Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi

Revert on 12 December 2022‎
@Aoi Please state the reason for your reversion. Concerns about the previous language are already stated here, and no objections are presently raised.

Foonix0 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I share 's sentiments above and don't see how the present edit addressed their concern. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Neutrality's concerns about the CEO title above, the proposed edit was modified to include the title as suggested.
 * As the other concerns were not posted at the time, the suggestions on WP:DRNC may apply here. Foonix0 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Replacing news sources (as in the preexisting language) with the New York Post story and an editorial (as Foonix0 put in) is no-go. The previous language is fine. Please leave it alone. Neutralitytalk 21:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did not notice that the New York Post is listed as an unreliable source. My apologies on that.  I will not cite that again and take better care checking wikipedia's RS list in the future.
 * However, there are problems with the current language. It appears to be mimicking the NYT article's narrative position, which is editorial in nature. In doing so, it creates an undue weight problem (significantly more words for one person than others for no explained reason) and reads like it has an axe to grind. Making it more consistent would improve the neutrality of the tone. Foonix0 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The present owner one of a Top 10 most popular social media platform regurgitated a lie to 121,100,000 followers, That is a significant aspect of tis story that is reported by a reliable source. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The very same sources also report the actual text of the tweet, which is also significant to the story. It characterizes the nature of the mention. Failure to include that is bias by omission.  The reader is thus better off just reading the source for that information so that it can be viewed with more context. Foonix0 (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The citations note Elon's involvement prominently. Our article reflects that. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the citations feature Musk's involvement more or less prominently than others. One of the NYT articles features Trump more prominently than Musk, for example. The choices about prominence in the current text are the editors' own. Foonix0 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My reasoning is in the edit note. Zaathras (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Expanding on "far left" to "far right" conversion
Under social media activity of accused, many demonstrably right-wing figures (Jordan Peterson, Mike Lindell, James Lindsay and Donald Trump) are named as people DePape would follow. Further in this section is a description of views shifting from far left to far right. This section sources his ex-partner as describing his beliefs as far-left (with no evidence of such past supporting LGBTQ, weed and nudism so hardly 'left' let alone 'far left').. There are links to articles that discuss this further. Can it be expanded, and lead better into the 'misinformation and disinformation' section further below?

DePape also consumed "left wing" media that is not actually left-wing, but says that it is. Media that supposes Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified because of NATO, continuously spreads COVID misinformation and skepticism, and promotes what is mentioned earlier on the page as vague anti-government stance.

I ask this as some people use DePape's online viewing of such "left wing" sources as The Jimmy Dore Show as evidence he is or was left wing when this cannot be further from the truth. Also additions of how these "left wing" sources have significant overlap with the conservative view that is described in the misinformation and disinformation section. 203.30.13.119 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)