Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 236

Zeroth statement by moderator (January 6)

For now, just waiting for 3Kingdoms and Khajidha to provide their summaries. Before we start, I want to go over a few things. First please read the rules that this discussion will be operating under. Please keep in mind that we are dealing with a contentious topic, and to comment on content, not contributors. As always, please be civil, clear and concise in your comments. Regarding the dispute, I want Darknipples and The Four Deuces to provide all of the sources that you believe support your claims. They do not have to be from the original talk page discussion, and please quote where your opinion is supported. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (January 6)

I'm trying to work out what the dispute actually is, and I think the discussion above is getting closer to that. As I've already stated, let's hold off on arguing the dispute until all parties agree on what the dispute is. My current understanding is that the dispute is if reliable sources state that the Proud Boys planned to enter the Capitol Building before 1/6. TFD's view is that there is insufficient evidence to make a determination. DN's view is that there are reliable sources to back up the claim. Is this correct? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think so. We may be on track now that I have made another attempt to clarify the dispute. We shall see. DN (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree but with a modification. It's not that I think there is insufficient evidence, just that reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6.

While I think that is what you meant, evidence can mean either of two things: the sources we use to support information in articles or the actual evidence to form a conclusion. I just want to be clear that the dispute is over the conclusions reported in reliable sources rather than how we individually might decide the facts. TFD (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by conclusions? Would you agree that if something is not explicitly stated in a source, or at least referenced in relative terms, it shouldn't be assumed? DN (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't ask rhetorical questions. TFD (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are assuming it's rhetorical. It is not. DN (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - how is this a rhetorical question? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good, it seems we have finally came to an agreement about what the dispute actually is. It's quite narrow, so I ask that we stay on topic. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• I do not agree to TFD's modification. "I agree but with a modification. It's not that I think there is insufficient evidence, just that reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." I have been consistently clear that the dispute is over whether sources that state that "prosecutors have alleged prior planning before 1/6" exist. It's not about "what sources claim or conclude", it's about "the existence" of RS that states prosecutors have alleged and provided evidence of planning by PB prior to Jan 6. I tried asking them to clarify what they mean by that and they did not agree or provide an answer. Instead they accused me of asking rhetorical questions. DN (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me if I did not understand your position. You agree, "reliable sources do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." You disagree with "prosecutors do not claim that the Proud Boys planned to enter the building before 1/6." TFD (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's quite alright, and I do appreciate your patience and continued participation in attempting to find a resolution. Outside of RS reports regarding prosecutorial arguments and evidence, I have no concerns with claims or conclusions made by RS here. I believe I have boiled down the dispute into one statement listed below, at everyone's request...

"Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys."

If you still disagree that this statement is supported by RS, would you be willing to continue towards a resolution? If you agree that this statement is supported by RS, then you are correct that there is no dispute. DN (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• This dispute started after you disagreed with TFD's statement, "But no evidence has been found that the breach was planned or was part of any wider plan." You disagreed with this, providing sources. Has the disagreement changed from the breach being planned at all to just prosecutor alleging planning? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Correct (see below - it has always been about what RS reports in regard to prosecutorial arguments and evidence....DN (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)), and thank you for your patience. I don't think the dispute has changed much at all, aside from specifying "prior to Jan 6th". Since the start of this dispute I have stated that it is about whether prosecutors have alleged and presented evidence of planning to breach the capitol by the Proud Boys according to RS. We have since clarified/amended "planned before Jan 6th". I apologize to you and TFD for not making that clear at the beginning. I believe I have boiled down the dispute into one statement listed below, at everyone's request.

"Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys."

I have provided this summary statement of the dispute to TFD in my response to them above, and asked if they still dispute that it is supported by RS, and if so, if they are willing to continue to participate. If they agree that statement is supported by RS, then we can both agree that there is no dispute. DN (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you agree that no reliable sources say the breach of the building was planned before 1/6? That's not in dispute and will not be discussed here. TFD (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I may finally understand what you mean, if not, hopefully JML1148 is still willing to help. I am stating reliable sources have "reported" evidence presented by prosecutors. I am not claiming reliable sources "agree with the prosecutors" if that is what you mean. Your statement that "no evidence has been found that the breach was planned prior to 1/6" is the focus of my dispute because RS has "reported" prosecutors have evidence the Proud Boys discussed breaching the capitol prior to 1/6. If you concur that prosecutors have presented evidence that proud boys discussed breaching the capitol prior to 1/6 as "reported" by RS, then we have no dispute. DN (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I accept your re-wording of the dispute and we can go ahead with that. In my opinion, prosecutors have not so argued or presented such evidence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Darknipples and The Four Deuces: So, to clarify before we move on, the dispute is about whether the following statement is true: "Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys." Is this correct? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. TFD (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. DN (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (January 6)

We've finally came to an agreement about what the dispute actually is. Please stay on topic, and I will collapse any comments that are going off topic. Now, I'd like to hear a longer statement describing your view, and your argument backing up said view. When possible, please use sources. From now on I'd like to reduce the back-and-forth conversation and move more towards a longer statement form, however if neccessary please leave a comment. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

It's up to DN to provide sources for their claim. If they cannot do that, then their claim fails. TFD (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'll start with the citations, most of which were previously posted on the J6 Attack Talk Page, and include the source TFD provided here, under count one for conspiracy "Manner and means" #28, on page 9, section f and section h say...

(f.) Engaging in meetings and encrypted communications in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack; (h.) Directing, mobilizing, and leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol;^[1]

Citation from aljazeera 2022. "Prosecutors alleged the Proud Boys had plotted to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory, saying evidence showed that Tarrio had been involved in discussions about storming the US Capitol and occupying government buildings in advance of January 6, 2021."^[2]

Citations from NBC News in 2022 and aljazeera in 2023.

The indictment says discussions among a small group of Proud Boy leaders shifted in the days before the riot to focus on the Capitol itself. “On January 3, as efforts to plan for January 6 intensified,” the document says, “Tarrio stated ... that he wanted to wait until January 4 to make final plans.” That prompted a person, who was not identified in court documents, to send the group this voice message: “The main operating theater should be out in front of house of representatives ... based around the front entrance to the Capitol building.”

Tarrio responded, “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol,” the indictment says.^[3][4]

DOJ v Donohoe included in WaPo report

"At least as early as January 4, 2021, and prior to Donohoe’s decision to travel to D.C., Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol. Donohoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power. Donohoe understood that storming the Capitol would be illegal."(p. 4) Donohoe understood from these discussions that a tactical plan for January 6, 2021, was being discussed at least among Tarrio, Nordean, and Biggs.(p. 6)^[5]

Donohoe is the first among six of the charged Proud Boys leaders, including chairman Enrique Tarrio, to admit to planning an attack on Congress and assaulting law enforcement officers. On the morning of Jan. 6, the Proud Boys marched away from the Ellipse before Trump began his speech and did not return....Defendants Ethan Nordean and Joseph Biggs mustered the group, and “Donohoe understood that Nordean and Biggs were searching for an opportunity to storm the Capitol.”^[6]

Cheers...DN (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Good source (WaPo & Prosecutor statement) . I'd call that solved -- Prosecutors definitely present evidence of planning to storm the prior to Jan 6. Feoffer (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's my response:

1. The indictment. "The attack" refers to "oppos[ing] by force the authority of the Government of the United States and by force to prevent, hinder, and delay the execution of any law of the United States." (para. 26) There's no mention about when the plan to enter the building arose.

2. Al Jazeera. If prosecutors had said that, then you should be able to find a press release or news item quoting their statement. Articles like that are a good reason for News organizations. Media are very good at reporting events and announcements as they occur, but reporters are not experts at anaylzing events.

3. NBC. This article quotes the indictment (paras. 49-50), where in response to a Jan 3 voice message by PERSON-3 saying he thought the Proud Boys should assemble at the front entrance of the Capitol Building, Tarrio left a voice message saying, "You want to storm the Capitol."

PERSON-3 apparently is Robert Fussell, who was not charged.

Even if you think Fussell was inciting members to storm the Capitol, no evidence was given that anyone other than Tarrio was aware of the message or acted on it. Fussell says it was not his intention to breach the building and Tarrio was being sarcastic.

Can you point to any statement by prosecutors that this was evidence that a plan existed?

4. Donohoe's agreed statement of guilt. In his April 4, 2022, Charles Donohoe claimed to be "aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol." He agreed to assist the prosecution and will receive a reduced sentence.

He also "understood that Nordean and Biggs were searching for an opportunity to storm the Capitol.”

Donohoe did not explain how he was aware of the plan or how he knew that Nordean and Biggs were planning to storm the Capitol. AFAIK, he was not used as a witness that the breach of the building was planned.

Conclusion

The disagreement is not over whether we should be persuaded by the statements of PERSON-3, Tarrio or Donohoe that the breach of the Capitol Building was planned before 1/6. It's whether prosecutors claimed the attack was planned before 1/6 and whether they presented evidence for it. And by that I mean that they said in court or in press conferences or press releases the evidence supported the claim. TFD (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I will wait to see if JML1148 wishes for me to expound. I believe reiteration of the agreed upon dispute seems necessary here, as you seem to be creating new terms for the dispute. For now, I will simply recall your response when I asked what you meant by conclusions, and whether you would agree that if something is not explicitly stated in a source, or at least referenced in relative terms, that it shouldn't be assumed. DN (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

How am I creating new terms for the dispute? While the sources you provided may persuade you that the entry was planned, you have not provided any sources where prosecutors make that claim. It's likely that the prosecutors did not claim the entry was planned because they lacked evidence. TFD (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to go at length here, but as a brief example, you say "Al Jazeera. If prosecutors had said that, then you should be able to find a press release or news item quoting their statement." Is this not a news item? Where in our dispute agreement does it state that I must "quote the prosecutors"? I am copying this verbatim from a news "report" as we agreed. Are you implying Al Jazeera is lying, or not considered a generally reliable news organization per WP:RSP? "but reporters are not experts at anaylzing events" How much analysis do you think is being applied here, as to violate the terms of this dispute? The source isn't agreeing with the prosecutors or taking their side. They are "reporting" findings presented by the prosecution, ie evidence, that specifically mentions the capitol breach. I could go on about your rebuttal and continue adding even more citations from additional RS, but I'd rather wait to see if JML1148 feels I am currently acting in bad faith, or, if a resolution is in sight. DN (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Something that was said months ago is not news. I am not saying al Jazeera is "lying," just that their summary is inaccurate. Al Jazeera is a reliable source, it's not infallible and and like other Wikipedia:NEWSORG, not reliable for analysis, in this case what prosecutors said months before. I don't see the problem if a reporter said that someone said something that you should be able to provide the original statement. TFD (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, I am curious: without saying it is due for inclusion or anything of the sort, wouldn't paragraph 17 of the Donohoe Statement of Offense count as prosecutors making the claim? It says: At least as early as January 4, 2021, and prior to Donohoe’s decision to travel to D.C., Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol. Donohoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power. Donohoe understood that storming the Capitol would be illegal. Hope everyone has a nice week. Dumuzid (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. How certain does the prosecution need to be in order to agree to incriminating evidence against an accused? It's possible that Donohoe was telling the truth, although it would be inadmissable against other accused as hearsay. The prosecutors may have believed him and may still.

Regardless, the prosecutors never made this claim against the accused or presented any evidence in its support. You could request that we add this as a qualification.

It might be useful to revisit the relevance of the dispute. It's how the events should be described. Was it an attempted coup or merely a plan to disrupt the vote count? Taking the wider view, Donohoe's statement is of little significance. TFD (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not particularly interested in the wider view right now. I am attempting to answer the question whether the following statement is true: "Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys." Donohoe was a Proud Boy. The fact that the prosecution and defendant stipulated to the language above means, to me, that the narrow question must be true. Again, I don't think that means that it is necessarily due for inclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

According to prosecutors their responsibility and involvement in planning and executing this attack may require some consideration in terms of DUE. It should include their defense of course, but considering the onus placed on them by prosecutors, and the subsequent convictions by the DoJ, it likely warrants discussion there, but not here. DN (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why this dispute should continue. DN has provided numerous sources that IMO clearly prove that prosecutors alleged planning, especially the first two. TFD, can you explain why you believe otherwise? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  The dispute is "Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys." The prosecutors made no allegation that that the incursion of the building was planned BEFORE 1/6 or presented any evidence in support of that claim.

  It's probably better to look at each claim individually. I'll start with 1: "Engaging in meetings and encrypted communications in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack."

  DN believes that "attack" is a reference to entering the building. But it is more likely a reference to the broader conspiracy to use force to oppose the transfer of power. The prosecutors claimed that the Proud Boys had plans to occupy congressional offices and to stockpile weapons outside Washington. They also claimed the Proud Boys "[d]ismantl[ed] metal barricades that had been deployed to demarcate a restricted area to protect law enforcement and occupants of the Capitol, [s]torm[ed] past barricades, Capitol Police, and other law enforcement officers in efforts to disrupt the proceedings at the Capitol," (k.) "[d]estroy[ed] property, including a metal fence and a window" and (l.) "[a]ssault[ed] law enforcement officers."

  IOW, the Proud Boys planned and carried out an attack. Whether or not entering the Capitol Building was planned as part of that attack BEFORE 1/6 is unstated and no evidence was presented that it was.

  If by attack they meant specifically entering the building, then DN should be able to provide a statement in a press release, press conference or arguments in court in support of this.

  According to PBS/AP, the prosecutors claimed in court that the Proud Boys planned to "overwhelm police, breach barricades, force the evacuation of the House and Senate chambers and disrupt the certification of Biden’s victory." While entering the building furthered that aim, they do not claim that was planned BEFORE 1/6. TFD (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  "The prosecutors made no allegation that that the incursion of the building was planned BEFORE 1/6 or presented any evidence in support of that claim." Are you claiming prosecutors took time and effort in a case charging conspiracy, to present testimony, telegram communications and voice messages between PB about storming the capitol "prior to 1/6", for no good reason? What purpose do you think those filings of "evidence" serves, if not to prove their charges of conspiracy? "DN believes that "attack" is a reference to entering the building" You keep insisting it's what I believe instead of what RS has reported. Intentional or not, you are making me out to look like I'm pushing WP:OR or misinformation. I feel it is counterproductive and needs to stop. "it is more likely a reference to the broader conspiracy to use force to oppose the transfer of power." Even with sources to support your claim here, it doesn't negate the citations from the RS that I have provided. "DN should be able to provide a statement in a press release, press conference or arguments in court in support of this." I feel these citations and sources meet the requirements under WP:V. "Something that was said months ago is not news" (DN (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC))... I am not here to jump through hoops as you make them up. Since you feel the need to keep arguing that I am essentially just making things up, my only recourse is to keep providing citations, unless JML1148 feels I no longer need to keep defending myself from these insinuations by TFD that I am, what amounts to, delusional or a liar.

  • "Their presence at these breach points was no accident, McCullough contended. The group, under Tarrio’s leadership, had formed a new “fighting force”" POLITICO 2023
  • "A new affidavit filed Tuesday by the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol, including using earpieces and walkie-talkies to direct movements throughout the building and a discussion about wearing black to dupe people into blaming antifa for any trouble."POLITICO 2021
  • "Ultimately, Proud Boys leadership decided the plan was too impractical, federal prosecutors allege — and the target was narrowed down to the storming of a single building, the Capitol." BusinessInsider 2022
  • "According to court records, Proud Boys organizers are alleged to have issued orders or directives to members of their groups, encouraging them to travel to Washington, D.C., in advance of January. These hierarchical networks are alleged to have conspired to attend protests on that day with specific advance plans to breach the Capitol."westpoint.edu

• I think that's more than enough for now. I'll check in again tomorrow, hopefully a resolution will present itself by then. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  JML1148, as I mentioned earlier, it may help to reiterate the terms agreed upon for the dispute. If I am out of line, I am happy to strike and readdress. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Roger Parloff (published by Lawfare in cooperation with the Brookings Institution.)

Please note I did not accuse al Jazeera of lying. I just believe, and policy supports me, that an account of the trial reported as it happened by a lawyer is more reliable than the memory of a journalist.

The prosecution gave closing arguments on days 61 and 62. They made it clear that they were not alleging any specific plans (such as entering the Capitol building), but said their case was that the Proud Boys came to Washington with the agreed intention of disrupting the certification of the vote by violence. Whether their specific actions on the day were pre-planned or undertaken opportunistically could not be known, but that was not necessary to prove seditious conspiracy.

In their defense, counsel for the Proud Boys said that the prosecution had to prove planning of the specific violent actions they carried out. But the prosecution in rebuttal again said that was not necessary.

I shall go through the prosecution's case and cite what they said, but it may take a while as the arguments were detailed and lengthy.

DN, when people disagree, it doesn't necessarily mean they think the other person is lying. My first reading of the indictment was that the prosecution were alleging that the entry into the building was planned before they arrived in Washington, so I understand why you might have thought that.

TFD (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not questioned the existence or validity of their defense and this dispute isn't about that. Even if this blog refutes the citations from reliable sources I have presented, that still doesn't erase your continuous claims that it is only "what I believe", instead of what is presented in those reliable sources. As much as I would like to bury the hatchet and put this behind us, you still seem to refuse to acknowledge that fact, at the very least. Even though you do come close here "My first reading of the indictment was that the prosecution were alleging that the entry into the building was planned before they arrived in Washington, so I understand why you might have thought that."...Instead, you are insisting we thumb through your source, which by the way is also not "a statement in a press release, press conference" etc...etc... If JML1148 believes that it is necessary to a resolution, I will consider it. DN (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I decided to look through your source to see what else it said (since it's a gigantic blog about Jan 6th there are no pages or easy means to navigate where each citation is located, you will just have to read through it as I did)...Oddly enough, I found this... "By the time the Oath Keepers first helped the mob force its way into the east side of the Capitol at 2:39 p.m., the western side of the building had already been breached about a half hour earlier, at about 2:13 p.m. The Proud Boys had played a crucial role in accomplishing that feat, according to the government. Moreover, as we’ll see, there is evidence that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol from before the day ever began." lawfare blog

Earlier you gave a source and said PERSON-3 apparently is Robert Fussell, who was not charged. Even if you think Fussell was inciting members to storm the Capitol, no evidence was given that anyone other than Tarrio was aware of the message or acted on it. Fussell says it was not his intention to breach the building and Tarrio was being sarcastic.".... but according to this blog "At 7:10 p.m. on Jan. 3, in a voice message left on the MOSD Leaders chat, John Stewart proposed that “the main operating theater” for Jan. 6 “should be out in front of the Capitol building” because “that’s where the vote is taking place.” The next morning, at 7:36 a.m., Tarrio (Telegram handle: Noble Lead) left a damning voice message response: “I didn’t hear this note ’til now. You wanna storm the Capitol.”" your source

Talk to you tomorrow. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you write, "I have not questioned the existence or validity of their defense and this dispute isn't about that." I made no claim you did.

Also, why would you respond to my comments without first reading the arguments of the prosecutors?

It's interesting that Roger Parloff wrote, "there is evidence that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol from before the day ever began." But he clarifies it, "although none of the cases have gone to trial and much is yet to learn, we can make some tentative conclusions." But that was January 6, 2022. When he covered the trial over one year later, he doesn't report that prosecutors presented any evidence of this.

I notice by your comments on the "storm the Capitol" message that you obviously had not read the link I provided. Even if you had, the conversation is not evidence of a conspiracy and more importantly the prosecution never claimed it was. Here's what was said:

PERSON-3: “The main operating theater should be out in front of house of representatives ... based around the front entrance to the Capitol building.”

Tarrio: “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol.”

The most you can say is that one man made a suggestion and only one person responded - to clarify the suggestion. Then the conversation stopped. That's not proof of an agreement and even if it were, it would be of two people only, one of whom was never charged (i.e., was not guilty of a conspiracy.)

Most importantly, prosecutors did not present this as evidence of a conspiracy.

I suggest you read what prosecutors argued in the Proud Boys trial. While it might be a hard slog, it's better to spend time finding out what prosecutors actually claimed, rather than spending hours misrepresenting them.

Don't see it as a blow to your Weltanshauung. "I thought the prosecutors said the Proud Boys planned to enter the Capitol Building. I read their arguments and saw I was wrong. I still think they planned it and have reason to believe that, but due to rules of evidence, they couldn't prove it."

In the meantime, READ the arguments! Don't feel embarrassed if new information makes you change your mind. TFD (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

There's been a lot of conversation since I was last able to comment. For a start, I feel that civility is breaking down. Nothing amounting to personal attacks, however I feel the conversation is becoming more harsh in language. Please stay civil, it makes it easier for everyone. As far as I can tell, TFD's view is that, although things fall close, nothing amounts to the dispute fpostatement being true. Honestly, I am leaning to this, as this is quite a major claim to make, and I would want multiple sources that undoubtedly claim that there was planning before adding the dispute statement into the January 6 page. However, there is quite clear evidence that there were discussions within the Proud Boys raising the possibility of storming the capital. For example, paragraph 17 of the Donohoe Statement of Offense and the voice messages left on the MOSD Leaders chat. Perhaps we could add a paragraph to the page describing these discussions, but falling short of saying that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable people can read the information presented and come to different conclusions. The fact is however that after examining 5,000 messages and documents, and taking into account that many others had been destroyed before investigators could obtain them, the DOJ decided to leave open the time when the incursion into the Capitol building was planned. It might have been before 1/6 or it might have been shortly before they entered.

PERSON-3 (or someone claiming to be him) claims that the message he left and Tarrio's response were taken out of context. He did not, he says, imply they should storm the building. (Note he was never charged with anything.) He said they should assemble on the steps of the Capitol building, not that they should enter the building. We can't tell from that conversation whether anyone other than Tarrio was aware of his remarks.

Also, since Tarrio was the leader, he would not be taking instructions from PERSON-3. And Jan. 3 was pretty late to tell the leader about the plan.

PERSON-3 says that Tarrio's reply was dismissive rather than an agreement they should storm the building. Of course, there's no reason to believe PERSON-3, but his comments leave open the possibility of other interpretations of the communication.

Although the conversation was in the indictment, the prosecution never mentioned it in arguments. We cannot therefore know what interpretation they put on it.

Donohoe's statement was hearsay. He said he was aware of discussions, but doesn't say that any of the conspirators spoke to him. I'll look through his testimony to see what he eventually said in court. But again, the prosecution did not bring up his claim in their arguments.

I will add excerpts from Parloff's tweets from the prosecution's closing arguments below. I provided a link to his full coverage of the trial above.

My reading is that the prosecution alleged that the Proud Boys conspired before 1/6 to come to the Capitol and prevent the certification of the vote by any means necessary, including violence. How much of what they carried out was planned beforehand cannot be determined, they said.

Although not mentioned in this dispute, I believe this was a point of disagreement between DN and myself. The prosecutors claim the objective was to stop the vote full stop. Their objective was never to overthrow the government.

Having been an editor for a long time, I am used to discussions becoming heated. It's frustrating when one makes what one considers to be a reasonable argument then someone else rejects it. We should all keep in mind that editors come into conflict because they interpret sources, policy and guidelines differently and should not take it personally. TFD (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148, the dispute was supposed to be about RS and the evidence and arguments provided by prosecutors as presented by RS, not our opinions as to what was argued at trial. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here, but I can read, even if TFD thinks I don't...Even if with good intentions, that comes off as very condescending. At the beginning you asked us if RS stated there was no planning and we both answered no. But then TFD also stated that there was no planning. RS clearly refutes that claim. RS clearly refutes TFD's claim that prosecutors have no evidence that PB discussed storming the capitol before 1/6 (DN (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC))Even if they presented RS stating that there was no planning (which they haven't as far as I can see) how does that negate the existence (of evidence of discussions about storming the capitol) filed by prosecutors) in multiple citations in sources like WaPo NBC Aljazeera etc...Not to mention the court documents themselves? p.14 #49 #50 TFD has continuously tried to change what this dispute is about. This wasn't supposed to be about "conclusions". Remember when I asked them what they meant by that, and they told me to stop asking rhetorical questions instead of telling me to consult a dictionary? Or when they said that cites that were months old are "not news"? Clearly this seems to be about more than RS, which isn't why I'm here. Are we even close to a resolution on whether evidence of discussions about storming the capitol prior to 1/6 by PB exists? DN (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This is what my annoying questioning was trying to get at earlier, and my stance remains the same. Was there a general plan to use force in some manner on January 6? I think that is clearly shown in the reliable sources. Did that plan specifically involve storming and entering the Capitol? While I think there is some evidence of that, to my eyes, it is very little. Again, I think the best language would acknowledge planning, but carve out the Capitol invasion. Then again, that would be caveated by reference to the 1776 Returns document. Just one old guy's take on the matter. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the prosectors, "they were there to threaten & if nec use force to stop certification of the election." (Parloff, Day 61: 65-66) AFAIK, no one has questioned that the prosecutors made and proved that claim. The dispute is about whether prosecutors claimed the entry into the Capitol building was planned before 6/1.

Prosecutors never said during the trial that the 1776 Returns was evidence of planning entry into the Capitol building and did not mention it during their closing arguments, although they briefly mentioned it during their rebuttal, since the defense had raised it. TFD (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, that the 1776 Returns document does not talk about planning to occupy the Capitol. However, in the broader context of the article, it seems relevant enough to me to bear mention. Dumuzid (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 "I would want multiple sources that undoubtedly claim that there was planning before adding the dispute statement into the January 6 page." I am not saying it needs to be in wiki-voice. We can add attributions if need be, but clearly they have evidence that it was discussed prior to 1/6, which TFD still seems to claim they did not. It makes no difference if they used it at trial or not. DN (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Would you agree that we do have multiple sources that say prosecutors have evidence Proud Boys discussed storming the capitol prior to 1/6? DN (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That's true. However, the statement that is dispute is in wikivoice. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. How is it already in wikivoice? It isn't even in the article, nor is inclusion of this content currently being discussed on the article talk page. Again, isn't that a matter for consensus? This dispute is between myself and TFD, so those other considerations don't seem to apply, do they? DN (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 I would be amenable to something like "Prosecutors were prepared to argue PB planned to storm the capitol with evidence of conversations on the subject prior to 1/6, including testimony by Charles Donohoe stating...".

"At least as early as January 4, 2021, and prior to Donohoe’s decision to travel to D.C., Donohoe was aware that members of MOSD leadership were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol. Donohoe believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power. Donohoe understood that storming the Capitol would be illegal." Donohoe understood from these discussions that a tactical plan for January 6, 2021, was being discussed at least among Tarrio, Nordean, and Biggs."

DN (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) DN (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

How do you know they were prepared to argue that? TFD (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Because I read the court documents and citations from RS. Are you still claiming that there's no evidence without any reliably sourced citations to back up your "conclusion"? DN (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree that it may have not been argued at trial (I haven't slogged through the entire lawfare blog as that would require hours and hours), but this article is by no means limited only to what was said during trial according to Wiki policy. AFAIK prosecutors regularly gather and submit ALL evidence before the trial, so that the defense can examine it. Even if they don't end up using it during the trial that doesn't mean they never intended to use it, as you appear to conclude. DN (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologize for being nitpicky (yet again!), but, while discovery obligations on the prosecutions are broad, they do not cover all evidence. Basically they are limited to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial and any evidence tending to exonerate the defendant (per Brady v. Maryland). Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, as I said, "AFAIK"... Obviously I am not a lawyer. I would prefer to stay focused on the dispute, so I have 2 questions for you of which I would prefer a yes or no answer if possible. You may elaborate, but including a yes or no would be appreciated...(1) Did the prosecution present any documents and or indictments to the court, that show they have PB conversations about storming the capitol prior to 1/6?...

(2) Do any of the RS citations I provided here also state that prosecutors have these conversations, and or, state anything to the effect of PB "planning to storm the capitol" prior to 1/6?... DN (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes and yes. But I don't think those answers inexorably lead to the conclusion that those documents or ideas are due for inclusion in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"But I don't think those answers inexorably lead to the conclusion that those documents or ideas are due for inclusion in the article." I absolutely agree, that would require consensus and this isn't about that. As I said at the beginning here, this wasn't about inclusion in the article, it was about court docs and RS citations that I feel TFD still seems to refuse to acknowledge even exist, and has gone to great lengths to dispute. At a certain point it seemed to make me look like I was spreading misinformation or WP:OR, and that's when I felt I had no other choice but to bring it here. If I wanted it in the article I would have requested an RfC, instead. DN (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would we be disputing this if we weren't going to change the article at all? That doesn't make much sense to me. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"At a certain point it seemed to make me look like I was spreading misinformation or WP:OR, and that's when I felt I had no other choice but to bring it here." Could you explain this? I don't see anything, here or at the talk page, that suggests anyone trying to paint you as something you are not. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned those statements made by TFD in my dispute description...Things seemed to take a turn on the 22nd after I showed them the Donohoe statement...

_{The dispute seemed to take a turn on 22 July 2023 04:44, when TFD commented on the article TP "Your position seems to be that because there is no proof the Capitol attack was not planned, that is proof it was.", then went on to say "But they don't explain when that decision was made. Most likely it was made moments before the building was breached." without a citation or RS.}

_{At that point I requested "It's fine if you disagree, but please don't make misleading statements like this." and reiterated what sources said in case they just didn't read them. TFD then said on the article TP "Nothing in what you have presented says that the Proud Boys planned to attack the Capitol Building before 1/6 or that anyone has made that claim. Why not just say that despite no evidence, it's what you believe?" 19:38, 22 July 2023.}

_{After that I responded on the article TP and tried to clarify one last time and asked if they wanted to agree to disagree or come to DRN, and to enjoy the rest of their weekend 05:15, 23 July 2023. After that I went to TFD's personal talk page to again ask them to stop making it personal 05:29, 23 July 2023. On the article TP they replied "You are just repeating what you said before. You have no source that says what you believe".}

To explain further, see my answer to your question above (below) regarding my desired resolution statement... DN (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I spoke to this question in my resolution statement...

_{I'm not trying to insert this content in the article at this point. I would simply like a neutral editor to look at the dispute and determine whether there is or isn't RS that meets the standard requirements of WP:V for "Prosecutors alleged that the Proud Boys planned to breach the capitol". While I still AGF in TFD it seems obvious to the point that when I try to look at it from an outside perspective it almost seems like gaslighting, but TFD is too experienced and intelligent for that.}

I honestly did not think it was going to take this long, and I'm still unsure as to what actual evidence or argument TFD presented to you that caused you to completely change your course. With all due respect to you as a moderator, does your decision, or do you, in some unseen way, somehow control the talk page consensus at the J6 article? This is an honest question, and I mean no disrespect or presume any bad faith on your part by it. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with this dispute is more about your standing claim that evidence does not exist, rather than what was argued at trial. DN (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of returning to my kibitzing ways, perhaps we could resolve it this way: TFD, would you be willing to concede that there is some little evidence for preplanning, but that it falls well below the level for inclusion in the article? And DN, would you concede that this is a perfectly reasonable stance under the circumstances (not that you agree with it, of course)? Perhaps then we could return to the relevant talk page and hash things out in a more suitable forum. If not, no worries. Just thought I would give it a shot. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the PERSON-3/Tarrio exchange, the Donohoe agreed facts or anything else is evidence of a pre-planned attack. That's something that requires expert legal opinion. I have explained that they could be interpreted differently, but NOR limits us in analyzing them.

When DN refers to court documents I presume they are referring to evidence submitted to the court rather than a statement by the prosecution claiming the building entry was pre-planned. DN ia saying that based on the documents they have seen that it was pre-planned. But that's not something that editors are supposed to determine.

I couldn't find btw any record of Donohoe testifying in court. Does anyone know if he did?

Perhaps we could agree the following: "Prosecutors did not argue in court that planning to breach the Capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys, although they did not preclude the possibility." TFD (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer something like "did not argue that the Capitol itself was targeted ahead of time, though introduced evidence that the occupation of nearby buildings had been contemplated." Or something along those lines, but don't have a particular problem with your phrasing. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your recommendation fails Synthesis of published material. In their example, two reliably sourced statements are conjoined. The use of a conjunction however is "improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion." As I said above, I am not convinced this was evidence and therefore would want a reliable source to make that observation. And per red flag, it must be an expert writing about the trial after the "evidence" had been presented.

The suggestion that the entry was pre-planned, while possible, makes little sense. I don't know how many Proud Boys were there on 1/6, but there were only 60 who used the encrypted messaging system. They would be facing the armed Capitol Police, that has 5,000 members and could call on the D.C. police, the D.C. national guard and national guard from other states and presumably the armed forces of the U.S. to protect Congress. Don't forget that many of them had military experience so would be aware of the chances of success. They are very lucky that the Capitol Police showed extreme restraint.

However, there were only 500 police on duty and very few protecting the building. This unforseen weakness in security gave them an opportunity to break in.

Of course, some people would rather see this as a massive conspiracy that almost succeeded in overthrowing the government of the U.S. But reality is usually prosaic.

We cannot of course include our opinions in articles. I presented my opinion to show that there are different ways of interpreting what happened and we can only report what reliable sources say.

For what it's worth, here's my prediction. The Proud Boys appeal will go to the Supreme Court and they will lose 6-3 with the court divided along conservative-liberal lines. TFD (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I confess I am confused by your "was not evidence" claim; what precisely do you mean? And the exact citation I had in mind for my (clumsily) proposed language is from the New York Times, and says this about 1776 Returns: The document does not specifically mention an attack on the Capitol building itself. But in targeting high-profile government buildings in the immediate area and in the detailed timeline it set out, the plan closely resembles what actually unfolded when the Capitol was stormed by a pro-Trump mob intent on disrupting congressional certification of President Biden’s Electoral College victory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I think your proposal, with the NYT source, could be a resolution. Darknipples, what do you think of this? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD and I had argued about 1776 Returns previously on the TP, and they stated The cold reality is that there is no evidence that the breach of the Capitol Building was planned before 1/6. This was before I provided the Donohoe evidence... DN (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The conjunction "although" injects synthesis into your suggested phrasing, even if both conjoined statements are correct. Again, please read through the policy, which explains this. "Although" implies that the two facts are connectd. By conjoining two facts, your statement bolsters the possibility that the Proud Boys planned to enter the Capitol building.

We of course are allowed to report opinions expressed in reliable sources, provided we give in text attribution (e.g., "According to a NYT reporter.") But then Using sources applies. The source must make the connection explicitly. IOW the reporter must say that the planning for the other intrusions makes it more likely that entry into the Capitol building was planned, not just imply it.

I am relying on memory here, but we don't even know if more than one Proud Boy leader received the 1776 Returns, or if he even read it. TFD (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Dumuzid on this one. Although it is synthesising the statements, I don't think it's a violation of the policy WP:SYNTH. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding although implies that it is more likely that the breach of the Capitol building was also planned. We know they planned to attack 10 buildings around the Capitol and they attacked the Capitol Building itself, so maybe that part of the plan was in another document or conversation. Maybe the title "Storm the Winter Palace" is code for entering the Capitol building. I don't even know if you call it a plan when we don't even know if any of the Proud Boys leadership was aware of it. TFD (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding although implies that it is more likely that the breach of the Capitol building was also planned. I completely disagree with this. Frankly, I don't see the implication of anything regarding the Capitol. Assuming an implication creates a strange juxtaposition with the first part of the proposed statement, that is, did not argue that the Capitol itself was targeted ahead of time. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148, Since everyone is discussing how and what to put in the article, I feel I should ask if that is now the purpose of this dispute? Is TFD acknowledging the evidence now? After all this time and effort, I would appreciate some resolution before everyone starts changing the subject. Frankly, this has been dragged out for so long it does seem a shame not to at at least have something to show for it in the article, and if we can all agree on what to add I can see that as a positive.

I would not object to discussing these 4 cites below, in addition to relative court docs, as they relate to the dispute. IMO we should simply say what RS says with as few changes as possible, to avoid over-editorializing.

• "Federal investigators gathered evidence that some of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 were executing well-laid plans, deploying communications systems and issuing marching orders to rioters as they battled police. An affidavit filed by the FBI described preparations by the Proud Boys to storm the Capitol, including using earpieces and walkie-talkies to direct movements throughout the building and a discussion about wearing black to dupe people into blaming antifa for any trouble."^[1]
• "Prosecutors alleged the Proud Boys had plotted to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory, saying evidence showed that Tarrio had been involved in discussions about storming the US Capitol and occupying government buildings in advance of January 6, 2021."^[2]
• "An indictment says discussions among a small group of Proud Boy leaders shifted in the days before the riot to focus on the Capitol itself. “On January 3, as efforts to plan for January 6 intensified,” the document says, “Tarrio stated ... that he wanted to wait until January 4 to make final plans.” That prompted a person, who was not identified in court documents, to send the group this voice message: “The main operating theater should be out in front of house of representatives ... based around the front entrance to the Capitol building.” Tarrio responded, “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol,” the indictment says."^[3]
• "As early as Jan. 4, prosecutors said, “Charles Donohoe was aware that members” of the Ministry of Self Defense leadership “were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol” and “believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power."^[4]

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The dispute statement that you agreed with was a yes-no question. TFD (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your point being? DN (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we've reached a point where we are arguing for the sake of arguing. The prosecution was quite clear in its arguments and I see no reason to question what they said was what they said. In fact, I don't know how anyone could argue over that. TFD (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought a resolution was in sight when JML1148 stated "Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why this dispute should continue. DN has provided numerous sources that IMO clearly prove that prosecutors alleged planning, especially the first two." Then JML1148 seemed to do a complete 180 turn and said "As far as I can tell, TFD's view is that, although things fall close, nothing amounts to the dispute statement being true. Honestly, I am leaning to this, as this is quite a major claim to make, and I would want multiple sources that undoubtedly claim that there was planning before adding the dispute statement into the January 6 page." Which hasn't been clarified as to why or how that became a factor since I had no intention of adding it to the article in the first place. That requires a consensus on the article talk page, not something that is under JML1148's purview AFAIK. Secondly, the 4 different RS listed above clearly state (or show evidence) "planned prior to 1/6" as mentioned in our agreed upon dispute statement. Particularly the Donohoe statement, which I provided (02:28, 22 July 2023) on the article talk page, to which TFD claimed "...."has no evidential value." and also as "The best argument you have" (04:44, 22 July 2023). At no point did we agree it had to be argued "at trial". TFD is responsible for injecting that stipulation into the dispute, among other attempted modifications. If anyone is dragging this out, it certainly isn't me... DN (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinions can change. And TFD's response to me was very convincing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What was it in their response that convinced you, if you don't mind my asking? DN (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I can really say anything specific, and I'm not necessarily agreeing with that specific response, however the way that TFD broke down the sources read in my mind as valid argument that justified the continuation of the discussion. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we will find a resolution in a compromise. Let's not treat the dispute statement as a closed question. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What compromise do you suggest? DN (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise, and seeing as TFD has stated the Donohoe testimony is... "The best argument you have" (04:44, 22 July 2023), I am fine with keeping the focus only on that aspect, in order to simplify things. DN (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

At the beginning I wrote, "There is a disagreement over whether the incursion into the Capitol Building by the Proud Boys was planned before 1/6 or undertaken opportunistically on the day. Determining which it was will help us in its description."

I was prepared to leave it at that. DN then narrowed the scope to discuss what the prosecutors alleged. At the end of the day, what prosecutors allege can be taken with a grain of salt. As the saying goes, they can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. It's what they can prove that counts. But in this case, the prosecution decided not to argue the entry was pre-planned.

Considering the difficulty in determining what the dispute was, I'm sure none of us want to go through that again. I suggest the following:

Major issue: We cannot state as fact that the entry into the Capitol building was planned before 1/6.

Minor issue: Prosecutors at the trial left open the issue of when the entry was planned.

How to treat Donohoe's agreement, the 1776 Returns, etc., are best left to discussions in the relevant articles.

BTW, thank you for your patience and objectivity in moderating this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I discussed sources 2-4 already (Donohoe, PERSON-3). The first source (Politico) is plainly wrong. It provides a link to the FBI agent's affidavit and no such claim is made there. Inevitably news stories will contain errors (see my discussion of 9/11 below). Using google search, it's possible to collect lots of these. If I find an article that makes an extraordinary claim about what someone alleged, I look at the original document before accepting it. TFD (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Politico is a reliable source whose analysis we can use in our articles; it is not necessary that they quote verbatim from the affidavit. Your original research is somewhat less reliable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Politico "is considered generally reliable for American politics." That doesn't mean it is infallible. Per Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It's exceptional because it is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions."

Other media publishing that day did not claim the FBI agent said the attack was planned before 1/6: PBS, CBC, USA Today, Vice.

Anyway, it's not a matter or analysis, it's a matter of fact. The FBI agent either made the claim or they didn't. If they made the claim, it would appear in their AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT. It doesn't.

In any case, analysis of facts by reporters can only be presented with in text attribution, per news organizations.

I had the same conversation on Barack Obama's article in 2008. A reliable source had stated during an earlier visit to Kenya that he had been born there. People who reject mainstream narratives are often good at finding such sources.

While it may seem legalistic to cite policies in support of my position, it boils down to common sense. We shouldn't report information in news media as facgt when we know it to be false. And while we cannot use factcheckers,we can compare statements in articles with what other media write and also in this case read the affidavit they are summarizing.

Furthermore, we supposed to sumarize what sources say. We are not supposed to form an opinion of what happened and search for sources that support our conclusions. TFD (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of falsity: you are saying that because an article draws conclusions you do not it is "wrong." That is simply not so. Now, I don't know how much we should lean on this one article (in my opinion, not much). But the Politico source takes facts from the affidavit (earpieces, etc.) and draws a fairly logical conclusion: some planning must be involved. Again, Politico need not abide by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The article says: A new affidavit filed Tuesday by the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol, including using earpieces and walkie-talkies to direct movements throughout the building and a discussion about wearing black to dupe people into blaming antifa for any trouble. Which part of that is wrong? True, the affidavit does not couch the earpieces as "preparation," but it need not. It certainly says that "multiple individuals were photographed or depicted on videos with earpieces, including other individuals believed to be associated with the Proud Boys" in paragraph 28. In paragraph 8, the affiant says "I believe the statement about dressing in 'all BLACK' is a reference to dressing like the group known as “Antifa,” who the Proud Boys have identified as an enemy of their movement and are often depicted in the media wearing all black to demonstrations." I absolutely agree that it is suboptimal to decide one's opinion and go looking for sources on that basis. It is also, however, suboptimal to dismiss out of hand sources that conflict with one's opinion. Again, I am not sure how far the Politico piece gets us, but it is not "false." Have a nice night, and Happy Friday Eve. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The the text says, "the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol." That or similar wording does not appear in the affidavit and other news sources did not report it that way. Also, the reporters weren't drawing conclusions, they were reporting (incorrectly) what was said. Incidentally, "original research" prohibits us from adding our own conclusions to articles. It does not stop us from analyzing the quality of information in sources, in this case by comparing the reporting with the source document and how other media described it. How would you have handled the rs that said Obama was born in Kenya? Would you have added it to the article because we couldn't possibly second guess any rs? TFD (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD - You seem to be arguing with a position I don't actually hold. As I have repeatedly said, I don't think the Politico piece gets us very far, and I don't really support using it in the article at this point (though I reserve the right to change my mind if someone can make a better use than I can). I am merely saying that a fair survey of the evidence and sources cannot be based on a total disregard of something merely because it draws conclusions which you might not. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I just have one question for TFD, then I am taking a break today, as I think we all need one. TFD, do agree that the Proud Boys stormed the capitol after discussing it prior Jan 6th? DN (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What any of us think is irrelevant, it's what sources report. In my opinion they would not have discussed it because they would have seen no possibility they could carry it off. Furthermore, had it been their plan, they would have had a plan for what to do after they seized the building.. TFD (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a non-answer that leans towards a no. Since your position is that your objections are based on what sources say, would you agree that these statements by (Seamus Hughes), Tarrio and Donohoe are reliably sourced?

"An indictment says discussions among a small group of Proud Boy leaders shifted in the days before the riot to focus on the Capitol itself. “On January 3, as efforts to plan for January 6 intensified,” the document says, “Tarrio stated ... that he wanted to wait until January 4 to make final plans. That prompted a person, who was not identified in court documents, to send the group this voice message: “The main operating theater should be out in front of house of representatives ... based around the front entrance to the Capitol building.” Tarrio responded, “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol,” the indictment says."^[1]

“This is the furthest the U.S. government has ever gone in arguing there was specific planning. Now we have a clearer picture than we’ve ever had, more than a year later,” said Seamus Hughes, the deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University.^[2]

"As early as Jan. 4, prosecutors said, “Charles Donohoe was aware that members” of the Ministry of Self Defense leadership “were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol” and “believed that storming the Capitol would achieve the group’s goal of stopping the government from carrying out the transfer of presidential power."^[3]

Cheers. DN (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD is right in that their personal opinion does not matter in this dispute. It's clear that the quotations you've provided are reliably sourced. However, the issue is that none of them actually say that there was planning to storm the Capitol. For example, for the final quotation, "discussing the possibility" is not the same thing as "planning". JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am doing my best to find a compromise, and as you recall, TFD did not seem willing agree that they even "discussed" it, saying... "In my opinion they would not have discussed it because they would have seen no possibility they could carry it off. Furthermore, had it been their plan, they would have had a plan for what to do after they seized the building." DN (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You must also recall that my position is that this is what prosecutors ie The US government, "argued" or at least had statements, especially Tarrio saying "he wanted to wait until January 4 to make final plans, while Donohoe states that as early as the 4th they "were discussing the possibility of storming the Capitol". The dispute statement is clear that this is a position held by the US government ie prosecutors. Seamus Hughes, the deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University says..."This is the furthest the U.S. government has ever gone in arguing there was specific planning." DN (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether not I consider NBC News and the Washington Post reliable is irrelevant. NBC News and the Washington Post are listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is all that should concern us. If you were using this question to lay the groundwork for another question, you should have just jumped ahead to what you really wanted to ask.

Anyway, you seem to be just going over matters we already discussed: PERSON-3 and Donohoe. I never said that PERSON-3 and Tarrio did not record the messages cited or that Donohoe did not make his agreed facts on pleading guilty. Also, in case you were to ask, I do not deny that the 1776 returns is accurate. TFD (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (continued)

JML1148, I wonder if you could provide your opinion on a matter being discussed above.

Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein reported in Politico that, "A new affidavit filed Tuesday by the FBI described preparations by the right-wing Proud Boys to storm the Capitol." ("Feds: Evidence shows well-laid plan by some Capitol insurrectionists," 1/20/2021) But nowhere in the document they link to, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, does the agent make this claim. Also, other news media reporting the affidavit don't make that inference either: PBS, CBC, USA Today, Vice.

Is this a case where Exceptional claims require exceptional sources applies? "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It's exceptional if it is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions."

TFD (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not even sure why we need an opinion on this. I am not suggesting using the Politico report in the article at all. Cheers. Apologies; my solipsism is getting the better of me again. I do think DN would like to use the article in some fashion, so consider my previous statement withdrawn. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be another one of your opinions, which are not "reliable sources". DN (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The source states "FBI described preparations...including using earpieces and walkie-talkies to direct movements throughout the building and a discussion about wearing black to dupe people into blaming antifa for any trouble." DN (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research: "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously if we could not evaluate article content and sources, there would be no dispute resolution noticeboards.

Could you please tell me where in the agent's affidavit they said what your source says they claimed? TFD (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph 28. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Para. 28 reads, "Your affiant has reviewed additional footage from the events inside the U.S. Capitol. In one image, shown below, Pezzola appears to have what I believe to be an earpiece or communication device in his right ear. In my experience, such a device could be used to receive communications from others in real time. Your affiant also notes that multiple individuals were photographed or depicted on videos with earpieces, including other individuals believed to be associated with the Proud Boys. For instance, in the picture of the Proud Boys referenced above in Paragraph 13, an individual believed to be part of the group is pictured wearing a similar earpiece."

There is no mention in the paragraph about preparations to storm the Capitol. TFD (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources are allowed to make inferential leaps, and are not bound by Wikipedia policies. Is it your contention that the persons so observed happened to find the earpieces? Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the inference is that because they brought earpieces they must have planned to enter the Capitol building? Do you not think they could have used them outside the building or in any of the eight other buildings mentioned in the 1776 Returns?

According to the CBS story I referenced, earpieces were used "before and during the attack." TFD (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

And some might take that to show that there was some level of planning associated with it. Again, I personally don't think this source gets us very far. And should consensus be on your side, so be it. But with that I'll do my best to disengage for everyone's sake. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course there was some level of planning for 1/6 and the Proud Boys were convicted of conspiracy. All this should be clear from the preceding discussion. What is at issue is whether that plan included entering the building. TFD (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

In the Proud Boys case, however, prosecutors say they have communications showing that members did discuss storming the Capitol before Jan. 6.

A week before the riot, prosecutors say Tarrio received a document with the title “1776 Returns” from an acquaintance that laid out plans for occupying certain government buildings in Washington on Jan. 6. The document made no mention of the Capitol itself. But days later, Proud Boys were focusing their attention there, prosecutors allege.

“Time to stack those bodies in front of Capitol Hill,” one extremist wrote in a secured chat. “What would they do (if) 1 million patriots stormed and took the capital building. Shoot into the crowd? I think not,” wrote another member. “They would do nothing because they can do nothing,” someone responded.

Days before the riot, someone suggested in a voice note to the Proud Boys group that the “main operating theater” should be in front of the Capitol. “I didn’t hear this voice note until now, you want to storm the Capitol,” Tarrio said later in the same chat. APNEWS Jan 24 2023

Cheers...DN (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I wrote above, "Anyway, you seem to be just going over matters we already discussed: PERSON-3 and Donohoe." I then mentioned the 1776 Returns. [13:34, 4 August 2023] You're just repeating the same points. I've already responded several times to you in the discussion, and see no reason to do so again. TFD (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I have not read any of the comments below the one I am replying to, so I can give a proper opinion. WP:REDFLAG definitely applies here, and from memory I've already mentioned that at some point. If Politico has made a claim that is not supported in the document they have linked to, then that claim should be ignored unless it can be backed up by other primary sources. However, it doesn't mean the article should be discounted entirely. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think JML1148 would appreciate it if we all agreed to stay focused on finding a compromise over the dispute statement and stopped changing the subject. DN (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be willing to compromise by changing the dispute statement to say something along the lines of..."Prosecutors have alleged Proud Boys planned the capitol attack with evidence of discussions prior to Jan 6th, to breach the capitol building."...DN (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We didn't agree on that. There were only two instances where prosecutors MIGHT have alleged pre-planning of the entry into the building. In the first, the indictment, it requires us to assume that the word "attack" is meant to refer to entry into the building rather than arriving on the Capitol grounds prepared to stop the vote through any means necessary. That's a REDFLAG issue and we should have a statement from prosecutors explaining what they meant.

The second instance was Donohoe's agreed statement of facts, i.e., agreed with the prosecutors. In such cases, does the prosecutor have to be reasonably certain that every element of the facts is correct? I think they just have to be persuaded that the agreed facts are plausible. You probably need a legal opinion on this published in a reliable source. TFD (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Donohoe was trying to prove himself useful to the prosecution and has no credibility. TFD (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I don't blame you for looking at the statement of offense with a bit of a jaundiced eye, but they are documents drafted by the prosecution (stipulated to by the defendant) and submitted to a court of law. While I will be the first to admit prosecutors make mistakes and are sometimes less than virtuous, I would suggest we can adopt something like the presumption of regularity from U.S. law and say that generally we take them at their word unless there is reason not to. As such, we can presume the government believed it would be able to prove the facts in the statement of offense beyond a reasonable doubt (per the initial paragraph). Moreover, the plea would have to be reviewed by the judge (per Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) at which time the defendant would have to swear under oath (and therefore under penalty of perjury) that the statement was accurate. Finally, such statements become part of the factual record of the case for appellate purposes (see, e.g., United States v. Rivernider, No. 13-4865 (2d Cir., 2016)). All of that is to say that while it's fair to say Donohoe has no credibility, I think it's also fair to say that the statement of offense should have a little bit more. As ever reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The prosecutor could have proved that Donohoe was aware of the alleged plans to enter the Capitol Building on the sole evidence that he told them he was. Donohoe btw did not swear under oath that the Statement of Offense is accurate, he merely acknowledged it as "true and accurate." But this statement can only be used against Donohoe and AFAIK is not binding on the prosecutor.

Basically, an accused person said he was aware of planning and the prosecutors put it into his statement. While they presumably found the claim credible, it doesn't mean they had any other evidence for it.

What significance to ascribe this is something for which we must look to reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it. TFD (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it is possibly true that the prosecutors believed they could prove the "conversations" beyond a reasonable doubt based on Donohoe's own statements to the government, but the combination of the Fifth Amendment and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 make that vanishingly unlikely. And the swearing under oath would have happened in the hearing before the judge (here conducted via Zoom) in which the plea was accepted. Unless you want to say the prosecutors were simply lying, then we would have to envision a scenario in which Donohoe essentially confessed to everything in the Statement of Offense before plea negotiations had begun. Again, theoretically possible, but a fairly odd scene to picture. A bit like hearing hoofbeats in Montana, and thinking that horses and zebras are equally likely sources. As I say, to each his or her own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

They could only believe that Donohoe was "aware of" the plans and had evidence to prove it if he had told the FBI or another witness. Otherwise there is no documentary evidence. If I am wrong, could you explain where the prosecution would get this information?

Lots of defs btw speak to police after they are arrested and end up confessing or at least incriminating themselves.  

AFAIK, Donohoe would not have sworn or affirmed the statement. It would be unfair to a def to ask them to sign a statement of offense then prosecute them for perjury if it was later found they were innocent.

Also, Donohoe's statement about being "aware of" is classic hearsay which would be inadmissable in court against other defendants. If he was aware, he must have heard it from someone, but he doesn't say who.

You would have to determine what if anything Donohoe said to investigators and why the prosecutors said he was "aware of" the plan.

As I said, I could not find that Donohoe testified in court. He was ballyhooed as a star witness. What happened?

In the meantime, all we have is speculation. All that matters are facts that are reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Donohoe pleaded, and therefore did not testify in court, other than at his colloquy. Since I can't find a transcript, we will leave aside the "under oath" bit, but I will note that being untruthful would breach his plea agreement. Again, my point is simply that we can assume the prosecutors had some measure of evidence for the assertions made in the statement of offense. You seem apparently to be arguing with positions you believe I hold, rather than what I say. I don't understand this: It would be unfair to a def to ask them to sign a statement of offense then prosecute them for perjury if it was later found they were innocent as it seems internally inconsistent; while a statement of offense and corresponding plea deal hold, the defendant cannot be found not guilty. They have stipulated to their guilt. If somehow the conviction were to be overturned, the plea deal and associated statement of offense would need to be thrown out, and thus could not be the basis for a perjury charge. As you say, the most likely place for the government to find corroborating evidence would certainly be other witnesses, though wiretaps and the like are possibilities. There certainly would be hearsay concerns, though if the government were to bring charges against one of the other participants in those conversations, then it would not be hearsay pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). I agree that facts must be reliably sourced, and there's much that we don't know. The basic disagreement here boils down to this: I am saying the assertions of the government carry some weight as we look at the circumstances, while you are saying they should be afforded none at all. You're welcome to that view. It just strikes me as unhelpful and contrary to my subjective experience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am aware that people who plead guilty do not go to trial. I was referring to the trial of the other Proud Boys leaders, where your sources said Donohoe would testify. Why didn't he testify?

Incidentally, your claim that Donohoe would be prosecuted for claiming that he was "aware of" a plan to enter the Capitol Building is absurd. Can you cite any case where a def has been prosecuted for his Statement of Offense?

Anyway, you have provided no sources to support your speculation about Donohoe's statement. It doesn't matter what we think may have happened or what actually happened, but what reliable sources say happened. TFD (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have zero idea at all what you are talking about. My claim is simply this: the paragraph in the Statement of Offense and related coverage is some evidence for the proposition that planning occurred before the 6th. If you say to me "I don't think it's enough" or "it doesn't belong in the article at this point," I might agree with you. It's your floccinaucinihilipilification special pleading of "we shouldn't even take this into consideration" that I am arguing against. Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "evidence" because a Statement of Offense is not evidence. While the statement implies that evidence exists ("If this case were to proceed to trial, the parties stipulate that the United States could prove the below facts beyond a reasonable doubt."), none has been provided.

Even if Donohoe had made such a statement to police, it would be hearsay and therefore excluded as evidence against the other Proud Boys.

All you say is that Donohoe, who has pleaded guilty, claims to have been "aware of" a plan to enter the building.

None of this detracts from my statement that the prosecution presented no evidence the incursion into the building was planned or argued that it was. TFD (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, to return to the main issue. Does the Statement of Offense prove either the prosecution claimed the entry in the bldg was pre-planned or that they had evidence for it? TFD (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Two things: the standards for evidence in court and on Wikipedia are not the same. As you are well aware, hearsay cannot be used in court absent an exception, but it can certainly be considered on Wikipedia. One might say its status goes to weight rather than admissibility. And again, per the Federal Rules of Evidence, if Donohoe were to testify as to what a defendant in a criminal or civil action said, that would expressly not be hearsay. To your question: does the Statement of Offense prove that? No. But evidence rarely 'proves' anything. Rather, it tends to make a given proposition either more or less likely. Hope you've had a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If Donohoe had testified that he was "aware of" the plans without naming anyone who told him about them, it would be hearsay and inadmissable in court as hearsay.

I appreciate that what constitutes legal evidence and what can be included in Wikipedia articles is different. But articles are based primarily on secondary sources and I would like to see more information about it before giving it any consideration.

That a self-admitted criminal agreed in a Statement of Offense that he was "aware of" a plan to enter the Capitol building is I suggest something that a reasonable person would give no credence to. With respect, it's the type of material that people use to construct alternative interpretations of history. It's like the pictures of astronauts found on ancient monuments. TFD (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm giving more credence to the fact that prosecutors said they could prove the same in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I am certainly willing to believe there was some bravado there, but I am not willing to believe it was an outright fabrication. As to hearsay, you sent me down quite a rabbit hole, but sure. If no one was named, probably inadmissible. But if someone were named, it would almost certainly be not hearsay per Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) or an exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). So...as with much here, maybe? But I will go ahead and say government statements to a criminal court are in a different category than "pictures of astronauts found on ancient monuments." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

When U.S. police arrest people, they say, "Anything you say can be used against you." In this case, Donohoe said he was "aware of" plans to enter the Capitol building and this could be used against him as proof he was "aware of" the plans.

BTW, it's a long weekend where I am.

TFD (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So again, with all due respect, this is an overly simplistic interpretation. First of all, Miranda warnings really only apply to custodial interrogations--not anything a criminal suspect says after arrest can be used against him. For instance, conversations with his or her lawyer. But more importantly, plea deals like the one reached by the prosecution and Mr. Donohoe obviously involve negotiations, and a proffer meeting, or what is sometimes called a "queen for a day" meeting. At such a meeting, the defendant discloses all he or she knows, but vitally, the prosecution proceeds based both on custom and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 on the understanding that no statements made by the defendant during the proffer meeting can be used against him or her should an agreement not be reached. Now, it's possible that the "conversations" were not part of such a negotiation, but I find it much more likely that the lion's share of the background information in the Statement of Offense was part of plea deal talks. Now, I may be wrong about that, but I would submit that it is at least a strong possibility. If I am right, and the 'conversations' came up during plea negotiations, then the prosecution would have to prove them at trial without Mr. Donohoe's statement. To my mind, that makes the idea that the prosecutors had some kind of extrinsic evidence very probable, or at least, very possible. And I can't resist, because I have been mulling over the hearsay implications all evening. It's a funny setup! If the 'conversations' are introduced against named persons, they are admissible. If they are introduced to show their effect on Mr. Donohoe, they are admissible. The only scenario in which they would not be admissible would be, as you say, if introduced to prove that unnamed persons were planning to storm the Capitol. But, for the life of me, I cannot imagine a scenario in which either prosecution or defense would want to do that! And it's a long weekend here too! I sure hope we're not neighbors.... Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why the Statement of Offense said Donohoe was "aware of" the plan to enter the Capitol building. Was that based on what he said to the police or some other source. Please provide a source for your reply. TFD (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure! There could be various reasons. The one that comes to mind for me is the DOJ's prohibition on naming uncharged suspects. Presumably, Donohoe would know the people who were engaged in said conversations, but they could not be named in a public-facing document. Cheers, and enjoy the long weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying that none of the people Donohoe spoke to were charged and he never spoke about it with any of the people who were. Furthermore, although they cannot name uncharged suspects, they're able to provide the with aliases, such as PERSON-1, PERSON-2, and PERSON-3 in the indictment.

OR maybe Donohoe did not say who told him. Maybe he didn't remember because there were many conversations about different plans with different people. Or maybe he had other reasons for not mentioning them at the time.

While it's possible Donohoe was telling the truth, there's no reason to assume he named names. TFD (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Everything you've said here logically follows from "I'm not sure!" Dumuzid (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148, I'm trying to be reasonable here, and not drag this out. A little good faith would go a long way here. DN (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC) My main concern is saying what reliable sources say. This is my first dispute resolution and regardless of the dispute statement not being as accurate as I thought it was, I can certainly admit that. I was hoping TFD would acknowledge what RS says and perhaps stop trying to make me look like I just made this up without evidence or sources. I'm willing to settle for the former. DN (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC) I do still hold that RS is consistent in stating that Proud Boys planned the attack, and there is RS that states the breach was planned ahead of 1/6. I do understand the concern and reason for debate about saying whether the breach was "planned" or discussed (to put that in wikivoice in the article would require consensus - which again isnt why i came here), but I do not enjoy the lack of acknowledgement or good faith in my efforts.

• "Donohoe has pleaded guilty to involvement in a conspiracy to storm the Capitol."^[1]
• "He (Nordean) led them with the specific plans to: split up into groups, attempt to break into the Capitol building from as many different points as possible, and prevent the Joint Session of Congress from Certifying the Electoral College results," prosecutors wrote.^[2]
• "Prosecutors say that the five Proud Boys on trial plotted to storm the Capitol and stop the certification of the 2020 election ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, and led the charge that day."^[3]

Cheers...DN (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are just repeating the material we already discussed. TFD (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall providing these citations before (the 2nd one maybe but it's NPR). When you say things like this, it feels like you are gaslighting me, but I will not say it is necessarily intentional, however I would prefer it to stop. DN (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 I need a break from this. Am I overreacting here? DN (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Different sources for the same material. TFD (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the "same material" as you do. The USA TODAY citation was not presented in this discussion until now, unless you show me a diff, I will say that is not true. Now that I've had some time to recoup, another question occurred to me. If prosecutors were not arguing the capitol breach was planned, then why do most RS I've seen say the PB defense attorneys were arguing against that premise? "Defense attorneys have long contended that prosecutors have exaggerated the Proud Boys’ role on Jan. 6, turning their heated — but First Amendment-protected — rhetoric into the basis for grave criminal charges. There was no direct evidence that the Proud Boys leaders had hashed out a plan of action to attack the Capitol, they say."^[1]

Defense attorneys began cross-examination by emphasizing Bertino’s concession that no one in the far-right group, which has a history of violence, told him of a specific plan to storm the Capitol ahead of Jan. 6, and that he initially told FBI agents that as far as he knew, the Proud Boys were only going to attend Trump’s speech and demonstrate peacefully.^[2]

DN (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The defense argued that the prosecution had to show specific plans for 1/6 (the "HOW") in order to convict them of conspiracy. Since prosecutors had not proved (or even claimed) that entry into the building had been planned or even talked about, the defs should be acquitted, they argued. The prosecutors however argued that all they had to show to prove the "HOW" was an agreement to stop the vote "by any means necessary including violence." You can read the excerpts of prosecutors' arguments which I have included above. TFD (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If you are referring to your post from the lawfare blog "Roger Parloff - Day 61". That has been hatted by JML1148, so I'm not sure we are using that, or what that means. If you recall, I also pointed out from that source, a quote, that says "Moreover, as we’ll see, there is evidence that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol from before the day ever began.". DN (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if you thought the moderator had hatted them, why do you think that means we can no longer read the prosecutors' arguments in a discussion about what the prosecutors argued?

Your statement shows a severe disregard for facts when presenting your case.

TFD (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF

DN (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Only moderators are supposed to do things like that AFAIK. DN (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148, When you have time, I have two questions at this point. (1) Are there RS presented here that casts doubt on my claim that there are RS that affirms the dispute statement. (2) Does this citation, "Prosecutors say that the five Proud Boys on trial plotted to storm the Capitol and stop the certification of the 2020 election ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, and led the charge that day."^[1] qualify as an unbiased, reliably sourced news report, that possibly affirms the dispute statement (that prosecutors argued as the dispute statement says)..."Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys."..?

Cheers...DN (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Instead of trying to find a way to imply that the entry into the Capitol was pre-planned, you should take the approach of accurately and fairly presenting what the sources say. There is no reason why we should mislead readers into believing that there was ever any credible evidence for this, which is what your suggestions do. TFD (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF

DN (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been citing sources, and trying to find compromises as JML1148 suggested "I think we will find a resolution in a compromise. Let's not treat the dispute statement as a closed question." IMO, you still seem determined to present the defense's arguments as indisputable and incontrovertible facts. DN (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How am I making the case for the defense? In fact you are probably making their case by implying that if they did not pre-plan entry into the building, they are innocent. TFD (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, some of your above comments (examples: There is no reason why we should mislead readers into believing that there was ever any credible evidence for this, which is what your suggestions do. and Your statement shows a severe disregard for facts when presenting your case. ) are, to me, a complete disregard of WP:AGF. Again, comment on content, not contributors. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (January 6)

Reading the above, I am finding it more and more difficult to believe that we will get to a resolution of any form. I was initially confident, but I feel we are going around in circles. I'm wondering if it would be best to WP:DROPTHESTICK and just move on. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the issues we have been discussing are tangential to the main one. The main issue is whether it is a proven fact that entry into the Capitol building was planned before 1/6. If DN and whoever else is still involved agree it was not planned, I'm happy to forget about the other issues. TFD (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not deny what RS says. If you are unwilling to compromise as JML1148 suggests, that is your choice. DN (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying the prosecutors evidence, that suggests planning before 1/6, is "proven fact", only that this was their contention. You have paraphrased the defenses argument that there is no evidence, when defense was specific in saying "no direct" evidence. Not evidence in general. DN (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you agree that the existence of a plan to enter that building made before 1/6 cannot be stated as fact? TFD (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, I appreciate that question. From my position, it is difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. However it made me think of a more agreeable middle-ground for both of us.

If JML1148 is willing to allow a new compromise of...it is possible a plan existed "according to prosecutors". I think we will still continue to disagree on specifics, but perhaps that may be as close to a resolution as we can hope to achieve here.

"Tarrio is not accused of physically breaching the Capitol building on Jan. 6, but prosecutors said during opening arguments that he was aware that day of a plan to breach the building, including discussions about occupying buildings within the Capitol complex."Courthousenews

"Tarrio was aware of discussions around a plan to storm the Capitol and was involved in discussions about occupying buildings, including in the Capitol complex, according to prosecutors." NBC NEWS

Cheers...DN (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What prosecutors may or may not have claimed is irrelevant to what the known facts are. Unproven statements by prosecutors are not considered facts. That's why we have judges, juries and trials.

Anyway the your source that prosecutors said Tarrio was aware of a plan to breach the building is a REDFLAG claim easily verified by comparing it with what they actually said in opening arguments. Could you please quote what was actually said?

Also, saying we cannot state as a fact that the Proud Boya planned to enter the building before 1/6 does not preclude that they did. If we are going to say the prosecution said it was possible they planned the entry before 1/6, we should also say they said it was possible they didn't.

TFD (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the original statement of the dispute was whether "Prosecutors have argued and provided evidence that planning to breach the capitol took place prior to Jan 6th by the Proud Boys." I take it that is no longer the case? Do we have a new statement at issue? I apologize, as I have gotten a bit lost, and much of that is my fault both for spilling so many pixels and for being old. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought that was a straight forward question. However, we are now arguing about whether evidence such as the 1776 Returns is actually evidence of the alleged plan. That's a matter of interpretation which we cannot resolve.

The original dispute arose when DN claimed that entry into the Capitol building was planned before 1/6. At least we have information to resolve that. We don't know.

TFD (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, then forgive me, but I'd like to clarify. We would all now agree that prosecutors have, in fact, argued that planning occurred prior to the day of January 6th? Dumuzid (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the argument was never made, it's left to us to determine what counts as evidence that such a plan exists. DN for example thinks that PERSON-3's message and Tarrio's response count as evidence there was a plan. I think it counts as evidence that there was not a plan. Since the court never decided whether it was evidence for or against a plan, it's an issue that cannot be resolved in our discussions.

We should just say what has been established: that no plan for entry into the building has been proved and prosecutors did not argue that one existed.

TFD (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It feels a bit to me like we're back to where consensus building and/or an RFC on the talk page are sort of the appropriate steps. That said, just a feeling. Happy to defer to others' opinions (especially JML). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

no plan for entry into the building has been proved and prosecutors did not argue that one existed.

It's easy to get lost in the weeds, but let's take a step back. There was a plan to enter the capitol. There was a plan to commit sedition against the US. People are in prison for it, having admitted their crimes.

You're focused on a really really narrow question: "Did PBs make a final decision to commit a Capitol breach prior to midnight?" It's a valid question, but nothing special happens at the stroke of midnight. No one denies the proud boys planned their violent sedition, not even the proud boys, and certainly by the time they begin their march to the Capitol, their leadership is acting out their plan to violently obstruct the proceeding. Feoffer (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Some editors thought there was well-developed plan to occupy the Capitol building, hang the Vice President and legislators who did not support Trump's election and overthrow the government of the United States. Their plan nearly succeeded. There but for the grace of God we'd all be sleeping outside the refugee center in Toronto.

The court determined that the plan of the Proud Boys was to "stop the vote count by any means necessary including violence." The prosecutors specifically said they were not alleging an attempt to overthrow the government.

It is important to properly state the extent of the threat that the PB held. Obviously endangering life and property while obstructing congressional proceedings is a serious crime, but it does not oppose as great a threat as a serious attempt to overthrow the Republic.

Incidentally, DN brought this is to DRN, not me. TFD (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

overthrow the government of the United States

Well, that's just a legal fact at this point -- there was a conspiracy to commit sedition again the government of the United States. Scholars of political violence have been listing Jan 6 as an attempted coup since it happened.

The prosecutors specifically said they were not alleging an attempt to overthrow the government. I'd have to see the full context and original verbiage to know what that means.

it does not [pose] as great a threat as a serious attempt to overthrow the Republic. A serious attempt use violence to interfere with a peaceful transfer of power absolutely constitutes a serious attempt to overthrow a government. Feoffer (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD - I know what you mean in a colloquial sense when you say it is not as great a threat, but I feel it also worth mentioning that 18 USC § 2384 includes in its definition of seditious conspiracy an attempt "to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them . . ." My point is that while we can all make our subjective judgments about the gravity of what the Proud Boys actually did, had they actually plotted a serious attempt to overthrow the Republic their criminal exposure would have been similar. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While the offense includes those things, the allegation against the Proud Boys was that they planned to stop the vote, which probably comes under "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States."

Can you point out who these scholars of political violence were who claimed it was an attempted coup and also admit that this allegation was not made in court about them.

Its likely that had the prosecution proved an actual coup attempt the sentencing would be higher.

Even if some writers describe it as a coup, the reality is that it remains unproved.

BTW by saying it was not planned before 1/6, I meant that it was thought up opportunistically minutes or even seconds before entry into the building. TFD (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I seem to have failed to get my point across. I am not saying that their conduct fell under the "overthrow" clause. I am saying that had they actually plotted a serious attempt to overthrow the Republic their criminal exposure would have been similar. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out who these scholars of political violence were who claimed it was an attempted coup

"Cline Center’s Coup d’État Project has aimed to document every coup, attempted coup, and coup conspiracy anywhere in the world since 1945. Version 2.1.0 of the dataset encompasses 975 events, including 441 realized coups, 346 attempts, and 188 conspiracies that occurred between 1945 and 2022" statement on Jan 6 being a coup.

This isn't controversial -- Jan 6 has been listed in Cat:Coups d'état and coup attempts in the United States for two and a half years, after all.

Perhaps a good solution would be to create an article titled "Planning of the January 6, 2021 attack" goes over the timelines of the known individuals who were part of the conspiracy to commit sedition in the days and weeks leading up to the attack. The whole issue of the Winter Palace for example isn't covered in the main article at the moment. Feoffer (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, thanks. I would point out that there is dispute over whether the description is accurate, with other sources saying their definition is wider than is normally accepted. Other writers would merely describe it as political violence. TFD (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier, JML1148 suggested..."I would want multiple sources that undoubtedly claim that there was planning before adding the dispute statement into the January 6 page. However, there is quite clear evidence that there were discussions within the Proud Boys raising the possibility of storming the capital. For example, paragraph 17 of the Donohoe Statement of Offense and the voice messages left on the MOSD Leaders chat. Perhaps we could add a paragraph to the page describing these discussions, but falling short of saying that the Proud Boys planned to storm the Capitol."

I still think this is a good compromise. At this point it seems likely the majority of the RS I have been presenting rely on information from the indictment, rather than exclusively what was said at trial, as TFD has pointed out. While those RS often use the term "planned" "plotted" etc... when referring to the communications about breaching the capitol breach in the indictment, I can agree that "discussed" is still accurate.

The overall inference of the indictment is still that there was "planning" prior to 1/6, regardless of whether it was "well planned", but in this vein it should be probably attributed to the DOJ ...Despite that, I remain focused on finding a compromise, and would of course advocate to include the defense's arguments as well. Something similar to this, maybe...

"According to the Proud Boys indictment by the DOJ, prosecutors claimed there were discussions about storming the capitol prior to Jan 6th, along with an alleged statement by Tarrio saying that he wanted to wait until January 4 to make final plans. Lawyers for the Proud Boys refuted their claims with multiple witnesses testifying there was never a specific plan to take the Capitol or stop the certification. Tarrio’s lawyers stated he did not instruct or encourage anyone to go into the Capitol."

I remain optimistic and open to reasonable suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would just tack on that I think some discussion of the 1776 Returns document would be appropriate, but happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, both the messages left and the 1776 Returns could be seen as evidence that no consideration was given to entering the building. If you think they are relevant, you need a secondary source.

In any case, we're not discussing what might have happened, but what we know or don't know to have happened. We don't know that entry was planned before the building was entered and we know that the prosection never made a claim about it. TFD (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of and respect your position. I will, however, wait to see if there's a consensus one way or another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, perhaps if we take Oath Keepers for example, I can see there are differences in the indictments and RS "Prosecutors did not present evidence that there was a pre-formed plan to storm the Capitol" NBC & OK Indictment (any mentions of storming the capitol?). Is there any way you can use them as an example to explain your position and or the lawfare blog source (it is difficult for me to see how it supports your argument) to help resolve the dispute? The PB indictment and RS thereof still differ, aside from convictions for both. "A federal grand jury indictment filed Tuesday accuses the former chairman of the Proud Boys of joining with other leaders of the group in discussing a plan to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021...On Jan. 6, prosecutors said, members of the Proud Boys led rioters to the Capitol from a pro-Trump rally near the Washington Monument. They charged past police barricades, and one member of the group used a riot shield taken from a Capitol Police officer to break a window, allowing the first members of the mob to enter the Capitol, prosecutors said." NBC " #28 (f) Engaging in meetings and encrypted communications in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack (h) "Directing, mobilizing, and leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol;" PB Indictment...Cheers. DN (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You are saying we should rely on our reading of the reading of NBC reporters of the indictment, rather than what the indictment said or what the prosecution actually argued in court. The approach we should take in my opinion is to read the prosecution arguments amd summarize what they said. We shouldn't begin with a preconceived notion that the prosecution position was that the PB planned entry into the building before 1/6 and search for sources that support that view.

With thousands of sources available to us, we are always going to find outliers that incorrectly or ambiguously report information. The policy in this case is REDFLAG. We ignore the rs that says Obama was born in Kenya for example.

Reporters are not legal experts and they work toward deadlines with limited information. As a result, breaking stories are not always covered as accurately at the time as they are in peer reviewed papers by scholars. There's also AGEMATTERS: "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light." It even refers to "the errors of breaking news." TFD (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD - I believe you would agree with me that the Proud Boys planned for violence on that day (leaving aside alleged plans for Capitol incursion). I believe you would agree with me that the Proud Boys' aim was to disrupt the electoral vote count in some way. I believe you would agree with me that the Proud Boys were aware that said vote count was occurring within the Capitol. Given those premises, WP:REDFLAG seems inapposite to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that you would accept as non-controversial any claim about what they planned no matter how absurd or unlikely. TFD (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In any case, that's not what REDFLAG says. TFD (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I am curious as to what REDFLAG "says," as I did not make any assertion in that regard. I said it seems inapposite. It would be helpful if you could try to actually engage with what I say. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"You are saying we should rely on our reading of the reading of NBC reporters of the indictment, rather than what the indictment said or what the prosecution actually argued in court I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion when I clearly included a link to the indictments, quoted the PB indictment verbatim and said "I can see there are differences in the indictments and RS"....The RS on Obama's birth certificate doesn't seem relative here (no indictments), at least compared to the indictment and RS about the the Oath Keepers case, which I asked you if there is "any way you can use them as an example to explain your position."...NBC isn't integral to my interpretation or my argument. If you claim REDFLAG applies to every article that states prosecutors (according to the indictment) allege PB planned the attack let alone the breach, do you know how many articles and different RS we are talking about? Should we make a list? IMO it looks more like that is closer to the mainstream consensus as opposed to being outliers in this case. If AGE MATTERS applies, which newer articles are now disputing older ones in regard to the indictment by prosecutors? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide a press release, statement at a news conference or arguments in court where the prosecution claimed entry into the Capitol building was planned before 1/6. TFD (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see the entire conversation up to this point. You are free to find evidence presented to you unconvincing. You are not free to pretend it doesn't exist. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not that it is unconvincing, but it could be seen as evidence that your belief that entry into the building was planned before 1/6 is mistaken. What we are missing is an argument by the prosecution that it is evidence. I assume they left it out because they did not think it was evidence. TFD (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very big assumption; it is entirely plausible that it was left out simply because it was unnecessary to prove the elements of the crimes charged. Dumuzid (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is implausible that prosecutors would leave out evidence of a specific plan that was carried out. But the key issue is that we can't say this was evidence that they planned to enter the building when it could be evidence they did not plan to do so.

In 9/11 and JFK assassination conspiracy theories, conspiracists frequently seize on "evidence" in support of their views. But per NOR, we are not hear to weigh "evidence" and determine what really happened. We can only present what has been established in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You would agree with me that the sources say the Proud Boys planned some sort of attack in Washington on January 6, yes? Dumuzid (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

See PB Indictment #28 (f) Engaging in meetings and encrypted communications in Washington, D.C., in the days leading up to January 6, and on the morning of January 6, to plan for the January 6 attack (h) "Directing, mobilizing, and leading members of the crowd onto Capitol grounds and into the Capitol;" Cheers. DN (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

How many times do you intend to repeat this? I already replied to you several times. TFD (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see the difference between RS about the Oath Keepers indictment and the Proud Boys indictment? It would be helpful and appreciated if you answered some of the questions being asked. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The O.J. Simpson indictment was different too. So what? Unless you have a reliable source comparing them, it's not something we should be doing ourselves. TFD (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That citation from PBS seems to address the difference here...

"The Justice Department presented a more conventional theory at the trial last year for Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy along with another leader of the antigovernment group. Oath Keepers members stockpiled guns at a Virginia hotel so they could shuttle them across the Potomac River into Washington if they were needed to support their plot to stop the transfer of power, prosecutors said. The weapons were never deployed."

"In this case, prosecutors are trying to show that the Proud Boys used people as their weapons."

“The Oath Keepers had their rifles. The Proud Boys had their ‘real men,'” prosecutor Conor Mulroe has said... DN (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should withdraw to the strategic rather than the tactical level. DN, would you be comfortable if we didn't specifically mention invading the Capitol, but phrased it as something like "the Proud Boys planned long in advance to interrupt the electoral count on January 6, with the goal of keeping Donald Trump in power"? No specific mention of the Capitol, but from where the electoral count was taking place, I think the inference is obvious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with staying focused on the strategic aspects, but what arguments have been made that would suggest we cannot involve the details of indictments, including the 1776 Returns issue, or Tarrio's and Donohoe's statements? 1776 Returns seemed to infer planning prior to 1/6 to "occupy The Winter Palace" to me as well, and I discussed it with TFD on the talk page, but TFD has recently claimed it "could be seen as evidence that no consideration was given to entering the building". While that may somehow be a valid perspective, I haven't seen any RS to that effect. I already suggested changing the DS to "According to the indictment..." and substituting the term "planning" with "discussion", but nothing short of a full concession seems to be of any interest here, which doesn't seem like a reasonable compromise. TFD said earlier that "It's whether prosecutors claimed the attack was planned before 1/6 and whether they presented evidence for it. And by that I mean that they said in court or in press conferences or press releases the evidence supported the claim."...as well as... "Although the conversation was in the indictment, the prosecution never mentioned it in arguments. We cannot therefore know what interpretation they put on it." The details in the indictment are clear, as are the charges, however IMO, TFD is setting the bar higher than is reasonably required with only the narrow exception of "an explicit quote by the prosecution said in court or to the press during trial". To my knowledge, prosecutors aren't supposed to talk to the press about their case or their evidence, especially during trial. Their stipulation would seem to assume that in every article of this nature, the prosecution is required to make such explicit statements and exclude everything else, such as indictments or court filings, despite explicit citations from RS. So, if it isn't a direct quote from the prosecution it must be excluded? Please correct me if I'm wrong or misinterpreting that "rule", but I am unaware of any such strictly specific WP policy. I do understand that 1776 Returns, the Donohoe statement and Telegram messages including Tarrio's statement in the indictment may seem like only a small portion of the evidence presented from certain perspectives or by some standards, and I understand that we aren't looking at "facts" or a "smoking gun", but these reports are still prevalent among pretty much every major news agency, which repeatedly preface them with "According to prosecutors...". I am still woefully confused as to how or why TFD wants to interpret the Telegram messages mentioned in the indictment, the 1776 Returns doc or the Donohoe statement as something other than a "discussion" about storming the capitol prior to 1/6, without some RS that includes an alternate interpretation. If there is some consensus among RS to the effect of "Prosecutors did not infer discussions prior to 1/6 involved storming the capitol in the indictment" etc..., it will help me to move past it. DN (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if we've already gone over this, but just in case, aside from Donohoe, we also have Bertino's statements... "Ironically named by Tarrio the “Ministry of Self-Defense” (MOSD), Tarrio and other members agreed to do whatever it took to stop Congress from confirming the electoral vote in Washington, Proud Boys leader Jeremy Bertino testified this week. Some believed storming the Capitol would accomplish it, the star government witness said."^[1] "Bertino explained texts he sent Tarrio at 2:39 p.m., as rioters raced into the building from the east and the west, pouring into the evacuated Senate chamber and shouting for lawmakers’ heads. “Brother you know we made this happen,” and “1776,” Bertino wrote, exulting with a profanity.“I know,” Tarrio replied, referring to a palace raid during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and part of a plan shared with Tarrio calling for occupying Capitol buildings, “The Winter Palace.” Prosecutors allege that Tarrio and his men catalyzed violence after agreeing to do whatever it took to stop Congress from confirming the electoral vote on Jan. 6, and that some stated that violently storming the Capitol would accomplish it. Bertino admitted to such claims in a plea deal in which he hopes to trim a potential five-year prison term and possibly enter a federal witness protection program"^[2]

DN (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

“To these defendants, politics was no longer something for the debating floor or voting booth. To them, politics meant actual physical combat, a battle between good and evil in the most literal sense,” Mulroe said. “The Capitol was the focus from the start,” he said. “They made it plain as day why they were there. It was not to see Donald Trump’s speech, it was not to protect patriots, it was certainly not to protest peacefully. They were there to threaten and, if necessary, use force to stop the certification of the election.”^[1]

Since there only seems to be a few days left to determine if a compromise and or resolution is viable, would the moderator care to give an update as to where we are in the dispute, and why? TFD and Dumuzid, is there still disagreement as to whether the compromises I have suggested in good faith regarding the indictment/argument by prosecutors and RS, say, "The PB on trial planned the attack^[2][3][4][5], that prosecutors presented testimony/evidence MOSD discussed storming the capitol days prior to 1/6^[6][7][8][9], with some MOSD members saying that storming the capitol would accomplish their goal^[10][11], including references to 1776 Returns in messages between Bertino and Tarrio after the capitol building had been breached".^[12][13]...?

Cheers... DN (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (January 6) (cont.)

DN id trying to prove that the Proud Boys planned to enter the Capitol building before J6. But the discussion is about whether that was the prosecutors' argument. The answer to their question whether this requires a "direct quote" from prosecutors is obviously yes. We need direct quotes from people in order to establish what they said.

As a result of the prosecutors' decision not to argue that entry into the building was planned before J6, we cannot state as fact that it was. The evidence provided that there was a plan could equally be used to argue there was no plan. But that goes beyond what editors can determine. We can only report the conclusions reported in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD -- first of all, I briefly rolled back your comment with a misclick, my apologies. Secondly, can you please engage with DN's suggested language above? Do you agree with any of it? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have addressed all these points but because they are buried in walls of text will summarize:

• "The PB on trial planned the attack." No, the prosecution did not say this.
• "prosecutors presented testimony/evidence MOSD discussed storming the capitol days prior to 1/6." The evidence that DN thinks supports his claim could equally prove the opposite. For example, evidence of planning to occupy 10 buildings excluding the Capitol Building could be evidence they did not plan to occupy the Capitol Building.
• "some MOSD members saying that storming the capitol would accomplish their goal." Donohoe's Statement of Offense is not evidence and he never testified.
• "including references to 1776 Returns in messages between Bertino and Tarrio after the capitol building had been breached." I mentioned the 1776 returns above.

Put together, DN's statement is implicit OR which leads readers to one conclusion: the PB planned to enter the Capitol Building before J6. It doesn't even mention that the prosecution did not argue this. So it's not really a compromise. And as OR, I would expect to see a paper by a lawyer who pulls together this information and forms that conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

So, your position is that even if presented in reliable sources, we cannot argue anything that the prosecution did not argue in court? As to "Donohoe's Statement of Offense is not evidence and he never testified," who cares? Wikipedia is not a courtroom. Again, let me stress, what we are doing here has nothing to do with legal process and we are not bound by any rules of evidence, such as admissibility, which are constrained to be very narrow in the first place. "It is not evidence" is to me every bit as persuasive as "I had pudding after lunch, therefore it belongs in the article."

And what if I were to suggest these compromises?

• "The PB planned an attack on Washington with the intent of stopping or delaying the electoral vote."
• "Prosecutors presented evidence that the PB had plans to occupy several buildings around the Capitol."

Finally, I think mentioning that messages were exchanged regarding 1776 Returns is absolutely called for; we certainly don't have to draw a direct line to the Capitol, but it is relevant and useful information that I think benefits the reader. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Your summary is implicit synthesis. You imply through insinuation (they "had plans") that the PB planned to enter the building. You also omit the fact that the prosecution made no claim they had these plans. Basically, you are presenting facts in a selective way in order prove the incursion was planned.

You obviously believe that the incursion was pre-planned. But we are supposed to merely report what sources explicitly state. In this case, the prosecution decided not to argue that the incursion was pre-planned and we have no argument in reliable sources that it was.

If such sources existed, then we could see the degree of acceptance your (implied) argument has.

Your analysis presupposes a high degree of sophistication by the PB and its leaders, although their actual portrayal is closer to deluded hooligans.

The 1776 Returns "messages" exchanged btw were text messages between Tarrio and his girl friend. There's no evidence Tarrio read the Returns, shared it with anyone, planned to carry out any part of it and in fact did not do so. TFD (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Below are the messages about the 1776 Returns as reported by Roger Parloff, Feb. 9, 2023, tweets 144-148, and Kyle Cheney. They were made 29 December, 2019. Erika sent the document on 30 December, 2020. He did not forward it to anyone else or mention it to anyone else on the chat.

---

Erika: the revolution & storming the winter capital is at stake. the revolution is more important than anything.

Tarrio: that's what every waking moment consists of.

Erika: if you don't like my plan, let me know, I'll pitch it elsewhere. But I want you to be the executor and benefactor of my brilliance. stop playing games with me.

Tarrio: I'm not playing games.

TFD (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not the first clue what I believe, since you have shown precisely zero interest in the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If I had zero interest in the subject, I would not have participated in these conversations. While you said that I do not know what you believe, you have not refuted my claim that you believe the incursion was pre-planned before J6. Am I am wrong about that?

Perhaps I could have phrased my comments better. Your proposed "compromise" contains an implicit assumption that entry into the building was planned by the PB before 1/6. Per no synthesis, text should never contain implicit assumptions. All conclusions must be clearly stated and attributed. TFD (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you are not arguing that the entry was pre-planned, why is the 1776 Returns absolutely called for, relevant and useful to readers? TFD (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe the incursion was preplanned. I do tend to think it was likely considered. 1776 was clearly a document discussed by the PBs, and included the possibility of occupying buildings. Moreover, it drew a fair amount of attention in reliable sources, and was argued by prosecutors. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me it was discussed. Tarrio's brief exchange with Erika doesn't show a lot of enthusiasm on his part and we don't know if he read it. Since there's no record of the document being distributed or discussed on the board, and no emails about it, it raises the question of where it was discussed. I don't know if the leadership even met before arriving in D.C.

Also, providing 500 people to occupy buildings would seem delusional, since only about ten Proud Boys arrived in D.C.

In any case without reliable sources, we shouldn't infer they might have discussed it. TFD (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I am very much done here, and for real this time (apologies for earlier saying as much and not following through). Should anyone need me please ping. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

JML1148, I'll try a different approach. Instead of agreeing on what we can say, perhaps we can agree on what we cannot say. We cannot say (1) when the PB decided to enter the Capitol Building or (2) that the prosecution argued when the PB decided to enter the building.

There is no reason to add in things that we might say. They can always be discussed in the relevant talk pages.

TFD (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Interim Moderator (January 6)

It appears that the moderator is on a wikibreak, and that some discussion is continuing. I am asking each editor for a brief statement as to whether there are still any issues. If so, please state what you want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that another editor wants changed.Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in as interim moderator. I've been unexpectedly busy with schoolwork and other commitments, and, along with some burnout, I've been struggling to find the time or want to edit Wikipedia. I suspect I will be quite busy for the time being. It would be ideal if someone can take over as moderator for the rest of this case. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

JML -- just want to wish you well and say I understand that feeling all too well. This wall of pixels can't help (for which I admit my own responsibility). As a wise woman often says to me, be kind to yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for helping us out with this dispute. There is currently no discussion on the article talk page as to whether the dispute statement should be included in the article, it is purely a disagreement between TFD and myself. Could you help resolve the disagreement as to whether statements above are supported by RS diff...TFD claims it is SYNTH, and or, OR. If you would like me to go through the RS I used and individually pull out the citations I am referring to in the statements, I am happy to do so, just let me know. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Interim Moderator (January 6)

I am coming into this dispute at the beginning, and, at least for now, would like to get focused before reading the previous discussion. The purpose of resolving any article content dispute is to improve an article in the encyclopedia. So I will restate my question. Please state, briefly, what portion of the article you want to change, or what portion of the article you want left the same that another editor wants to change. I will then try to address the questions about whether reliable sources support the language in question, or whether there is synthesis amounting to original research. So for now, just tell me what paragraphs of the article are the subjects of a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors (January 6)

Seventh Statement by Interim Moderator (January 6)

There has been a lot of back-and-forth discussion between the editors, and it isn't getting anywhere. The previous moderator had specified DRN Rule C, which does not permit back-and-forth discussion, so I am not changing the rules when I say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the community, and to the moderator, who is the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. In particular, be concise. If I ask what part of the article there is a question about, I may not be asking for reasons why, and I may only want to know what portion of the article you want changed.

I am reminding the editors that American politics in the twenty-first century is a contentious topic. No one has been editing disruptively, so continue to be civil. By continuing to take part in this discussion, you are agreeing that contentious topic procedures apply. Be concise also.

So I will again ask what specific sections or portions of the article there is disagreement about. If there are multiple sections or portions of the article that there is disagreement about, please provide a bullet-point list, rather than multiple paragraphs. List either a section or sections that you want to change, or a section or sections that you want left the same that another editor wants to change. We will first identify where in the article the dispute is before we discuss reasons.

Identify what section or sections of the article you want changed, or that you want left the same if another editor wants it changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Seventh Statements by Editors (January 6)