Talk:Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot

A plot needs conspirators

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: An assassination plot needs a group of conspirators to plan the assassination. Where are the other people involved in the planning? If this event is solely due to the actions of a single individual then it should bear a title like Alleged attempt to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cameron Dewe: Agree Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 06:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

After checking the Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary dictionary, I don't think a "plot" requires the involvement of multiple people. A plot is just a plan or scheme. A conspiracy requires multiple people, but I don't think a plot requires the involvement of multiple people. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Title needs to have "alleged" removed

Nothing alleged about an actual assassination attempt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.135.34.6 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Deaths "0" Injured "0" should be removed

This fact, while true, seems like an attempt to minimize the seriousness of this incident. This individual traveled from California to Washington, DC and brought weapons and ammo with him with the intent to kill Brett Kavanaugh. The article makes clear that this was an "assassination plot" and not an "assassination" or a "failed assassination" and thus strongly implies that nobody died or was injured. Boosie Bad Az (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Has been edited based in non verified news from the guardian and new york post he is trans

The information has no presently available verification other then the source listed. 50.103.246.39 (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

There's also this new article from The Hill, which states that Roske's public defenders have recently indicated that Roske now goes by Sophie and uses female pronouns. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And who cares ? A killer decides he is a girl so we must comply ? Are you insane ? 147.235.200.184 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Trans woman are woman, regardless of whether you agree with her actions or not. Wikipedia includes only the facts as reported by RS, not your personal beliefs about the gender-identity of the perpetrator that are inconsistent with how she identifies in reality.

CamerionDavis (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

To reflect facts the article should begin:

On June 8, 2022, Nicholas John Roske (latterly Sophie Roske) traveled to the home ...

as the culprit in the case was a man called Nicholas John Roske. As it currently stands, the article is historically inaccurate. There could be a citation to explain the new name but otherwise the article did not need to change. Jrmh (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The article must be edited to reflect the fact that Nicholas John Roske is the official name under which the defendant, a man, was tried and sentenced , Whilst I agree that it is fair to mention that the guilty party now claims to be a Trans-woman and uses the name Sophie, reports on legal proceedings must accurately present legal facts. 188.146.148.61 (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The legal proceedings section states that Roske came out as a trans woman in September 2025, choosing the name Sophie for court communication purposes, though her legal name remains unchanged. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The statement that trans women are women is not an objective fact. It is a personal belief that has obtained enough currency among Wikipedia editors to become Wikipedia policy, but do not mistake it for an objective fact. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID for what applies to WP-articles. You will do as you like on your own websites. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a great example of why Wikipedia's gender ID policy is insane. A man named Nicholas committed this crime. That man's name was in the news. To note that this man was born with a different name (which, by the way, is still his legal name) is irrelevant to the incident. Pretending that a woman named Sophie committed the crime is an erasure of history. Wikipedia has a noticeable left-leaning bias, and policies like this will continue to keep that bias in place and further endanger Wikipedia's ongoing relevance. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This page is not a place to complain about Wikipedia or its policies. If you truly take exception to MOS:GENDERID, discuss it over there instead. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm unable to access a talk page for the policy. If you have any tips, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out in an article talk page why the Wikipedia policy is a bad fit for that article. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be at least noted somewhere that this information about the trans identity came out after the arrest at least--I hope this information will not change all the identifying markers of the name the person was arrested with-Nicholas to that of Sophie or at least provide a way of following the change in identity that is easy to follow for a reader of the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2025

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: Closed as no consensus.. There is no consensus to move Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot to Attempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. While several editors supported the move on the grounds that it aligns with the legal charge and reflects more frequent terminology in some sources, others opposed citing WP:PRECISION and WP:CONSISTENCY, noting that "attempted assassination" implies direct action toward killing, which did not occur. With substantive, policy-based arguments presented on both sides and no clear prevailing view, consensus has not been reached. The article remains at its current title. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 12:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

---

Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot → Attempted assassination of Brett KavanaughAttempted assassination of Brett Kavanaugh – BOLDly moving to better-descriptive title, as a plot is a plan with multiple conspirators, and this was an actual break-in and attempted assassination by a lone actor ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Reply contesting the technical request:
Oppose. "After arriving at Kavanaugh's residence and alerting on-site U.S. Marshals, Roske called the police on herself and was arrested." That doesn't look like a clear improvement. Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary do not say that an individual person cannot have a plot to do something. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The OED defines it as a "plan made in secret by a group of people", though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support: Guilty plea for "Attempt to Assassinate a Justice of the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 351(c)" (pleading document) and now the conviction and sentence are entered. NBC News. (An attempt in U.S. federal law consists of intent to commit the underlying offense and a "substantial step" toward its culmination (in contrast to a "last act" or "dangerous proximity" test) and impossibility or abandonment are not defenses. "Attempt: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law". Congressional Research Service.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 11:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should look to the usual colloquial meaning of the phrase, not just the legal meaning. To me it doesn't seem like someone who voluntarily chooses not to go through with what they had planned and instead decides to seek psychological help instead is not really meeting the usual meaning of attempting to kill someone. I would only call it an attempt to kill them if they really tried but did not succeed – e.g., because their shots missed the target or because someone else blocked their actions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This feels more like the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot to me than the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, for example. So I'm opposed for now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

According to the Whitmer article, there were convictions for conspiracy to kidnap and none for attempted kidnapping. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree It's a plot--it was thwarted. I think I would be more in support if Kavanaugh had been physically assaulted or hurt in some way which would make it an "attempt" rather than a plan that was caught prior to an assailant seeing it through. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This scheme wasn't even really "thwarted", and it wasn't "caught" either. It was voluntarily reconsidered and abandoned. The person decided they needed psychological help. Roske simply called for help and surrendered voluntarily without any altercation or even investigation. There was no break-in, no violence – not even trespassing as far as I can tell. This was just a person with an unfortunate fantasy who simply changed their mind and decided it wasn't a good idea and sought help. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support Better fits WP:COMMONNAME. Google News search for '"Brett Kavanaugh" "assassination plot"' returns roughly 40 hits, while the search for '"Brett Kavanaugh" "attempted assassination"' returns roughly 90. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 08:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject United States Government, WikiProject United States courts and judges, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Politics/American politics, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "attempted assassination" means an assassination was attempted. No assassination was attempted. An assassination was planned, but that is not the same thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2025 (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.

Usage of subject's deadname in lede

This seems to be a somewhat contentious issue, so let's discuss. Per WP:BLP1E, Roske is not notable, and per MOS:GENDERID, we should only include the deadname if the subject was notable under that name. Therefore, I don't see a rationale for including it. I also strongly oppose the "latterally" wording, it's incredibly awkward and I can't come up with a good rationale for using it. If we were to include it (which again, I oppose), it should be something along the lines of Sophie Roske (known as {deadname} at the time of the incident). This should't be necessary though, as I do think 1E and GENDERID make it clear what the proper procedure here is. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wasianpower, RS coverage is of Roske being charged under the former name. JayCubby 18:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby Per MOS:GENDERID, Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources (emphasis added). There's no evidence of notability under any name per WP:1E, hence, we should remove the deadname. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Wasianpower, you missed the exception to that policy. Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under a former name. Being charged with the murder of a high profile individual is in fact a fair claim to notability (though it's a route I wouldn't suggest taking). Should we just never mention the names of people who perpetrate a single crime? JayCubby 19:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby That's what I addressed in my original comment. Per WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E, this person is not notable at all, under either name. Thereby that exception does not apply. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby Can you explain how Sophie Roske passes WP:1E/WP:BLP1E? Also, why you keep reverting to the "laterally" wording, which is pretty awful both from the perspective of MOS:DEADNAME (Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly") and from a readability perspetive? If you're going to edit war, please at least do so in a way that maintains some semblance of collaboration towards an agreeable solution, as you haven't objected to the wording I updated it to in this diff. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you applying biography standards to an article about an event? This is not a biography of Roske. It's an article recounting an event. You can't follow the sources without referring to Roske's current legal name, the name under which he was charged, and the name by which he was known when he committed the crime. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Because MOS:GENDERID says "in articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events" and (again) that we follow this policy "even if it does not match what is most common in sources." 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The primary name in the article’s prose is already the would-be perpetrator’s current name. Artificially obfuscating the name under which coverage contemporary with the abandoned attempt does not serve the encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument here, as long as we’re clear that that is in fact what we are doing. Per policy the name should be removed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The policy is that the former name is included if a "living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under a former name (a deadname)". With respect to the subject of the article, Roske was known as Nicholas when the crime was committed, and the caption for the case still includes "Nicholas". There is no doubt that, with respect to the subject of the article, Roske was notable as "Nicholas Roske" given the significant news coverage.

Your argument relies on the standards of notability for a biography, but this article is not a biography. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Literally if a "living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards)". That means that person meets WP:NBIO, the Wikipedia standard for a person being notable. It obviously doesn't mean you can feel free to deadname in any notable topic. I'm begging anyone opposing this on a policy basis actually read and understand MOS:DEADNAME, I've had to repeat myself several times at this point and it's becoming frustrating. It's very clear application of the policy. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You’re repeating your same wrong argument. It’s frustrating for everyone else, too. Nicholas Roske (still his legal name) was known as such when he committed the crime. Within the frame of reference of this article, he met Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under the name Nicholas Roske. The style guide explicitly permits using a former name if the subject was notable under that name, which is clearly the case here. You’re attempting to obfuscate the issue by applying the standard for creation of a biological article on its own, but that’s not the case here. Otherwise, we could not name Roske at all, or any other named defendant in any other criminal case where the defendant is known only for the notable crime. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You do not understand how notability works on Wikipedia. Please read WP:N and WP:NBIO. There is no such thing as "notability within the scope of an article". You may be confusing it with WP:DUE, which has to do with which information is covered in a given topic, and which does not apply in cases covered by MOS:DEADNAME (even if it does not match what is most common in sources). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You are proof texting Wikipedia policies and style guides to force policies written in one context into an entirely different context. Policies and style guides are not statutes that are intended to cover the scope of every circumstance, but even if they were treated the same as statutes, statutes that incorporate standards from other sources only do so to the extent that the incorporated statute even applies to the incorporating statute in the first place. For the purposes of this article (which yes, is the way we need to read the style guides incorporation of the notability policy) Roske was clearly notable under the name "Nicholas Roske". Dustinscottc (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm sympathetic to a WP:IAR argument here, which is what you're making whether you realize it or not. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and no, the use of the word in MOS:DEADNAME is not accidental (it literally links to the notability page, which doesn't say anything about notability "for the purposes of an article"). Since the inclusion is based on IAR, it should be done carefully and with a comment indicating such. I propose moving the name to a footnote per WP:GENDERID best practices, and leaving an invisible HTML comment to help any future editors understand its presence. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not making an IAR argument. I'm saying that application of the MOS:BIO is used, as explicitly stated in the first paragraph of MOS:BIO, "where applicable, to all articles that mention people." The MOS refers to notability because that's the standard it intends to apply, but that does not mean that the WP:N requirements applicable to the creation of an independent article apply to references to individuals in other articles. Since this is not an independent biographical article, we apply the WP:N standards "where applicable", meaning that we look to significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, but we disregard standards that are not applicable to circumstances they are not designed for. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the argument because too much ink has been spilled and there is no practical disagreement here. I went ahead and made the inclusion to avoid further discussion on this. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the introduction to include Roske's legal name in a parenthetical, as that is how MOS:GENDERID advises to include these names. There is no need to continue going back and forth on this. Dustinscottc (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I saw this discussion mentioned at WT:MOSBIO. Yes, the former (legal) name should be mentioned in the lead. The assassination attempt occurred on June 8, 2022, this Wikipedia article was created on October 30, 2022, and every RS reporting on the attempt used the former (legal) name before the subject came out as a trans woman in Sept 2025 (a month ago). Some1 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Also coming from MOSBIO. I agree that it's appropriate to mention the deadname, but we should be doing so "without overemphasis". We probably don't need to do so in the lead, body, and footnote. I'd suggest picking one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Out of the three, I'd say keep the name in Perp section and keep the footnote, because the "Nicholas John Roske" name is still the person's legal name and the name the case is filed under ("She has not asked to recaption the case," the public defenders wrote, noting that Roske’s legal name hadn’t changed."). The 2023 Nashville school shooting article does it the same way (perp section+footnote). Some1 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)