Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about Flight 93?[edit]

Wasn't Flight 93 intended for George W. Bush? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.26.65 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Article Vandalism[edit]

Day after election, IP editor added, as their only ever contribution to Wikipedia, in text at the top of the article "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." later, another editor made it into a tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots&oldid=748639737

Obvious vandalism, that should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Odsnvdosijsdof (talk • contribs)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IT IS VANDALISM. It doesn't need consensus. Read the pages you're linking!Odsnvdosijsdof (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious vandalism. The list is possibly incomplete. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already done by John from Idegon: Special:Diff/764613153. I don't see how that tag would be beneficial on this list either, but it is not vandalism, since it isn't a blatant attempt to harm Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former and future presidents[edit]

The attempted assassination of George H. W. Bush was on April 13, 1993, almost three months after his last day as president, January 20, 1993. It has been part of this article since the revision of 21:46, 3 August 2005 by Plainsong. Should this be included?

The attempted assassination of Donald Trump was on June 18, 2016, after his nomination for the Republican ticket was almost assured, but more than four months before the election and more than six months before his first day as president, January 20, 2017. It was mentioned in the version of 16:22, 21 May 2017‎. Should this be included? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bush was a former president. He was also under secret service protection and our country responded militarily s a result. Trump was a candidate, not even the nominee, not under secret service protection and it was essentially a non-event. That's the difference. The Trump incident doesn't fit the criteria stated in this list. If you want to expand it, gain consensus to make the change. Otherwise, stop inserting it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the right to unilaterally declare the "criteria" are. If you want to debate the criteria, this is the page for doing so. I left this open for five days and nobody objected, so I was justified in making my edit. On the date of the assassination attempt, Trump's Republican Party nomination was a foregone conclusion. Contrary to your claim, Trump was placed under Secret Service protection on or before Tuesday, November 10, 2015.[1] It was a significant enough event that it has its own Wikipedia article; so much for your assertion of its being a non-event.
—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please pay attention. I didn't decide the criteria. The list already has it. "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots". Was Trump a president when the plot happened? No. "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous" Again, not a president when the plot occurred. "20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents and presidents-elect are known". Again, not a president, former president or president-elect when the incident occurred. There is NOTHING in this list that suggests we list candidates or nominees. Just because something has an article, doesn't mean it gets included here. The list has a clear criteria. If you'd like to change it, you must gain consensus. I clearly object. Previous discussions on this page have failed to make a change to having candidates included. You're the one making unilateral decisions my friend. Please stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ryan Parker (November 10, 2015). "Donald Trump Gets His Secret Service Code Name (Report)". The Hollywood Reporter.

Trump was the presumptive Republican Party nominee[edit]

Per discussion at the RFC below, consensus is to say he was the presumptive nominee. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anomalocaris edited List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots changing

to

John from Idegon reverted with summary

  • There is no consensus for this...There is a near consensus not to . (TW)

For the fact that Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican Party nominee, see the discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee.

John from Idegon, are you referring to a Wikipedia consensus or a general consensus? If the latter, I have established it. If the former, where is the discussion of this issue?

Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Each article stands on its own. And it still remains that this does not meet the stated criteria for inclusion in this article. So this discussion is moot. I'm removing the whole bit until you can establish a consensus to change the stated criteria of the article. It's nothing but WP:PEACOCK as it does nothing to inform the reader at all. There is no need for any explanatory copy in a See also section. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon:
  • As I do here, it is customary to notify a user when replying anywhere except on a user's own talk page.
  • I am perplexed by your response. I don't know what "Other stuff exists" means other than the obvious truth that the world contains many things. We know that many things exist, but that truth has nothing to do with the fact that on June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican Party nominee for President of the United States.
  • We can say on Wikipedia that on June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican Party nominee for President of the United States because numerous news stories that week said do, including items from The Washington Post, The New York Times, and BBC News.
  • WP:PEACOCK does not apply here; that manual begins with the example to avoid, "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter." We avoid that language because it is an example of, in the words of the manual, "unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance". In contrast, numerous reliable sources state that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee, and reliable sources show that he had hundreds more pledged delegates than the minimum required to win the nomination.
  • Saying that Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican Party nominee for President of the United States informs a reader who may know that Donald Trump was eventually the Republican nominee for President, but not whether this was a foregone conclusion as of June 18, 2016. It was a foregone conclusion, but in the present wording, Wikipedia implies that as of June 18, 2016, Trump was just some random Republican running for President and — gosh, what a surprise — he later won the nomination. That's not true at all. By June 18, 2016, he was the presumptive Republican nominee and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
  • Explanatory info in a See also section is specifically authorized at MOS:SEEALSO. To benefit users who don't know that Trump was already the presumptive nominee by June 18, 2016, it adds only a few bytes to say so here.
Respectfully, —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody on the planet disputes that he was a Republican candidate. It is subjective to call him the "presumptive nominee", even if SOME reliable sources used that terminology, some did not use that terminology. ALL sources agreed that he was a Republican candidate. So please explain what the article is less informative by using the undisputed, completely nonsubjective terminology instead of the subjective, non-unanimous term. In other words, what does adding your terminology truly add to the understanding of the event? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was settled by discussion and RfC elsewhere[edit]

There was an extended discussion on this issue at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee. In that discussion, only one editor, Niteshift36, opposed the use of "presumptive nominee", while several editors supported it. Some of this support was generated because I canvassed. In that discussion, MelanieN notified John from Idegon, the second editor on this talk page who had opposed "presumptive nominee" of the discussion at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Presumptive nominee, but John from Idegon didn't respond.

It came to my attention that the correct way to generate editor opinions on a talk page is not to canvas but to use RfC, so I did that. That RfC was:

That RfC

The only other opponent of "presumptive nominee" here, John from Idegon, had been notified of the discussion.

As a result of the RfC, I edited both of the articles governed by the RfC, describing Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee as of June 18, 2016.

Niteshift36 then reverted my edit here at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots with edit summary

  • sorry, wrong article. The consensus you canvassed in another article doesn't apply here, where 2 editors have opposed it.

The reasons offered in that edit summary are incorrect because:

  • The RfC explicitly covered both articles.
  • The consensus in the RfC came from three editors other than myself and those I had previously canvassed.
  • Of the 2 editors who opposed it here, one of them, Niteshift36, consented to closing the RfC, and the other, John from Idegon, was invited to participate, but did not.

Therefore, I am reverting Niteshift36. On June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee. If anyone disagrees with that, they can open a new RfC, but if anyone reverts presumptive nominee without opening a new RfC to overturn the RFC that settled this issue, it will be vandalism and WP:3RR rule will not apply. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having an RfC at another talk page does not make it apply to this talk page, especially when it was closed by an involved user. And YOU do not get to define vandalism. John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you John. RFC results don't apply to every article. They apply to THAT article. I "consented" in that I can see that you heavily canvassed a RFC and got the result you desired...at THAT article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC explicitly included this article, and all persons who had discussed the matter on this talk page were notified of the discussion on that talk page. The RfC was done after I learned that RfC and not canvassing is the proper method for publicizing talk page disputes, and the RfC brought in new editors who unanimously agreed that by June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Nobody agreed with Niteshift36 that it is incorrect to say that on June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. And that's because he was the presumptive nominee according to numerous reliable sources; no reliable sources have ever been offered disputing this; and it fits the accepted definition of "presumptive nominee" as a candidate with over 50% of the delegates and all other candidates having dropped out. Beating a dead horse will not bring it to life. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC there doesn't include this one. The date is irrelevant. In THIS list, you have two experienced editors opposing your edit. Stop falsely labeling edits you don't like as "vandalism". It won't exempt you from the 3RR. If you want to try to build consensus at THIS article, I guess you can do that. But I implore you to stop your edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a rest. This has been decided once already. If you require a second RfC on the same subject, at least the usage which was supported at the other RfC - "presumed nominee" - should be kept in this article unless and until a new RfC decides otherwise. The only reason "two editors oppose it" here is because the other editors - the ones who agreed on "presumptive nominee" - have not been notified that it is being disputed here after it was already settled there. But go ahead, if you wish: launch an RfC, with a neutrally worded question. Give your reasons why you think is should say simply "candidate" instead of "presumed nominee". And notify everyone who commented in the other RfC, since they have shown interest in the issue. (If you don't, I will.) Meanwhile put me on record as supporting "presumptive nominee" so now it is 2 to 2 at this page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Melanie, but it's not a matter of "give it a rest". There was a RfC elsewhere that was HEAVILY canvassed. It has no bearing here. Two editors who actively edited this article have opposed it and were discussing it before the RFC at the other article. Anomalocaris, on the other hand, apparently has no interest in this article except to add that phrase. Being "2 to 2" isn't really an issue since a RFC is not a vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has actually been superseded by the debate below under RFC: Presumptive nominee. However, the above statement by Niteshift36 includes untruths and misleading statements, so let's correct the record.
  • Niteshift36: There was a RfC elsewhere that was HEAVILY canvassed
    • Before I was aware of the RfC process, I did canvas for support for "presumptive nominee".
    • As soon as I became of the RfC process, I launched an RfC.
    • The RfC brought forth several supporters and no opponents for "presumptive nominee" among Wikipedians who were not canvassed.
  • Niteshift36: It has no bearing here.
    • An RfC can explicitly draw in more than one page, and it is binding on all pages that were explicitly drawn in. This page was explicitly drawn in, so it is binding here, or it was, until I voluntarily superseded it by filing a new RfC for this page.
  • Niteshift36: Anomalocaris ... has no interest in this article except to add that phrase.
  • I should have said to add Donald Trump's name. Pretty much every edit you've made has been to try to add him to an article that he doesn't belong in at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before, Niteshift36 claimed "Anomalocaris ... has no interest in this article except to add that phrase." (meaning "presumptive nominee".) I produced a list of 12 edits by Anomalocaris that made significant changes other than adding that phrase. Then Niteshift36 said "I should have said ... Pretty much every edit you've made has been to try to add him" [Donald Trump] to the article. Wrong again. Of the twelve edits listed above, all except the four edited 21, 26, and 28 May 2017 made significant changes other than adding Donald Trump to the article. And Niteshift36 knows this because Niteshift36 reverted many of these edits. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And add to those the rest that you're not talking about. Actually, why are you still talking about this at all? The matter is being discussed in RFC's. This is just you feeling like you need to justify yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC: Presumptive nominee[edit]

Consensus is to say he was the presumptive nominee. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is an ongoing dispute at List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots over whether it is appropriate to say that as of June 18, 2016, Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. There was an earlier RfC at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump that also explicitly included List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots, but it is argued that the earlier RfC doesn't apply. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)—[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Support use of "presumptive nominee": Sourced in numerous prestigious reliable sources; no reliable sources disputes it; fits dictionary definition; helps readers who do not know that by May 4, 2016, 45 days before the event, (a) Trump secured over 50% of the delegates; (b) his last declared opponent dropped out of the race; (c) RNC chair, Reince Priebus had declared he was the presumptive nominee; (d) U.S. media began calling Trump the presumptive nominee in both news reporting and opinion pieces. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A RfC at one article doesn't make it policy across the project. Frankly, I even question whether the entry belongs here since the scope of this article is "sitting and former presidents and presidents-elect". Trump was none of those when this event occurred. In any case, Falsely declaring edits to be "vandalism" is just bad faith. Hopefully Anomalocaris will not violate WP:CANVASS again. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of "presumptive nominee" - if it's included, use that. As I recall, that is the term used at the time. The Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 were done with state ballots by 6 June, except for the convention event to formalize it. Markbassett (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of "presumptive nominee". At that point in time he was universally acknowledged as such, because the primaries were over and all other candidates had withdrawn. Furthermore, for purposes of this article ("List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots"), it is important for context to realize that he was the presumptive nominee of a major party, and not merely one in a large herd of candidates. I would not object to removing the mention of him from this list article as Niteshift suggests, since he was not president at the time, but the description of him should be "presumptive Repubilcan nominee" if any mention of him is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – As our own article on Republican primaries 2016 documents, Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, as declared[1] by the Chairman of the Republican Party following the withdrawal of Ted Cruz. John Kasich dropped out the next day. Thousands of sources have called Trump the presumptive nominee after that date. This is a total no-brainer. — JFG talk 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • This actually isn't a Trump related article. The incident doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on this list, that's why it's a "see also". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The facts do not support the supposition that Trump was "presumptive" anything at that point. Damotclese (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the facts that the chairman of the RNC had declared him the presumptive nominee 6 weeks earlier, and that the vast majority of Reliable Sources were using that designation by the time of this attempt - all of which is laid out in great detail in the Discussion section below - what additional facts would you require? --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that actually true? A great many reliable sources reported on the incident and didn't use the terminology "presumptive nominee".Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damotclese: The facts do support the supposition fact that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee, as detailed in the Threaded discussion below. Niteshift36: You continue your months-long folly that Wikipedia determines facts by requiring every news story, or a majority of news stories, to state a fact, in order for it to be true. That is not how Wikipedia works. If one reliable source says that Mark Twain visited Calaveras County, California, we can include this. We don't need every Mark Twain source, or even a majority, to say this. Same with Donald Trump being the presumptive Republican nominee. We have numerous sources, we have it meeting the accepted definition, and in all these months of this dispute, you have yet to identify a single reliable source saying that Donald Trump was not the presumptive Republican nominee on June 18, 2016. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalocaris I was called by the bot for an RFC, I have not been here ever before, not "for months." Please refrain from accusing editors who are called in for RFC from engaging in what you seem to believe is some religious political war, and if you do it again and I'll request sanctions against you for abusive behavior. Damotclese (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damotclese, my friend: Please reread my comment to you just above. It consists of exactly one sentence, viz:
  • The facts do support the supposition fact that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee, as detailed in the Threaded discussion below.
Everything else was addressed to Niteshift36, who, regrettably, has done exactly what I said: repeatedly asserting over the course of two months on two different talk pages that in Wikipedia, even if we have many reliable sources for something, we still can't include it in Wikipedia if other sources are silent on the point. That is not how Wikipedia works, and I was right to say so. Peace. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

Facts:

  • Numerous of reliable sources between May 4, 2016, and the coverage of this June 18, 2016, event, called Donald Trump the presumptive nominee, including these three:
  • No reliable sources of the time have been identified saying that Donald Trump was not the presumptive nominee.
  • Wikipedia's standard is one reliable source. There are many.
  • The term "presumptive nominee" has an accepted definition, which is objective, not subjective.
  • That definition includes that the candidate has a majority of the delegates and all other candidates have dropped out of the race.
  • By May 4, 2016, Donald Trump met the accepted definition of "presumptive nominee".
    • On May 3, 2016, Donald Trump secured a majority of the delegates.
    • On May 4, 2016, John Kasich, the only remaining competitor in the race for the nomination, dropped out.
  • Between May 4 and June 18, 2016, the only change was that Trump gained even more delegates.
  • Donald Trump had not only a majority of the delegates, he had hundreds more pledged delegates than the number needed to win.
  • The transition of a candidate from "front-runner" to "presumptive nominee" is considered a significant change for a campaign.
  • Readers who do not know that by June 18, 2016, Trump met the definition of "presumptive nominee" are helped by including this.

Respectfully submitted, Anomalocaris (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact:

  • This incident doesn't merit inclusion on the list because he wasn't a President or president-elect at the time of the attempt.

So I suggest it doesn't belong here at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct that it doesn't merit inclusion on this list. That's why it is NOT included on this list. However, it absolutely does meet the criteria to be listed as a "see also" link. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It "absolutely" does? I'm not sure how this is more related than the attempts on George Wallace or Dick Cheney. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See below. You were the one who set up two different RfC's. This is the one about how to describe him. Below is the one about whether or not to include a see-also link about the Trump attempt. Please stop mixing them up. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC: See Also inclusion[edit]

Consensus is to mention the attempt on Donald Trump in the "See also" section

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.

The scope of this list is "attempts to kill sitting and former presidents and presidents-elect". Currently, the See Also section contains an entry about an attempt on Donald Trump who was not a President or President-elect at the time. Does it belong here? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose: Trump was not a President or President-elect during this attempt. In fact, he was not even the official Republican nominee. He was a candidate. Instead of debating whether or not he was the "presumptive" nominee, I think the bigger question is, why is this event listed here? It's not in the scope of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is quite properly not included in the text of the article, since he was not president or president-elect. But I do support including it in the "See also" section, as it meets the MOS:SEEALSO criteria of being related. We are supposed to list it along with "a brief annotation", as the current listing does; the exact wording of that annotataion is being discussed in the RfC above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it related? He wasn't a president, president elect or even the nominee. He was a candidate. Should we be opening the list to any candidate? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have my opinion above of what he was. Let's not carry that RfC discussion over into this one. IMO it is related. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't the same discussion. You opined that he was the presumptive nominee. Fine. That's not a president. Not a president elect. It's not even an actual status. Why shouldn't we be listing George Wallace too? Or for that matter, wouldn't a stronger case be made for including an attempt on a sitting vice-president than for a "presumptive" nominee? The VP is actually in the line of succession, the "presumptive" nominee isn't even holding an office. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a link to George Wallace (he would be correctly described as a candidate) but the attack on him does not have its own page; we could do a See also link to Arthur Bremer, with explanation. For the Cheney incident we could do a see-also link to 2007 Bagram Airfield bombing. Cheney should definitely be there; after all, there already is a see-also link about the attempted assassination of Vice President Thomas R. Marshall. Look, the purpose of see-also links is precisely to direct readers to related material that does NOT belong in the main article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think we should have a "see also" link to Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy also. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] : Done. Also added George Wallace Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Since Donald trump was, in fact and according to numerous reliable sources the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties of the United States, and since he was elected POTUS less than 5 months later, and since the stated motive of his would-be assassin was to prevent him from becoming POTUS, it seems extremely relevant to this article, even though it falls outside the topic parameters by 7 months and two days, and therefore it should be mentioned as a See also item but not included in the article body. —Anomalocaris (talk 03:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the "in fact" "presumptive nominee" isn't part of the criteria here, now is it? So no matter how many times you chant that, it doesn't really address inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try one more time: Obviously he doesn't meet the criteria of "presidential assassination attempts and plots". If he did, he would be in the article itself. Nobody is suggesting adding him to the article itself, so the fact that he "doesn't meet the criteria" is irrelevant, no matter how many times you chant it (to coin a phrase). You have yet to offer a reason why it shouldn't be in the "see also" section, which according to MOS:SEEALSO is for links which "might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would lean more towards support than anything. The purpose of any attempted assassination of Trump is no different than any prior political assassination of a president or president elect. President and President elect are not only criteria this article uses. Teddy R is listed. This was during his stint with the bullmoose party. Was this because he wa sa former president?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, TR is listed because he weas a former president, which merits inclusion under the stated criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with it - The argument presented is one for not including in the body of the article, and doesn't seem immediately relevant to whether it should be included in see also, and would apply equally to whether the list should include Thomas R. Marshall, who was also not a President or President-elect. Things are in the see also section precisely because they are tangentially related but not suitable for inclusion in the main body. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems to suit [[WP:SEEALSO]. That a sitting President had an attempt shortly before the election seems verging on inclusion, so if it is not included then a SEEALSO would suit. This would serve any reader who was going "I thought Trump had an attempt too", and the inclusion topic would seem less likely to reoccur if it is in SEEALSO Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Same reasons as Serialjoepsycho. --Guanatala (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Noted -- Perhaps the scope is a bit too short ? That the Baltimore plot is included although Lincoln was not yet sitting seems right. And trying to kill an ex-President just after transition or a nominee just before the election both seem motivated by the Presidency. I would suggest that United States Secret Service protection be noted as official recognition of who and when 'Presidential' significance applies. It by statute starts 120 days before the election and by proactice continues for several days after losing (see Mitt Romney). That would include any notable Third party candidates such as Ross Perot. Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

More "See also"s[edit]

User:ZgortBX just added two additional articles under "See also": "Assassination threats against Barack Obama" and "'Assassination attempts against George W. Bush" (at least that's now what it says now, after I fixed it; it used to list the redirect "Assassination threats against George Bush"). I think the "GWB" one is OK; in fact the two attempts listed there both IMO amount to more serious attempts than the big-deal, has-its-own-article attempt on Donald Trump. However, I don't think we should include "Assassination threats against Barack Obama". Assassination threats are made against every president, they are pretty routine (although Wikipedia didn't start writing articles about them until recently), and they are two steps removed from what this article is about. I propose we remove "Assassination threats against Barack Obama" but keep "Assassination attempts against George W. Bush". --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

another attempt at Richard Nixon?[edit]

I have reverted this addition under the “Richard Nixon” section. It’s not clear if the reference cited is a Reliable Source, and I was unable to find any confirmation of the reported incident in a search. I'm open to restoring the information if more evidence can be provided. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it is crystal clear that the source is reliable. It is a secondary source, written by an expert and published by a reputable academic publisher and that means it is reliable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MelanieN; this is a big claim, and should only be inserted if more evidence can be used to back it up. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 explosive packages[edit]

While this is still a developing story, we should probably (soon) add the explosive packages discovered to have been sent to the residences of former presidents Clinton and Obama this morning.

It seems (from media reports) that Hillary (not Bill) Clinton may have been the primary target of the one sent to the Clintons, so there may be some more discussion on whether/how to include that. SecretName101 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots/Archive_3&oldid=1053384543"