misleading or non-representative? Feoffer (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A thoroughly ill-informed take, Animalparty. This is an article detailing an assault of a notable person, there is nothing "misleading or non-representative" about including a generic photo of the victim. Drop the hyperbole or move on. Zaathras (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you expecting? A photo of a beaten, bloodied Pelosi on a hospital bed? I'm doubtful we'll be getting that, so we'll work with what we've got. Love of Corey (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that photo of the window broken or something. I understand we don't have it, and may never will, but having just a generic photo of Pelosi makes this look biographical, which it isn't. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure any potential confusion can be cleared up by reading the article title, which is practically in plain view next to the photo. Love of Corey (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No competent reader is going to see a photo of Paul Pelosi alongside an article titled "Attack on Paul Pelosi" and be confused over whether it is a simple biography or not. Let's be real here. Zaathras (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not about confusion. It's about whether or not this photo is improving any understanding of this incident, and it's not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea under the sun why you would think that knowing what the 82 year old victim of this notable crime looks like does not improve understanding of the topic. It certainly improves my understanding. Countless reliable sources discussing this crime include photos of the victim and the house that was invaded. We summarize coverage in reliable sources, and this Wikipedia article also includes a photo of the victim and of the house. If we had an acceptably licensed photo that showed the actual crime, then of course, that should be the lead image. But we don't, so this is the best available option at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll just say there's precedent in articles: Assassination of Shinzo Abe, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and many more. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 05:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The photo has 100% improved my understanding of the incident by showing me the victim. starship.paint (exalt) 00:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

...How? Love of Corey (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

A photo of a person (or painting before the era of photography) helps humanize the otherwise abstract person. "A picture says a thousand words". We are writing this article for the ages and for a worldwide audience, not for 2022 US political junkies who already know what Paul Pelosi looks like. I had already seen many photos of him, but this particular photo in this specific article adds a richness and sense of humanity and empathy. The article would be diminished without this photo or a better photo. Who would propose to remove the portrait photo of Teddy Roosevelt from Attempted assassination of Theodore Roosevelt? Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Love of Corey - I didn’t know what the victim looked like, and with the picture, now I know. That’s beneficial. starship.paint (exalt) 14:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Malcolm Lubliner

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.

---

Several reliable sources have made reference to the name of the landlord of the garage that DePape was living in:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/01/us/pelosi-attack-depape-arraignment.html "Ciccarelli helped the landlord of Mr. DePape, Malcolm Lubliner"
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/da-dismisses-conspiracies-pelosi-attack-charges-expected-92437555 "Malcolm Lubliner, the landlord of David DePape, removes DePape's belongings from a home in Richmond, Calif., Monday, Oct. 31, 2022."

Given that Lubliner is the owner of the address listed in the registration data WhoIs displays for FrenlyFrens he seems like a person possibly worth mentioning here.

Presently the article says this much:

The day after the attack, investigators searched a garage in Richmond, California, where DePape had lived for the previous two years

Lubliner did photography for Grateful Dead as seen in https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_Long_Strange_Trip/84aLDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA218-IA11

Fans of Grateful Dead are known as Deadheads which is what Gypsy Taub is described as in https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Naked-truth-behind-Gypsy-Taub-s-nude-nuptials-5070034.php when Olessia changed her name to Gypsy. HearthHOTS (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm worried we might be introducing irrelevant details to this article. It's too detailed already. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't need to name DePape's former landlord or mention DePepe's ex's favorite band. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Why in the world are these relevant? Also serious WP:BLP issues for naming the landlord (who presumably had nothing to do with any acts committed by his tenant). Neutrality^talk 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Something tells me you really need to review WP:BLP policy. Love of Corey (talk) 01:50, 2 November 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.

The Democrats do not own this article

User:Neutrality, you deleted a well sourced addition to the article, rather than make a few edits to improve it. Let me replay the edit summary:

"Biden's comments linking this to January 6th and the Republicans was over-the-top political, and needs to be placed into its own section. Conservative opinions about this needs to be included, per WP:BALANCE; it cannot just document the conspiracy theories".

This article is a hit-piece. Look at Biden's over-the-top comments linking this to January 6th and the Republicans, yet any reasonable response expressing the conservative view gets deleted. This does not benefit Wikipedia's readers. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• With respect, your sourcing was bad - mostly punditry - and your "reorganization" of some content made no sense for reasons I explained in my edit summary. No, quotes from podcast provocateurs (Matt Walsh) and Donald Trump Jr. don't need to be stuck in the article, especially without context. We don't quote (for example) Rachel Maddow, either (and unlike either of those, Maddow has not engaged in fringe commentary). Look, your edits to this article have been consistently subpar - poor sourcing, little concept of due-weight, etc. And you pretty clearly have an axe to grind (Exhibit A: the section header you just made on this talk page.) You might be better served by focusing on other topic areas. Neutrality^talk 23:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In this edit you added the opinions of Matt Walsh and Donald Trump Jr., both of which are undue. If Hunter Biden commented on this event, would we include it then? We can't just include "both sides" to "balance" the "narrative" -- it needs to be reasonable. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is a hit piece that lifted every rock to find right wing conspiracy theories (one who mentions Hitler...what???), but when notable conservatives give their opinion about this, it's deleted and some admin suggests the editor "move on". Wikipedia's readers deserve better. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I suggest you read the False balance article to get an idea on why it's being removed. In the "reactions" section I can see Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. There's also Donald Trump, Mitch Mcconnell, Chuck Schumer. Seems reasonable.

But this is what you added:

The American Conservative wrote that the media's response was about "Managing The Narrative", and that "powerful Democratic Party figures have an interest in keeping a scandal involving Nancy Pelosi suppressed only a week or so before the election, and further, pinning that scandal on evil Republicans".[68] Conservative commentator Matt Walsh wrote, "The media didn't give a shit when Rand Paul was assaulted or Kavanaugh was nearly assassinated or the GOP baseball game was shot up. But it's not a 'double standard.' They just believe that Republicans deserve to die." Donald Trump Jr. wrote that Democrats care more about Paul Pelosi than other crime victims: "Imagine how safe the country would be if democrats took all violent crime as seriously as they’re taking the Paul Pelosi situation".[69] The Washington Post wrote that "the narrative that gained the most traction" was that the attack was linked to "a rise in crime in San Francisco and, by extension, in many cities with Democratic leaders".

If there are many prominent politicians who insist the earth is flat, are we going to split the Earth article into "flat earth" and "round earth" sections? We don't have to balance everything. No, we don't need to include "criticism" by conservative politicians. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: As I remarked on the claim about Hitler you may be talking about, I would like to explain why I think it's important to do so. "Hitler did nothing wrong", with this exact wording, is an antisemitic trope reproduced online by neo-nazis, and the suspected attacker this concrete text talks about experimented a process of radicalization online that led him to adopt many fringe, far-right political stances and antisemitic conspiracy theories, and ultimately to consider the attack he perpetrated as legitimate. This is not about a Democratic talking point and it's not lifting every rock but to understand that this exact word usage by a person who was radicalized to the extreme political stances he defended online is not trivial. Police has expressed the concern this crime is politically motivated, which his own interview, DePape seemed to confirm. Understanding the radicalization process this person suffered is key to understand the whole context of the attack, and the concrete fact this phrase was used helps to detail it. Narunnaia (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Conservative opinions about this needs to be included, per WP:BALANCE;" Wikipedia is not US-specific, our editors and readers are global -- we don't equal-time balance US-Conservative vs US-Liberal like a we're an American TV station in the 1970s. Podcaster Walsh and Trump Jr. are not improvements. Feoffer (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The notion that a well-referenced statement by the current president of the United States ought to be balanced by the ravings of an extremist talking head like Matt Walsh (political commentator) is utterly bizarre. Are we going to add commentatary from the Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash or the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA next? We can summarize well referenced commentary about the follow-up comments by the former president whose initials are DJT, but is adding his (what I consider to be) bat shit crazy comments really an improvement? Maybe an intern wrote that swill. If so, that intern wrote something completely the opposite of how law enforcement officials describe the video footage, which includes installed security camera footage and police bodycam footage. The disinformation operatives seem to be hard at work. I suggest that we deny them a foothold in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh please. Read the article. It slams Trump Jr., and sources it to three left-wing news outlets. Then it says "such claims had spread among the Republican mainstream", and sources that to the New York Times and Washington Post. Then when an editor tries to refute what the left accused Trump Jr. of, and provide the conservative narrative on the political response to the attack...that's foul editing and undue, and you best stop editing this article. The article just can't resist adding some vacuous comment by Charlie Kirk, whose Wikipedia article got 117,285 pageviews in three months, but when Matt Walsh, whose Wikipedia article gets 377,164 pageviews in three months, calls out the BS from the left, it's dismissed as "ravings". Read any conservative media and they're all saying the same things: the perpetrator was mentally ill and pretty much hated everyone (including Democrats), and the media only cares when the victim is a Democrat. The only nod to the right is the inclusion of the Washington Post saying that the most popular narrative is that this relates to crime in Democratic cities. You may not like conservative opinions, but our readers deserve a more fulsome explanation then just the voices of right-wing wackos sourced by the NYT, WP, and BBC. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: - you want to include Matt Walsh, but by your own writing [1], Walsh's point is that "the media ... just believe that Republicans deserve to die." That's frankly irrelevant to this article, and if you think that is relevant, we have a problem. starship.paint (exalt) 09:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I agree that bit of hyperbole can be excluded. Hey, what about the line in the article that suggests spending too much time believing in covid hoaxes and stolen elections can push crazy people to do violence like this? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: - the problem isn’t the hyperbole. The problem is its relevance. Even if it were true that the media wanted Republicans dead, it has nothing to do with this article, this isn’t “Attack on Rand Paul” or “Attack on Steve Scalise” or “Media coverage of politician attacks”. You can’t even claim double standards since Walsh outright said it wasn’t a double standard. Also, please quote the line you have a problem with. starship.paint (exalt) 14:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Magnolia677, the notion that the media only cares when the victim is a Democrat is belied by our article Congressional baseball shooting, which has 77 references, mostly to widespread coverage in the mainstream media. In its initial coverage, the New York Times said The tragedy united Republicans and Democrats in shock and anguish. “For all the noise and all the fury, we are one family,” Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Wednesday afternoon., and that paper published at least 25 articles about the shooting, including reporting on Scalises's recovery three months later and one year later. So much for that bullshit narrative but the MAGA crowd isn't strong on facts. As for perpetrator was mentally ill, I do not know how any reasonable person could read this article and conclude that DePape is sane. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the difference in the coverage of the plot against Brett Kavanaugh and this incident, Kavanaugh was uninjured and Pelosi is in intensive care with a fractured skull. Those are facts, not Democratic Party/mainstream media talking points. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Immigration status clarification

Just reading the article as a consumer. The article says he voted in one election in 2002 but then a couple paragraphs later, it says he re-entered the US on a temporary visa. How did he vote with permanent residency or being a naturalized citizen? Maybe I’m not understanding US election laws well enough. Thought I’d mention it in cast any else agrees that section needs further clarification. -Anon 2600:8804:7202:6600:65C5:2F95:ACD6:E0CD (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem 100% clear, but this article suggests both may be true: DePape registered as a member of the Green Party in 2002, signing a declaration under penalty of perjury that he was a U.S. citizen, according to a registration affidavit released by Department of Elections Director John Arntz. The California elections code states that if a person signs such an affidavit, it “shall be deemed evidence of citizenship for voting purposes only.” Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words, it appears that DePape probably lied under penalty of perjury, and voted illegally one time. He also overstayed his visa. He later left the US for an as yet unknown reason, and then returned as a Canadian citizen as a visitor able to stay in the US for six months. He overstayed his visa for a second time, which is a civil infraction rather than a criminal offense. He will almost certainly be deported to Canada after his current legal problems are resolved. That could be years or decades from now. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

State charges

Do we have a list of all the state charges that DePape pleaded not guilty to? Is it just the six felonies? Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Subheaders on misinformation section

Hi Zaathras. I don't think those subheaders make sense. Can you explain why e.g. claims by MTG and Clay Higgins, or details about inaccurate reporting from NBC News and KTVU, make sense under the heading "Elon Musk"? Endwise (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree they didn't make sense. It made it sound like Trump and Musk were the sources of the misinformation, whereas they were just repeating it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need sub-sub-headers. The conspiracies were all part of the same ecosystem of misinformation and disinformation that fed off each other; we should certainly identify prominent spreaders, but we don't need separate sub-sub-headers. Neutrality^talk 19:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

QAnon category

I don't think this article should be included in the QAnon category. QAnon is not a defining characteristic of the attack on Paul Pelosi. It is one of a myriad of conspiracy theories which the attacker subscribed to, and it certainly isn't a characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to when talking about this attack. – Anne drew 13:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer: looping you in to this discussion. – Anne drew 13:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Several cited sources mention the attacker's QAnon beliefs, so the category is appropriate. ValarianB (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

per ValarianB -- Reliable sources routinely mention attack's connection to QAnon. Feoffer (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this article fits well in the category. Category:QAnon is a terribly vague category (almost as bad as Category:Alt-right) in terms of WP:DEFINING. Many reliable sources also mention the suspect's connection to antisemitism and nudist activism, does that mean this article should thus go in Category:Naturism and Category:Antisemitism in California? (this is a rhetorical question, my answer to both is of course no.) --Animalparty! (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to create a subcategory Incidents connected with QAnon ? (the same goes for a People associated with QAnon subcat, BTW) Psychloppos (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See also

I think listing Stochastic terrorism is too prejudicial. Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's well-sourced, coming from a Reuters article about this specific incident. Feoffer (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see that it has one source. So what?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"one source" -- WP:OVERCITE is the only reason we don't list more sources. LA times NY Mag. Feoffer (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? It's still prejudicial.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by 'prejudicial' in this instance? Feoffer (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point, with the accused pleading not guilty, we are prejudging the issue, and implying we know what happened. This might be true but it is too early to tell.Jack Upland (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"it is too early to tell" is why it's in in 'See also' rather that category. Feoffer (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think putting Stochastic terrorism as the sole entry in See also grants too much editorial emphasis to one arbitrary aspect. If enough sources make the direct connection to stochastic terrorism as a possibility, it should simply be mentioned in text with appropriate weight, otherwise it appears Wikipedia is effectually stating "we're not saying it's stochastic terrorism, but it's probably stochastic terrorism". See also sections are by no means required, and in this case I don't think it improves the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The claiming to be Jesus list is even worse. This was just a passing delusion. He didn't have any followers.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• We shouldn't use see also links to promote theories or angles we aren't confident enough to include in the text of the article (e.g. for lack of sourcing, or to get around WP:BLPCRIME). I've gone ahead and removed the section. Endwise (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with these deletions. Passing delusions such as "claiming to be Jesus" are extremely common with right wing extremists, and are a touchstone of the movement in general. Everyone is clamoring to claim that they are god in the right wing or they being directed personally by god. There's so many examples of people on the right doing this that it would take years to document it in full. A more recent example: according to litigation by his law partners, former Trump attorney Lin Wood was famously recorded saying, "I might actually be Christ coming back for a second time in the form of an imperfect man, elevating Christ consciousness. That cause you to have a little bit of a chill? Who would be more eloquent to say what the will of God is, the belief of God in me. I represent Moses, I represent Ananias the believer. I’m like the power of King David. Now look you all, I told you I was going to pray tonight to my God, not to myself, because to me there’s God and there’s me." So while you may dismiss these things as passing delusions, they are a hallmark of right wing MAGA politics in America. As such, they should be included in this article. Behind every right wing extremist, there's a religious impetus and motivation. This needs to be made explicit. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Jesus delusion is still in the article.--01:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't use see also links to promote theories or angles we aren't confident enough to include in the text of the article There'd be no problem adding well-sourced text support the term, but if we don't like it in See Also, I don't know that we'd like it in text either. SeeAlso struck me as the most neutral way to mention the term without explicitly commenting on its applicability. Feoffer (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand. It’s not an easy task. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO doing that is the worst of both worlds, since it makes the insinuation, but we can't treat it with care and qualify/attribute/source it like we could in the text of the article. Particularly when what we're talking about is terrorism, I think we should be as explicit and careful as possible. Endwise (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Should American businessman be in the lead section?

Support - I feel that "American businessman" should be in the lead section, so that people know who Paul Pelosi is. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No -- RSes on the incident identify him as the spouse of the speaker, not as a "businessman". Feoffer (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Reply - "Paul Francis Pelosi Sr. (born April 15, 1940) is an American businessman who owns and operates Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a San Francisco-based real estate and venture capital investment and consulting firm". -- Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't find a RS that mentions his occupation -- I'm saying that RSes cover this as an attack on the speaker's spouse, and that is the characterization worthy of the lede. Feoffer (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

NBC Suspends Reporter Over Paul Pelosi Story

Of possible interest here. [2]. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that this reporter was proved correct by the police body cam footage. When the S.F. police got to the house and knocked, Paul Pelosi opened the door. David dePape was there and Paul did not act as though he were in danger. He walked back inside the house. And only then did dePape attack with the hammer. The article makes a point of dismissing conspiracy theories. But the official story doesn't match the body cam footage.

debunking the underwear thing

The omission of this meme will probably look like censorship so I wonder if we should talk about the rumor and how it originated. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/what-we-know-about-attack-on-paul-pelosi-what-questions-remain describes it this way:

The conspiracy theory of Pelosi and DePape's relationship spread like wildfire after Fox News reporters spoke on air about an incorrect report from media outlet KTVU. The organization had originally stated that DePape and Pelosi were found in their underwear when the police arrived on the scene.

This circulated widely on social media, with several right-wing personalities promoting the theory. However, KTVU later issued a correction, stating that the article "misstated what clothing the suspect was wearing when officers found him."

So it seems like KTVU is the originator of this idea and they retracted it. Not sure where to find original article or which reporter made the original claim. HearthHOTS (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Why mention it, though? A lot of nonsense exists around the internet, anyway. It'll only add more useless detail. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 01:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not useless - it's a -notable- nonsense theory worth debunking. By removing the evidence he's wearing shorts you are assisting the conspiracy theory of it being only underwear. Heavy has an entire article debunking it, so the debunking is notable. HearthHOTS (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, why recognize the existence of such nonsense theories by giving them the honor of even existing in an article? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 01:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To educate people who believe them, misinfo is a serious problem and it needs to be corrected. That's why so many news sites are debunking it and why we should point out what the attacker was wearing. If he was wearing a MAGA hat I'm sure you'd have no problem pointing that out. HearthHOTS (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, if he was wearing a MAGA hat that might indicate something more than just wearing the hat. Underwear doesn't make sense to include. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 01:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

KTVU is the local Fox affiliate based in Oakland. Here is an explanation of the error. Pelosi, who was asleep, was dressed in a pajama top and boxer shorts. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: if an attacker was wearing ONLY underwear that would definitely make sense to include. In this case, due to this false rumor being mass-repeated and mass-debunked, we should clarify that DePape was wearing shorts. Despite it being autumn I guess it's still pretty warm in California so it's probably not that odd, even though a prudent criminal would probably wear pants if they intended to be breaking glass. HearthHOTS (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, if the clothing issue is only intended to be informational, let's see what others think. However, I don't support including the existence of a frivolous conspiracy theory, but I think we need others' opinions. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We should absolutely not include anything about underwear. Some conspiracy sources were trying to use it to imply something about homosexuality, which would be a massive BLP violation. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think, we should, just to debunk it. Cullen has provided a good enough source above, which says Social media users including D’Souza have made unfounded claims that DePape and Pelosi were found in only their underwear ... The claim that officers found DePape inside the Pelosi house wearing only underwear is linked to an erroneous news report that was later corrected starship.paint (exalt) 03:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with MelanieN -- it suffices to mention the spread of conspiracy theories, but there's no point playing whackamole with specifics. Feoffer (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the false report is now in the article. I was going to try to remove it, but it turns out that all three of the references cited, all highly Reliable Sources, chose to specify what the unfounded claim said. Could it still be removed as a BLP violation, or are we stuck with repeating it because multiple Reliable Sources did? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• @MelanieN, Nythar, and Feoffer: - if you see the graphic in this article about misinformation in this incident by the NYT [3] - the underwear thing basically kicked off the nonsense conspiracy theories. starship.paint (exalt) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if prior comment holds -- November 1 was a long time ago, and when even SNL is mentioning underwear, I don't know we can not. Feoffer (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

NBC in San Fransisco reported that the body cam footage shows that when the SFPD arrived and knocked, Paul Pelosi answered the door and didn't act as though he were in danger. He talked with the police and then walked back toward DePape, who then attacked Pelosi with the hammer.

Why didn't Paul Pelosi stay with the cops, if Depape was a stranger who broke in? 88.227.50.248 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen this discussion before expanding on Beland's edit regarding inaccurate early reporting, and mentioned the underwear thing in my edit. Let me know if anyone has issues with it (it seems pretty innocuous to me). Endwise (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Why put Rand Paul's tweet in the "Note" section. If you look at the edit history you can see it was one of the first things added to the "Reactions" section. Also, in reference to what User:Neutrality said - - > "moving Rand Paul comment from main text to footnote. Paul is not a party leader in Senate, and this article is not about Christine Pelosi. Pls bring to talk page if you really think this needs to be in main text. (I think it's arguably a candidate for cutting entirely)", I say it has to mentioned in the article because Rand Paul is a notable figure and mentioning his reaction to the attack in the "Reactions" section is necessary. And about the "this article is not about Christine Pelosi" statement, I have to bring up when before Donald Trump said anything about the attack, he was mentioned in the article despite having said nothing, and therefore he should not have been in the article by that logic (this is kind of a stretch but still, I still think it works). Now, obviously, he should be in there because he has made a statement about it. Rexxx7777 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to talk. I don't think the Rand Paul quote should really be in the article at all. He's a backbench senator, he's not at the level of prominence as Trump (ex-president, de facto party head) or McConnell (Senate minority leader). The footnote is a kind of halfway compromise. We don't compile statements from every single elected official, so just because he made a statement doesn't mean it belongs. Neutrality^talk 22:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Get rid of it. It has undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't we have a vote to keep it or not? Rexxx7777 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

just because he made a statement doesn't mean it belongs ... but if enough reliable sources report on it, it would have WP:WEIGHT even if he is a backbencher. Hill /Guardian / CBS / WGHP / Australian / Independent starship.paint (exalt) 08:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I found a few more articles on it.

https://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-under-fire-attacking-183414459.html

https://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-calls-nancy-pelosis-161701848.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/flashback-christine-pelosi-daughter-nancy-pelosi-celebrated-violent-attack-senator-rand-paul/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rand-paul-comes-for-nancy-pelosis-daughter-christine-in-statement-on-paul-pelosis-assault/ar-AA13uxKK

https://ussanews.com/2022/10/28/rand-paul-reacts-to-attack-on-paul-pelosi-knocks-house-speakers-daughter-for-tweet-about-his-assault/

Perhaps, User:Jack Upland, does it still have undue weight? Rexxx7777 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a matter of this article, not other articles that mention it.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: - but WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE both refer to sources. If something is prominent in RS and relevant, why should we remove all mention of it as you propose? starship.paint (exalt) 15:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rexxx77777: - USSAnews is likely unusable on Wikipedia. Gateway Pundit is definitely a unusable on Wikipedia - see WP:RSP. starship.paint (exalt) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

None of these change anything; starship.paint already commented on USSAnews and Gate.Pund., but both MSN and Yahoo often syndicate stories by other outlets, as is the case here: Hollywood Life (tabloid?), Insider (no consensus for politics), and The Independent (a little dodgy post-2016, so likely wouldn't alter the due weight). DFlhb (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)