Talk:Jacob Chansley/Archive 2

Question: On a related subject, the qualifier "far-right" has been added and removed from "activist" more than once. Since QAnon is called "a disproven and discredited far-right conspiracy theory" in our article, it seems that calling Angeli a "far-right activist" shouldn't be an issue. If Angeli is a QAnon activist he is by definition a far-right activist. Personally, I don't care either way but I suspect it will be re-added and re-removed until this is discussed. Is "far-right" an acceptable qualifier for "activist"? Mo Billings (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I have no issue with that, as it IS clear from the sources he is far-right leaning... my only issue is the addition of the words "terrorist" or "insurrectionist" based on opinion pieces or unsourced POV... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Extending the label based on the QA support would be WP:OR. Please be cautious, this is a BLP. Do we have any sources that actually call him far-right? Practically speaking, the subject's views seems rather eclectic and may not align well with a left-right spectrum. VQuakr (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Using basic logic and commonsense is not "original research". Regardless, there are editors who will only be satisfied by sources using the exact phrase "far-right activist". Here is a source that calls him a "far-right activist". Here is another one. And here. And here. That's probably enough. Mo Billings (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We quite obviously can't use "basic logic and commonsense" to determine whether to include a contentious label in a WP:BLP. The TOI Staff article is a pretty passing mention based on coverage in the Daily Mail; not a good source. The Davis article and the Birkett article you link twice are more direct; I would say there are sufficient for describing him as far-right, with attribution and not in WP's voice. I don't think it merits inclusion in the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr If you agree that we have multiple reliable sources calling Angeli a far-right activist, I don't see your issue with including it in the lead. It is a qualifier for "activist" which happens to occur in the first sentence. Right now, he's an unqualified, generic "activist" which isn't really a thing. Mo Billings (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:RACIST applies. Having two sources calling him far-right isn't adequate justification for using the term in Wiki-voice. VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If you didn't like the sources already provided, I can find more. This one from Bloomberg is good. Chansley’s notoriety has prompted his St. Louis attorney, Albert Watkins, to attempt an audacious legal feat: to redefine a far-right activist dressed in Viking garb as a peace-loving yoga enthusiast. Here's another. And another. And this. This one is not quite as solid, since the phrase "far-right activist" is applied to a list which includes Angeli but a reasonable person would understand it. Mo Billings (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As a possible alternative, how about modifying the 2nd sentence to say "a proponent of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory."? VQuakr (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible solution, keep it NPOV with just "QAnon activist"? I haven't seen anything about him protesting for any other causes/organizations... and it would avoid any BLP issues... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue. There is no NPOV issue. I have provided ample sources to demonstrate that he is called a "far-right activist" in reliable sources. Mo Billings (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: he's also an environmental activist (or has been in the past), which of course isn't usually considered a right wing cause. VQuakr (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIIW, I agree with Mo Billings. We can and should call him a far-right activist. There seems to be ample WP:RS describing him as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not disagree with "far right" being added (per my original reply above), I was only suggesting an alternative solution... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems a consensus has emerged. @Mo Billings: thank you for providing sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the justice.gov and fbi.gov cited sources are dangerously close to failing WP:BLPPRIMARY in that we should never use public records to cite facts in BLPs. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are used to reference the sentence "On January 9, Angeli was arrested on federal charges...". In what way do you think that this conflicts with WP:BLPPRIMARY? Mo Billings (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Elizium23 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Are these court transcripts or court records? Mo Billings (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

They are public government documents. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, is there no secondary source that reports Angeli was arrested?!?!?! Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

They are not public government documents in the sense of records. These are statements from the agencies to the public. They are communications. There is nothing unusual with using statements like these. I don't understand your objection to their use on this particular article. Mo Billings (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources which can be used instead of these primary ones? Is there something wrong with the media outlets reporting it? Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

My objection consists in the concept that Wikipedia is based on SECONDARY sources, first and foremost. We can use primary sources with utmost caution and only where secondary sources fail us. WP:BLPPRIMARY is utterly clear in its guidance. Once again: can we not use secondary sources for exactly the same information? Wikipedia is BUILT ON secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You started this discussion off by mus-stating what WP:BLPPRIMARY says. Now you are asserting that we can use primary sources "only where secondary sources fail us". That's not what WP:PRIMARY says and it's not what WP:BLPPRIMARY says. Do you have a link to any policy or guideline that supports your assertion? Take note of the difference between using something and misusing it. Mo Billings (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings, I didn't misstate anything. In fact I gave you a direct quote when you queried whether I was telling the truth. You don't seem to understand the plain meaning of the policy. Elizium23 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't telling the truth, but I'm not very smart, so you'll have to show me where it says use primary sources "only where secondary sources fail us". Mo Billings (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

More secondary sources mentioning the arrest:

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/09/capitol-pelosi-lectern-police-arrest-adam-christian-johnson
• https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/trump-rioters-planned-to-kill-congress-members-fed-probe.html

—PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this is even a debate. The primary sources are fine, but even if they aren't, the secondary source cited is sufficient to remove the issue tag. We have a secondary source here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So let's remove the primary sources and remove the tag, because we have located at least 3 secondary sources which are superior in quality, according to Wikipedia's charter. Elizium23 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. No need to have this argument if there's nothing only sourced to the primary sources. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the article. see WP:LEAD. I added this template. Instead of resolving my concern, User:Mo Billings has decided to remove the template without fixing the concern. This is inappropriate behavior. The template should not be removed without fixing the concern and getting a consensus on the talk page to remove it.--Walrus Ji (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you want to add content to the lead, be bold and do so. The only discussion we've had to date, to my knowledge, is the consensus above against adding the hypothetical pardon to the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Going by your logic, we should probably delete all these maintenance templates and replace them all with a redirect to WP:SOFIXIT. Isn't it? Walrus Ji (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: this is a pretty new article, maintenance templates like this aren't generally useful or necessary. It's concerning that your response to it being challenged was to start a section about why the tag should stay rather than either expanding the lead or starting a discussion about what you think should be added. Ya know, collaborative, non-battleground stuff. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I suspect this is Walrus Ji being unhappy about the result of a discussion (see above) of including a pardon that didn't happen in the lead. Mo Billings (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: yes, I mentioned that discussion above in my first reply. WP:AGF please, we shouldn't assume Walrus is being intentionally disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji Please explain the problem with the lead. In your edit summary, you said "Some discussion can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jake_Angeli#Mention_of_Pardon_and_Regret_in_the_Lead". The consensus was to exclude the non-pardon from the lead. Is there another issue? You can't just leave a template and expect people to understand what you think the issue is if you don't tell them. Mo Billings (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, lead expanded and tag removed in the absence of any specific concerns. VQuakr (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

VQuakr, Please do not remove the template without fully resolving the underlying concern first. The main reason for this subject's popularity is his association with the Capitol insurrection. While this is covered in the article, the lead fails to appropriately summarize this following WP:LEAD. The problem still exists. Accordingly the template has been restored. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is fine. Three paragraphs that nicely summarize the salient information. I just looked over the article and didn't see anything that would have to be added to the lead. Yes, Angeli is known for his participation in the Capitol attack, and that's why it's mentioned in the first sentence. Maybe there are one or two details that could be added (Navy service?), but it's not necessary. The warning template should be removed. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is ok and template uncalled for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

LEAD

[ ... ] has counter-protested at Black Lives Matter rallies. He has self-published two books.

On January 9, Angeli was arrested on federal charges of "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds". — last para of the article lead as it stands right now at 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@all, above. I cannot believe you are being serious. The lead says he published books and Boom says he was arrested on FEDERAL CHARGES, no less. No description summarizing what he did. The lead is unacceptably short right now. The quality of discussion on this page is seemingly poor. At least 2 editors above are taking my comments about the topic, personally. I might have to start an RfC for this. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As VQuakr said, just WP:FIXIT. It looks like all other editors agree that the lead is not too short, and you haven't added anything to the lead. Please go ahead and add to the lead what you want to add. If you don't do that, it's perfectly reasonable for other users to remove the warning after a few days. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn, And what is stopping you from doing a " WP:FIXIT." ? My efforts to expand the lead have already been thwarted so I have taken a back seat now. This is me raising concern for the obvious problem. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't fix it because in my opinion it's not broken. But I guess "take a back seat" is an important point here. All of us who have been editing Wikipedia for a while have had the experience that a problem is obvious to us but we can't convince others of its importance. In cases like this, it's often best to "take a back seat". I guess you can at least agree that the lead isn't terribly short anymore, and it's not really worth fighting for adding another sentence or two. If someone removes the warning template, maybe you can just accept it and move on. Take care! — Chrisahn (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can't see the problem, does't mean it is not there. Your disagreement with me about the issue I raised is noted. I have no more response to you, as I dont find your comment helping in any way to fix the problem that still exists. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No one thinks the lead will never see expansion or improvement; it is a work in progress. The tag is not warranted, though. The discussion above shows clear consensus for its removal, with no opinions at all against further improvements to the article including the lead. As noted at WP:CLEANUPTAG, Don't add tags for trivial or minor problems, especially if an article needs a lot of work. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I will need to tag the article with {{Lead too long}} due to the rambling and play-by-play reports added just now. Elizium23 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, and others, Instead of making unproductive rambling comments on the talk page, why don't you guys share in this thread your own preferred "Wonderfully Brilliant" version of the summary of his Insurrection episode. And then we can discuss and improve the article lead using them? Walrus Ji (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Walrus Ji, all this complaining because you wanted to add the pardon information to the lead after consensus was that it did not belong, then adding a number of minor details to the lead as well as the pardon information again against consensus, is not going to help your case. The lead perfectly summarizes the article already, it is a very short article (relative to other biographies). I believe at this point you may be assuming bad faith and/or editing disruptively just because you didn't get you way. Sometimes, you need to just let things go, especially when there is a clear consensus against your singular idea. Continuing to argue against consensus is not going to help your cause. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

yet another comment discussing the editor and ignoring the content. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not ignoring content... just pointing out that, above, consensus was that the pardon information does not belong in the lead, and this thread shows that consensus is that the lead is not too short... just saying maybe it is time to stop tilting this specific windmill... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Here is my proposed version of the lead. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

LEAD

[ ... ] has counter-protested at Black Lives Matter rallies. He has self-published two books.

On January 6, 2021, Angeli had traveled to the Washington DC from Arizona, admittedly at the request of the President Trump. During the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol Angeli entered the Senate floor in the Capitol and took several pictures, that later went viral. On January 8, Washington DC Police posted a person of interest notification for Angeli seeking information from public. On January 9, Angeli was arrested on federal charges of "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds". He requested Trump for a presidential pardon which remained ungranted. Angeli's lawyer later stated that Chansley regretted being duped by Trump. — last para of the Proposed Lead that was reverted.

• Which clearly includes information about the pardon, against the above consensus (as well as not using the WP:COMMONNAME per another previous consensus)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the name as Angeli. Anything else? Walrus Ji (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The pardon information that you continue to insert against consensus? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why you think that a presidential pardon that was reported in headline by multiple media sites is unworthy of lead. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate the discussion in Talk:Jake_Angeli#Mention_of_Pardon_and_Regret_in_the_Lead. See also WP:REHASH and WP:SATISFY. VQuakr (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The question was addressed to Adolphus79. is your name Adolphus79? Stop badgering this discussion thread Walrus Ji (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the consensus above (the first time you wanted to argue about it) was that it does not belong in the lede. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing of On January 6, 2021, Angeli had traveled to the Washington DC from Arizona, admittedly at the request of the President Trump. is awkward, and it is not clear why this sentence merits mention in the lead. Mention of Trump here is coatracking. The next sentence has BLP issues and uses a "went viral" colloquialism. Last sentence is unclear, overly detailed, and includes the pardon mention that's already been rejected. How about adding instead:

Angeli allegedly entered the US Capitol and Senate floor on January 6. On January 9, Angeli was arrested on federal charges of "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds". VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have since edited it to something along these lines, moving the link for the storming to the last paragraph to clarify what the arrest was for. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually don't totally agree with that; he is primarily known for allegedly participating in the Capitol storming and that should be included in the first sentence per WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

better? I don't like "allegedly", due to overwhelming video evidence of him being there. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That was my thought too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Per our "greatest care" policy at WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME, we cannot state as fact that someone committed a crime they haven't been convicted of. That's a simple bright line.

I don't like the interim phrasing I added to the last paragraph very much because it is repetitive with the first sentence of the lead; how about, Angeli is accused of taking part in the storming of the Capitol on January 6. He was arrested on January 9 on federal charges of "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds". I like including "January 6" in the lead because we shouldn't assume our readers are/will be familiar with the Capitol storming and it provides context to the January 9th arrest. VQuakr (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

How about "After video evidence surfaced of him taking part in the storming of the capitol on Jan 6, he was arrested on Jan 9..." ? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Angeli is accused of taking part in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, when he entered the building. ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of these still report him entering/storming as fact. We need to say what the accusations are and who is making them, not assert what the subject did or didn't do. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What you have now is fine with me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you prefer the current version over what I proposed here? VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think what we have now is fine for the lead. Short, and to the point. Plenty of additional details already included in the body of the article. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We do state that he entered as a fact: "During the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, Angeli entered the United States Senate floor in the Capitol, wearing his shamanic attire, including a horned fur headdress, and war paint in red, white, and blue, as well as carrying a six-foot-high (1.8 m) spear, with an American flag tied below the blade.[28] He was also photographed standing on the raised platform in front of Vice President Mike Pence's chair, gaining him significant media attention. He later said police had initially blocked the crowd from entry, but had then specifically allowed them entry, at which point he entered.[29"

I removed "allegedly" from the first sentence. There is no dispute about his participation. WP:BLPCRIME means we can't say that he is guilty of committing a crime. It doesn't mean that we ignore the known (and reliably reported) facts. He was there. He was charged. He is innocent unless and until he is found guilty. Mo Billings (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: ok, fair point; thank you! VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)