# Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi

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)

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)

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)

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)

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


### 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?
 (1b) 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)


#### 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.
 (2b) 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)


#### 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
 (1b) 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)


#### Perpetrator
 (2b) six-month temporary visitor B-2 visa issued in March 2008
Can we find a source for it being a B-2 visa? NBC just called it a temporary visitor visa, which could also refer to a B-1 visa if I understand it correctly. We should stick to the terminology used by sources.
Actually this CNBC source does verify this. We should use that here.
 (2b) a state senator – described Taub and DePape as being part of a subgroup of "extremely aggressive and creepy" public nudists
I failed to verify this. He actually only described Taub as extremely aggressive and creepy. He did refer to both Taub and DePape as aggressive and creepy, however.
 (1b) Taub claims to have broken up with DePape in 2009
Unless reliable sources have cast doubt on her statement, we should avoid using the word "claim" here. See: MOS:CLAIM.
 (1b) They rekindled their relationship at some point but "broke up" for good in 2015.
I don't think the scare quotes are necessary here.
DePape shifted out
This phrasing sounds awkward my ears. Maybe moved out?
initially writing about topics such as spirituality and ibogaine
This is accurate, but I don't think most readers know what ibogaine is. We can make it clearer by changing it to spirituality and the natural psychedelic ibogaine.
as well as sharing far-right Internet memes.[63][51][64][65][9]
Another WP:OVERCITE issue here.
Just a couple verification issues here and some minor stylistic critiques. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)


#### State and federal prosecution
 (1b) DePape pleaded not guilty to both the federal and state charges.
While accurate, this is quite a short paragraph, being just one sentence. Can we merge this with another paragraph or add some more details to flesh it out a bit?
 (2b) On January 26, 2023, video and audio recordings of the attack were publicly shown in a preliminary court hearing
If I'm understanding the source correctly, they were actually shown on January 27.
 (1b) After his sentencing, David's father Gene issued an apology statement
Perhaps this should be moved to the Post-sentencing and incarceration section.
DePape was found guilty of five state charges... threatening a witness.
This is interesting. Which witness did he threaten?
As of January 2025, DePape has been incarcerated...
Can we add the date he was incarcerated (November 21, 2024)?
Mostly stylistic concerns for this section, with one verification problem. Also there are a couple places where we might want to include more information. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)


#### Reactions
 (4) Some Republicans who condemned the attack issued statements criticizing "both sides" for violent rhetoric and political violence.
Wikilinking false balance here does not seem neutral and isn't supported by the source.
Afterwards, Youngkin sent a handwritten apology to Speaker Pelosi's office, which she accepted.[105][112][113][114][115]
Another WP:OVERCITE issue here
Trump Jr. responded to a tweet making fun of Pelosi about a Halloween "costume" of just a hammer and a pair of white briefs.
This is vague. Responded how?
One WP:NPOV issue and a couple other small issues. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)


### 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): 

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): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Great work on this article, ElijahPepe! It largely meets the good article criteria, but there are a few problems that should be addressed before I'd feel comfortable approving it. While it would be great for all of my feedback to be addressed, I have left the fail symbol () next to the issues that are actually blocking my approval. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@Anne drew: Issues should be fixed. As for the comment about threatening a witness, that information was not provided in the source and would likely compromise the privacy of the witness. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Indeed it looks like all of the issues are resolved. Congrats on another good article! – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we mention that he was Canadian in the lead? And that he was an illegal immigrant? 222.152.247.12 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, because both are false. The article on Paul Pelosi states that he's American, born in San Francisco. Are you getting your information from some MAGA fake news source or something? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Paul Pelosi is an illegal immigrant? Based on which source? Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
 Partly done. See diff. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see, the OP was referring to the attacker, not Pelosi. I misunderstood. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the pregnancy-fetish Russian porn company that DePape worked for, what sort of source do we need to show acknowledging the archive dot org before it can be added to the article? It seems reasonable to include to show his history of instability since early adulthood. CanoeQuoter (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how his employer is relevant at all. You take a job when you can. I once worked for a small streaming media startup where our biggest customer was a French broadcasting company that had a gay porn streaming channel, and some of us employees had to watch that crap for purposes of quality control of the custom compression algorithm we offered. None of us were gay, this wasn't fun at all, but it had to be done (one of my coworkers, as a mild form of protest, made certain that his video monitor was publicly visible). This didn't turn us into deranged attackers driven by political ideology. The job is the job, and isn't relevant to what one does when off the job. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The article presently describes David as "accusing Jews of orchestrating the 2022 Russian invasion" and this relates to his history with Taub (the producer of Lustful Goddess who employed him as Custodian of Records back in 2008 in Moscow) which Anthony Wiener commented on. The article also notes "DePape never appeared nude in public" which contrasts with him selling nude photographs of himself w/ the pregnant gypsy back in 2008. The article also mentions three times about how David is "Canadian" yet doesn't talk about how Taub is Russian. CanoeQuoter (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how any of this is relevant to the attack on Paul Pelosi. If you're trying to make connections and draw conclusions from what you find in sources, we can't do that. That's called WP:Original research, and isn't allowed in articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)