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

"Assassination attempt"
I'm wondering about the inclusion of Category:Failed assassination attempts in the United States and the description of attempted assassination in the infobox. DePape is charged with attempted homicide, but I don't think this incident was really an assassination attempt. The suspect stated he intended to break Nancy Pelosi's knees but not kill her. He hit Paul Pelosi with a hammer when police arrived, but he didn't enter the house with the intention to kill someone. Of the two sources cited for the attempted assassination description, only one uses the word "assassination" and attributes it to some democrats: Some Democrats have referred to the attack as an “assassination attempt”.

I agree that this was an attempted homicide, but I have not seen reliable sources describe it as an attempted assassination in their own voice.

– Anne drew  15:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove both mentions of attempted assassination. I think that the infobox should just say "assault with a deadly weapon" or something like that. Attempted homicide can be left to the list of charges.Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Assassination" is frequently used by RSes covering this event.  Charges of attempted murder justify the categorization.  Feoffer (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing should not be in the infobox unless it is one of the charges.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no separate charge for 'assassination' -- the assassins who killed Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King faced murder charges, not 'assassination'.  The difference between assassination and murder is in the eye of the RSes.   Feoffer (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * well, no, not really. The attack on Paul Pelosi wouldn't have been an attempted assassination, as he is not a politically important/relevant figure. The attempted assassination here would've been if he had tried to kill Nancy Pelosi; his attempted murder charge on Paul is immaterial to that. When reliable sources are making talk of assassinations, they are referring to Nancy. E.g.: "possibly even an assassination attempt against the speaker"; "an apparent assassination attempt against the Speaker"; etc. Endwise (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * he is not a politically important/relevant figure Again, politically important is in the eye of the RS beholder. The murder of family members of leaders are routinely described as  assassination, and  RSes use the term "assassination" with this event.  Feoffer (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * politically important is in the eye of the RS beholder -- reliable sources, when discussing assassination attempts, appear to only be referring to Nancy Pelosi. Endwise (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then WP:V is met. Just saying, even under the far-fetched theory he never intended to fatally harm Nancy or Target 1, that wouldn't invalidate the label.  Feoffer (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The assailant entered the residence with the intent to harm, potentially kill, the Speaker of the House. That he was not bright enough to know she was 3,000 miles away at the time does not alter the characterization of "assassination attempt", as that was the intent upon entry. Zaathras (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't know that he intended to kill her. It's only a theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * His intentions towards Nancy are irrelevant -- he's charged with a politically-motivated attempted homicide against the spouse of a top political figure: assassination-attempt is more than met.   Also note that DePape claims his true plan was to lure a second individual, as yet unnamed.  Feoffer (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * DePape also claims to be not guilty, so worth that out.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * His "intentions" towards the Speaker are the only reason we're using the word "assassination" here at all, pay attention. Her husband was a wrong-place-wrong time injury, he was not the target. Zaathras (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * he was not the target. Whatever the initial aspirations, he was the target of a hammer to the skull.  Feoffer (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this until there is consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk tweet material
An ip deleted the added material about Musk being a billionaire and having just acquired Twitter. How should this be written? Malerooster (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The previous language (which was about five words long) was fine. It's mentioned by literally all the sources; it shows Musk's status/power. His new status as owner is obviously relevant to how/why he was able to post the disinformation links on Twitter. Can't see any reason for IP's edit. Neutralitytalk 20:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk is the only individual in the entire article who is referenced without a descriptive title. At the very least it should say he is CEO of Twitter since it is arguably the most relevant fact to the discussion. Mmarehman (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (Eluding to your reversion here as it's partially related)
 * It makes sense to include appropriate titles if the intent is to contextualize statements. However, if it's not consistently done, it smacks of bias to "contextualize" some statements but not others.  The article vaguely describes certain people as "Prominent right-wing figures" but includes very specific things about others.
 * Regardless, I disagree that "how/why he was able to post" is "obvious." Links to dubious articles have been forward around since the early days of the internet, and there is no reason (explained here) that being Twitter CEO would grant the ability to do exactly what ordinary people (including ordinary Twitter users) have been doing for decades. Foonix0 (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)