Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots/Archive 2

Obama

How about the arrested skin-heads ploying to kill Obama towards the end of his election campaign? BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah :S I don't know if thats counted as a assasination attempt, but still, its going to take me (or someone else) alot of info to dig up if it is. Armydude123 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify for me why either of the Obamas are even mentioned in this article. This is supposed to be only about attempts that were actually made, and according to what we have on here nobody has actually drawn a gun on, thrown a grenade at, planted a car bomb near, or otherwise made any open attempt on his life. And why the mention of Michelle when she isn't even the president? 173.233.34.10 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about attempts and plots'. As for Michelle, I don't see a problem having plots against first ladies. Since there are so few examples, it doesn't make sense to make an article for List of United States first lady assassination attempts and plots. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"has not been the target of an assassination attempt, there have been several alleged but undocumented assassination threats" - Are you kidding me? Firstly, this is about standing Presidents, not candidates... But worse, this sentence is so woolly as to sound ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.189.130 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Assassination attempts are bullets flying at you, etc. None of these are legit attempts. They are "scares" as mentioned. The Secret Service is doing their job. Nothing should be listed under Obama.2601:1:A000:C2:DC9A:9423:1421:84A7 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)thiSguy[reply]

First why is there a separate page for assassination threats against president Obama, and second why are the threats/attempts listed there completely different from those listed here? Not a huge deal but still confusing. 50.103.172.30 (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Leaving Office?

I notice that in these lists they always refer to Presidents in Office, have their been any assination attempts on former Presidents? 86.133.227.49 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt was shot in 1912, three years after he had left office in 1909. The Iraqi plot against George H.W. Bush was in April of 1993, three months after he left office.York1066 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between attempts and plots?

Isn't an actual attempt when someone actually tires to shoot/stab/blow up ect. the President? So Jackson, Truman, both attempts on Ford, Reagan, the October 1994 attempt on Clinton, and the second Bush attempt. I also do not have a problem with including the attempts on Theodore Roosevelt and George H.W. Bush after they left office, or the attempt on President-Elect Franklin Roosevelt. However, someone thinking about maybe attempting to shoot a gun at the President's motorcade, or thinking about blowing up the bomb they have does not constitute an attempt. This list has become populated with trivial events where the person did not even necessarily attempt to act on their thoughts, when possibly legitimate attempts have been ignored (Hoover's page states that there were at least 3 "attempts")York1066 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 itself?

Specifically United Airlines Flight 93: doesn't the attempt to crash a passenger jet into the White House count as an assassination attempt? ciphergoth (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the President was in Florida and was wide spread knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.81 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the reason. The hijackers on UA Flight 93 attempted to crash the plane into Capitol Hill. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself told this to Al-Jazeera before the CIA & ISI captured him. ----DanTD (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Remove "List of" since this has many coherent paragraphs, not just a list. Proposed new title would be United States presidential assassination attempts and plots. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most assassination attempts in a Western Country?

While the USA has not been around as along as other countries, like in Europe, have we had more assassination attempts than other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.80.26 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The middle ages consist almost entirely of European nobility trying to murder each other. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nine presidents who were shot sometime in their lives

I requested a category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Category_request:_Category:_Shooting_victims_who_were_also_U.S._presidents

96.32.11.201 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrumph. They call it a "trivial intersection". Oh well.96.32.11.201 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on President Obama

Not to diminish any threat to any President, but I'd like some opinions on whether or not the various "plots" to kill President Obama should be included in this article. The Secret Service has the authority to arrest anyone who threatens the President, but just because some fool shoots off his mouth and gets sent for a "psychological evaluation", without ever actually going anywhere to even attempt to carry out any actions, that falls a bit short of an "assassination attempt". Do any of these rise to a level to be included here, and do we need the detail, especially when you look at the lack of detail in other portions of the article. Seems like recentism to me, with maybe a bit of partisan pushing trying to make more of this than there is. Please comment Rapier (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC) +1 fully agree2601:1:A000:C2:DC9A:9423:1421:84A7 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)thiSguy[reply]

Obama Assassination attempts

Not to diminish any threat to any President, but I'd like some opinions on whether or not the various "plots" to kill President Obama should be included in this article. The Secret Service has the authority to arrest anyone who threatens the President, but just because some fool shoots off his mouth and gets sent for a "psychological evaluation", without ever actually going anywhere to even attempt to carry out any actions, that falls a bit short of an "assassination attempt". Do any of these rise to a level to be included here, and do we need the detail, especially when you look at the lack of detail in other portions of the article. Seems like recentism to me, with maybe a bit of partisan pushing trying to make more of this than there is. Please comment Rapier (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Inclusion - I haven't really read into this deeply, so I reserve the right to change my mind, but I'm guessing that is probably a case WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inclusion - Every case for every other president (that I read) included at least a physical attempt, not just some idiot shooting his/her mouth off. Also, I found the multiple sub-sections exessive. I also found it an excessive example of recentism. Tobyc75 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inclusion - I don't think that an unbalanced person shooting off their mouth but demonstrating any planning constitutes a plot. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at least for now). Far too recent to include, and unsubstantial intentions don't really merit inclusion, anyway. If further news develops, however, and it's substantial enough, then by all means include. --JeevanJones (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the various sub-sections, but left the original starting paragraph. Information can be added if a future consensus determines it to be notable and relavent. Rapier (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added main article for assassination attempts/plans toward Obama. ─ Matthewi ^(Talk) • 14:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the one attempt listed on this page since there is a main article with several attempts. ─ Matthewi ^(Talk) • 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Stretch

The section on the longest strech without shots fired claims that the second longest stretch is the 'current' one (without dating the statement even) since the attempt on Ronald Reagan. Which cannot be correct since there were shots fired on the White House during the George W. Bush Administration. Sejtam (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether this section is even needed. There are many paths to assassination, as the grenade thrown at Bush 43 and the suspected poisoning of Zachary Taylor prove. This seems like a rather pointless fact to include and I'd support its outright deletion. SeanNovack (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted as well, plus it is all unsourced. I am going to be bold and delete it now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as pointless. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it must be stated that you are misunderstanding the intent of this "longest stretch" section. If you will please read it again, this time more carefully, you should be able to see that it speaks strictly to periods during which no shots were fired DIRECTLY at the person of the current President or a President-elect or a former President. Therefore incidents in which shots were fired at the White House building itself would not count (as these did not involve direct attacks on the person himself). As one example, Obama was away in Hawaii and not even in Washington when the most recent shots were fired at the White House building. Other similar incidents of shots being fired at the building also did not directly endanger the life of the Presidential occupant on those occasions either. So the "longest stretch" only concerns itself with direct assaults on the person himself and only with shootings (not any other kind of attack) that clearly endangered the life of a president. The dates provided are all documented in the previous sections of this same Wikipedia article. All dates therefore are easily found within this same article and the matter of figuring out time lengths becomes an elementary one of mathematics that anyone can easily do. The "longest stretch" puts presidential assassinations and attempts into further perspective for the reader, lest he believe that presidential shooting incidents happen all the time in America. In seeing this from a time line perspective, the reader realizes that it actually has been quite a long time since the last presidential shooting attempt on the person of the President and that this current non-shooting period we're in right now actually ranks as one of the longest such periods. While this does not conveniently fit within the mindset of U.S.-detractors and others who would want you to believe that America is a lawless land where they kill their presidents every other week, it does provide something which is a primary objective of Wikipedia... facts and perspective. It is therefore not the least bit trivial but interesting and useful information for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.100.115 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great section to include! This gentleman who wrote it is not the only person who believes it is an appropriate section. I too believe it provides perspective, just as the gentleman stated. Sean, if you are going to make the claim that this is "inappropriate" then would you please explain why that is? Offer an intelligent reason rather than just simply say that it is "inappropriate." Are you capable of offering that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.245.27 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about trivia. But are you able to articulate why you find this section "pointless" when the gentleman already has adequately explained his point in writing it? If so, then please articulate it for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.245.27 (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted justification for including the material is actually an excellent argument for removing it. No reliable sources have been provided to support the position that this trivia – unlike the well-documented "trivia" about real assassinations of presidents of the United States and attempts of others to do the same – is of any importance. Instead, an editor has engaged in original research and interpretation of multiple sources to include content with the express purpose of making a point of his/her own devising that is totally unrelated to the article and is not supported by any source. That's synthesis, and it's not allowed. On the other hand, as the deathwatch time frame is defined, if someone were to crash an airplane into the White House killing the president and the entire cabinet, the clock would keep ticking because no shots were fired. So yes, the entire section is unsourced and pointless trivia. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricin

A letter containing Ricin, like that sent to the senator from Mississippi, was sent to President Obama [1]. I haven't seen it explicitly referred to as an assassination attempt, but we might want to keep our eyes open. Ryan Vesey 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination resulting in major policy changes

The article says "the assassination of the President is unlikely to result in major policy changes". Is that a known fact? If so then should there be a citation? It sounds like opinion to me. I could just as easily say that the threat of assassination could have a substantial influence on policy. Both are a matter of opinion. I thought that opinions are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush September 11, 2001

I'm deleting this item. The most compelling assertion made in this paragraph is that Time Magazine says this was an assassination attempt. I read the time article, and it does not say anything at all about this incident. The other citations fail to establish the facts asserted by this item and are purely speculative.--Pas28 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ?

Was President Lyndon Johnson never threatened at all? As far as I know, he was very unpopular during his hinal years in office. --78.50.228.107 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a true case of wp:synthesis. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Candidates?

Should we record attempted/successful assassinations of people who were running for president? RFK comes to mind as an obvious example. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is likely some interesting history to be found (e.g. RFK and George Wallace#Democratic presidential primaries of 1972 and assassination_attempt), however, my concern is that we would get things like this in the article. - Location (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

There are several basic tenets of Wikipedia which this article violates. This article is full of trivia, speculation, and non-encyclopedic narrative. I have tagged it so it may be improved as opposed to nominating it for deletion per "Blow it up", which was my first inclination.

We can't make assumptions (per Synthesis) about motives and might-have-beens. A clear definition of what belongs here is lacking. "Attempts" against Michelle? Come on. If such an attempt did indeed happen (not someone thinking about it but acting on it in such a way as to be notable) it would belong in her article, not here. Attempts are provable, they happened. Plots may be proven or unproven – but motivation will remain uncertain in such cases...but plots are not really notable in most cases. There have been plots against every president, but most never see the light of day. So, where do you draw the line? When an actual attempt is made would be my thoughts. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...where does it mention Michelle? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there are five assassination attempts on Barack Obama listed. None of them mentions Michelle Obama. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]