Talk:Swatting of American politicians (2023–2024)

On the page move...

@Pbritti, there has indeed been a swatting this year; Ken Paxton, who was swatted two days ago, i.e, in 2024. — Knightoftheswords 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281: At the time of my reversion of the undiscussed move, there were no verified swattings in the new year mentioned in the article. Instead, it appears the mover misunderstood an article published on 1 January on a 30 December swatting. With the new references, we should consider a move. However, Season of Swatting is not a COMMONNAME, as I can not find substantial reporting to this effect and it appears to simply be a headline. I would recommend the addition of 2024 to the name if the swattings continue, but there is presently only one incident which occurred in 2024 that I can see as referenced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The article title makes it nearly impossible to find. Season of Swatting has been used by several news agencies and is easy to discover. The swatting is also no longer limited to politicians, but activists, organizations, and protesters as well.

It's neither limited to "politicians" or "2023" anymore. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to discuss page moves before executing them. Additionally, a single local news source that doesn't even capitalize their one-time alliterative reference to the event absolutely does not constitute COMMONNAME. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the easiest to remember. Pages are intended to be easily findable. The article's current title is entirely inaccurate. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Easiest to remember" is not a naming convention. See the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither title is great, but do you have a better suggestion? It's the best out of the current options. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

See ONUS for why it is on you to propose options if you wish to make a change. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: although there is general support for moving this page, there is no consensus for a particular title at this time. That could lead to an interim move (WP:OTHEROPTIONS), but additionally there is no consensus on an appropriate scope for the article at this time, meaning that choosing a different title through this close is also best to avoid. I would note that Season of Swatting was deleted at WP:RFD, so there is clearly consensus not to move the page to that title. Finally, the article at Swatting is not long enough that it would preclude merging this content back there for the time being; this is not mandated by the close, but might be worth considering. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 swatting of American politicians → 2023–2024 swatting of American politicians – Or, alternatively, per @ShirtNShoesPls, Season of Swattings, or Christmas swattings. — Knightoftheswords 00:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2023–2024 swatting of American politicians: Best and most descriptive following naming conventions. "Season of Swattings" is not a source-supported term and was selected for its memorableness–Wikipedia does not impose editorial sensationalism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Swatting of American politicians (2023-present) or the generic Political swatting in United States a la Voter impersonation in the United States or Racism in the United States. Bremps... 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I like Bremps' suggestion Political swatting in United States: there have been incidents before against politicians and judges (2013, Sen. Ted Lieu; 2022, Judge Sullivan, Rep. Greene). These events are worth including as context, as they're clear antecedents to the current rash of incidents. (See e.g. Swatting#Other notable cases).-Ich (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Season of Swatting for now: None of the terms are great. But it has traction, is used in several sources, and the events are no longer exclusively targetting politicians, but activists and others as well. I will change my mind if another term becomes widely adopted. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying sources. This is false: there is one source, this article from Florida Politics–which has dubious editorial standards and only uses the phrase once in the passage "But this has been the season of swatting, for some reason". Suggesting that this has traction is wrong. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That would only be a problem if it was proclaiming a contentious notion. A commonly used term is far from that. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: Then prove that it is a commonly used term. Provide other sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The swatting is not limited to politicians. Activists, political organizations, journalists, and others have also been targetted. That's why tacking on "2024" to the article's title is inadequate. We're going to have to find a new term for the article. This is the best of an assortment of bad options. I would have supported a title such as Christmas Swatting but it's not limited to Christmas. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a question about article scope, then. I'd note that reporting has emphasized swatting, with other disruption either being constituent to the act of swatting or receiving secondary coverage. That doesn't explain why you were claiming "Season of Swatting" was a common term. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

On social media. We obviously can't use those things as citations. Two or three articles also used it but I'm still trying to find them. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I found exactly one social media post that uses this term. This is very clearly not a COMMONNAME. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Bloomberg article. There's also more. It clearly is a common name. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A single Bloomberg article fails COMMONNAME. Your innovation of the phrase being picked up by single media source is exactly why Wikipedia editors must avoid editorializing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How many articles are required before it meets WP:COMMONNAME? It certainly wasn't my terminology. Other news organizations used the phrase before mine. What evidence do you have to suggest that it was picked up by Bloomberg News? When you already conceded that it was previously used by local news stations, however questionable their accuracy. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel welcome to read WP:COMMONNAME, as a sensationalist term usually requires far broader acceptance in RSs. And stop saying news organizations, plural. You have yet to prove that at all. My evidence of you innovating this term is that you called it that here on Wikipedia with proper noun capitalization—something Bloomberg mirrored but was not extant in any sourcing prior to Jan 4. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bloomberg, Florida Politics, and others all together are multiple news organizations. Florida Politics capitalized it in a tweet before I did. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CITOGENESIS. If you can produce a source other than Bloomberg—preferably one predating your invention of the term from a blog post that didn't even capitalize it as a proper noun—then you might have ground to stand on. Otherwise, the claims of and others has got to stop. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Florida Politics is classified as a credible citation for Wikipedia. They've also capitalized "Season of Swatting" or otherwise used it numerous times.

Wikipedia cites them on multiple articles. That's should be good enough for anyone. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Besides this one article, where it's definitely not capitalized, where have they used it? Prove it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating previous position to strongly support: "Season of Swatting" is now widely used in news reports, including Bloomberg. The alternative proposed title also wrongly implies that the attacks have been limited to politicians. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest: 2023–2024 swatting of American politicians and activists - There is always (unfortunately) some level of swatting and bomb threats going on "normally", so "others" who are being swatted now may not be part of this wave. (it would make the title uselessly longer to include "and others"). ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

To me, "-2024" suggests it has either concluded or is scheduled to do so before the year's end. "Politicians and activists" may also be too narrow, as a judge has also been targeted.-Ich (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2024 (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.

"Season of Swatting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Season of Swatting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § Season of Swatting until a consensus is reached. Pbritti (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Season of Swattings" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Season of Swattings has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § Season of Swattings until a consensus is reached. Pbritti (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Chronological order?

If this is a wave of swatting and other harassment happening in a grouped time period, in my opinion it would be better to list the events by date, rather than by State/Federal office. What do others think? ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur This would honestly do better as a chronological list article with a column for notes if necessary. It's the best we can do if things don't share a common thread (see List of assassinated American politicians or List of United States Congress members killed or wounded in office). Bremps... 20:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, chronological order is a superior ordering, pending information that suggests some other form of organization. Good call, Avatar317. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I support as well. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, @Freedom4U: I noticed you tagged this article as having possible notability issues. I was hoping you could elaborate, as I would argue this article clears GNG and other standards based on the sustained, reliable-source coverage this subject has received as well as its involvement of many notable individuals. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are the only sources in the article looking at these singular events as one broader phenomenon:

• From Bloomberg, an opinion piece, which are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see WP:RSEDITORIAL)
• The Post Millennial, a generally unreliable source

Otherwise, the rest of the article is an amalgamation of synthesis and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: While we need to add additional sources to an article, notability isn't decided by what is presently in an article, but rather the subject itself. In this case, there has been sustained national coverage of this as a broader phenomenon by Time, CBS, Axios, AP, The New York Times, and other major reliable sources. Again, while these sources should be added to the article, the notability tag is for suggesting that a subject doesn't clear WP:N, not for suggesting maintenance and improvement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Another good source for that lends strong evidence that this is a notable event is this from The Hill, wherein legislation is being proposed to address the ongoing incidents. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The Hill article is pretty clearly just a rehashed press release and the Time, CBS, Axios, AP, etc coverage appear to be routine news coverage. I still fail to see how any of this coverage suggests any sort of long term significance. These are disconnected separate instances that don't collectively meet WP:NEVENT. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not true: when multiple RSs identify notable trends and provide continuing coverage that emphasizes the trend rather than the incidents in isolation, notability is acquired. See 2021 Canadian church burnings for a good example of this in action, albeit those events impacted some non-notable subjects as well. If you continue to doubt notability here, please start an AfD as the next step. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with notability also. The very first reference quotes experts saying there are about a thousand such incidents per year, going back 15 to 20 years. I'm having trouble identifying much in reliable sources that say there was something special a month ago, and furthermore that the special thing continues (as opposed to the usual average). -- M.boli (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and many thousands of other crimes occur annually. However, it is the specific spate of incidents which were identified by RS media as occurring in a cluster (both in time and target) that identifies this as a notable event. If you look at the sources, including the ones I included in my earlier reply, you'll notice most reference the specific grouping of such incidents and their disproportionate impact on political sentiments regarding this issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding a third voice, I'm also having issues with notability of the issue, but namely via potential issues as to the possibility this article itself is a WP:SYNTH violation. Currently having all these separate swattings together, when lacking any suspected specific individual or group (and therefore motive) that links all of these otherwise individual actions, could be argued to be reaching a synthetic conclusion (A was swatted, B was swatted, A and B are linked). This lack of ability to demonstrate the events are connected also connects to notability concerns because lacking that, we can't demonstrate these are not simply ordinary swatting incidents (as depressing as it is to call swatting ordinary) but an orchestrated campaign. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Requested move 7 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

---

2023 swatting of American politicians → Political swatting in the United States – Consistency with Racism in the United States or Gun violence in the United States. I don't want to have a move discussion again if this continues into 2025 or 2026 Bremps... 15:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't this a matter of the swatting of politicians rather than about swatting that is done for political reasons? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. So far, a judge, prosecutor, law professor, philanthropist and computer repairman have been swatted. Bremps... 21:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Key word being "if" - so oppose per WP:CRYSTAL for now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What about the consistency grounds? Bremps... 21:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

They're not comparable so there's no need for consistency. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've added in the above discussion, we still don't even know who undertook these actions, if they were even connected incidents, and why. So any move to further the idea of a trend at this point feels pre-emptive. If this ends up being a blip with no followup this may even end up facing an AfD given notability and synth issues. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: the sourcing present refers to these incidents in relationship with one another within a limited timeframe. This isn't about swatting against American politicians more generally (which may or may not warrant its own article), but rather a series of incidents that reliable sources and politicians indicated were related in terms of time and target. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2024 (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.

Person of interest identified (reported by CBS news)

I don't know all of the syntax or Standards for editing public Wikipedia pages, so I'll just leave this here to let someone who is better at those things update the article. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swatting-suspect-mayorkas-secret-service-justice-dept/ 71.241.242.114 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)