Talk:Jacob Chansley

Sources

Some sources to make the page:

https://conandaily.com/2021/01/07/jake-angeli-biography-13-things-about-q-shaman-from-phoenix-arizona/

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/who-is-the-horned-man-who-stormed-the-capitol/news-story/de6853d19e8681a04aa0ee50c6e52b10

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/07/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-arizona-heart-capitol-riots/

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2096968/qanon-shaman-jake-angeli-capitol/

https://www.thefocus.news/business/jake-angeli/

https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/01/06/arizona-qanon-supporter-jake-angeli-joins-storming-u-s-capitol/6568513002/

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/09/20/climate-change-march-downtown-phoenix-global-youth-climate-strike/2357094001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.237.30 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

--Topjur01 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible WP:WPNOTRS problems, but in case useful, some links from prior to the Capitol storming:
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ddgys-c51af9
https://www.linkedin.com/in/yellowstone-wolf-246aa7174/
Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tattoos

Given that he has a number of tattoos, and there are at least 3 articles that are written about them, including two specifically (including a rolling stone article), while a section/paragraph on them may seem too much, I have included one line addressing that in the content of the article, just mentioning what that are. Does this seem fair? ping Another Believer Tomaatje12 Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already in the article with plenty of sources. The Rolling Stone article is pretty poor quality—I recommend just using what we're already citing. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I may be going blind:bloodofox:, but I can't see any reference to Tattoos in the article. I would have expected them to be in the text that speaks about his appearance (headress, etc) Could you let me know what section are you seeing it in? If its already in there and referenced, that's fine with me but if not, I would like to add a reference. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This was in a note, but I've brought it into the body. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.that's great. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Image?

I'm not seeing any images of Angeli at Wikimedia Commons. Other ideas for where to find one? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair use the viking helmet one. From the FBI wanted poster, I think makes it suitable Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

He has become a Facebook meme. [[1]] [[2]] Agnerf (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Just because it appears on an FBI poster doesn't automatically mean the photo can be used. Not everything which appears on a US government website or which is put out by a US government agency is automatically within the public domain for the reasons explained in WP:PD#US government works. If the photo was taken by someone other than a US government employee, then there's a good chance it would be protected by copyright which means the WP:CONSENT of the creator would be needed. That's the problem with the photo being currently used in the infobox and which is why it's almost certain to end up deleted. It's also unlikely that any photo of Angeli would meet all ten non-free content criteria, particularly WP:NFCC#1, because non-free photos of still living persons are almost never allowed. The best chance of find a freely licensed photo is probably to look for one on Flickr. Given the number of people who were there at the time and the fact that many of them were probably taking photos with their smart phones, there's a good chance that someone took a photo of him and uploaded it to Flickr under a license that Wikipedia accepts. It's also possible that someone took a photo of him some other time and uploaded it to their Flickr account. Pretty much any photo you find of him in a newspaper, etc. is going to likely be copyrighted and not released under a license Wikipedia can use; so, social media accounts like Flickr might be the best chance of getting a free one. Other possibility is that he ends up in federal court and some court employee takes his photo or the US government releases a photo that it has taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add the word “everything” (underlined) to the second sentence. — 21:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)]

I have photos of him taken myself, although not at the capitol. 68.2.252.139 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Appearance at Capitol not required. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Any opposition to archiving this section since the infobox now has an image? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No objection, but I'm not sure there's a real need to manually archive it any faster than it would be done if the page was set up to automatically archive itself. Maybe {{Discussion top}} would be better. On a separate note, it might be better instead to figure out whether this article falls under WP:ACDS for the same reasons that 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as well as adding some of the warning banners added to the top of Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol to this talk page too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please allow 60-90 days for threads to be archived. This talk page may grow, but that is better than rehashing the same conversations over and over, because as we all know, nobody reads archives. Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just considered this a resolved issue, that's all. No prob leaving alone! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the image, which, although it was croppeed from a DC Metro Police document, was taken from an image shown in this NYT article credited to Erin Schiff, and is thus not under a free license.

A lower-resolution version of the same image might be eligible for WP:FAIRUSE here, but this is not it. A freely-licensed image would be best; does anyone have one? -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually ask if @Calibrador: has any? Political rallies in Arizona almost seems certain. Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

False allegations

Hi all, there have been some false claims made about him - firstly the Trump camp have claimed he is not one of theirs, and is an antifa plant. This is clearly untrue, as he has a long history of support for Trump and Qanon. Also claims he was connected to Nancy Pellossi. Both these claims have been refuted by snopes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Dutch version

I translated the version to Dutch on the Dutch wiki. I mainly used sources from this page. Tomaatje12 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, the others are a bit brief.. If there's going to be an article, may as well make it above stub status. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Editing his birthdate, it's reported that he is born 1988, He was born July 1st 1987. According to this public record found in my life dot com Neptunedits (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done see WP:RS Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1351941/download -- Iape (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Iape, this source is inadmissible via WP:BLPPRIMARY. Elizium23 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tattoos and clothing

Since Angeli is dressed in distinctive clothing and facepaint, I've seen a fair amount of discussion about this in media sources. Some of this is contradictory, and much of it ill-informed. For example, although some media sources refer to his choice of headwear as a "viking hat", it is certainly not that, and instead seems to be patterned after varities of Native American headware (for example Blackfoot_Confederacy#Headdresses). Angeli also has several tattoos, some of them evidently of a wall motif (Trump?), some of them inspired by the medieval Scandinavian archaeological record, and some of them of some kind of other design that I have yet to see commentary on. Exactly what is the deal with this guy is anybody's guess, but we should resist the temptation to insert ill-informed speculation from freelancers on the article, and make sure that the articles we do cite actually say what use them to reference The most in-depth analysis of what is going on with this guy I've seen so far is actually from the Wild Hunt. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree - however, we can state facts: the tattoos are definitely Norse designs for instance (they are clearly identifiably Yggdrasil, Mjolnir, and the valknut). As you say, *Why* he has them may be speculation - and I have seen both the left and right criticising him for them, and endeavoring to interpret them. There is clearly some misinterpretation, where the Valknut tattos is being compared to a vaguely similiar triangular pedophile symbol At worst, repeating speculation about what his tattoos mean without a corroborating RS could be defamatory and we should of course be aware of WP:BIO. I would suspect there is probably RS where he explains the wall tattoo on his arms are representing "Trump's mexican wall", but I don't know for sure. Completely agree about the hat, more likely First Nation influence than Viking. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There's also a Rolling Stone article about his tattoos: Is the ‘QAnon Shaman’ From the MAGA Capitol Riot Covered in Neo-Nazi Imagery? Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, I think we should minimize the coverage of the tattoos, so to speak. Because unfortunately, unreliable media sources are extrapolating a whole tapestry of beliefs for this man because of a few ounces of ink on his body. Per the criterion of not judging a book by its cover, I think we should wait for sources that can go more than skin deep before we dare to presume what exactly his tattoos mean to him. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021 (2)

When asked about her son's views, Chansley told ABC15 Arizona that "it takes a lot of courage to be a patriot",[9] and says he is a Navy veteran.[10] Angeli says that prior to his political activity he worked as an actor and voice-over artist.[11] Chansley wrote about his use of psychoactive and psychedelic plants and his belief that wider use of them were necessary to address social issues [12]. In addition to his psychedelic advocacy, Chansley offered paid consultations via his Star Seed Academy on New Age topics such as ascension and "exiting the death matrix".[12] Obsidianskull (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What? Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I assume the user is making a "change X to Y" request without providing "X" (which you can see at Special:Permalink/999537265#Early life). As the two new sources provided in the above "Y" do not appear to be reliable secondary sources, I don't see a need for any change. We don't need to give this man more of a forum by covering beliefs of his that news media have not widely discussed. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

False conspiracy theory?

I think the word "false" is superfluous. The Wikipedia article on Conspiracy theory is quite clear that a Conspiracy theory is always a falsehood. Amandashusse (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theories end up being true; this particular one has been proven to be wrong, however, which is why I think it's worth specifying. — Czello 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Very few seem to be proven true. As a matter of fact I can't think of a single one right now. Amandashusse (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory that Blair falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to invade the country was proven true, to some degree, by the Chilcot report—by conspiracy theory I would here mean "explanation involving political conspiracy by high powers". But of course if you interpret that "X is always a falsehood" then you will find that "very few X are true". The article on conspiracy theory does not say that conspiracy theories are always false. The word has multiple meanings and I think it's very important to emphasize "false" in this case so that people do not misinterpret: this is not a feasible explanation of conspiracy by high powers; it is an untruth. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your eagerness to ensure that the message to the reader is that the conspiracy theory in question is false, but my worry is that by emphasizing "false" you might give the reader the impression that there are as many true as there are false conspiracy theories. Amandashusse (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will take that meaning from this; all we're doing is emphasising the factual (or lack thereof) element for the sake of context. — Czello 21:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it as it is then, although my opinion still is that a conspiracy theory by definition is false. Amandashusse (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure this clarification is needed since it’s quite clear from the article QAnon that reliable sources consider the theory to be “false”; however, if clarification is needed, then maybe it would be better to go with the wording used to describe the theory in the “QAnon” article (i.e. “discredited”). I also don’t think the apposition like statement for the theory is needed in the lead: simply mentioning it by name seems fine. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Amandashusse, I agree, these assertions stick out like sore thumbs. Tautological tautologies are tautologous. Per the criterion of "Methinks The Lady Doth Protest Too Much" we must observe WP:NPOV when we denounce falsehoods and let the facts speak for themselves. Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Movements such as?

Antifa and Black Lives Matter are quite different types of organisations, or movements if you like. Therefore I think that lumping them together in the sentence "Misinformation spread on the Internet that Angeli supports movements such as Antifa or Black Lives Matter" is wrong. I suggest rewording it something like this: "Misinformation spread on the Internet that Angeli supports movements with ideas vastly far from Qanon. Both Antifa and Black Lives Matter have been mentioned in this context". Amandashusse (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter is the name of a cluster of organizations; and separately a decentralized movement (the latter is the intention here). Antifa is a movement but not an organization. I don't agree that using them as two examples implies that they are similar. But another way of saying the sentence would be "Misinformation labels Angeli as a member of various movements which he does not support, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter." The two sentences you give are a bit redundant and wordy. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your wording is better. It does not lump Antifa and BLM together as tightly as the original wording. I suppose this page is protected so who do we make an edit request to? Amandashusse (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection only prevents edits by unregistered users or users who either have fewer than 10 edits or an account less than four days old, so I can and have made this wording change (and I think you could have too). To make a request, in general, you can add {{Edit semi-protected}} to the top of a section (and there are similar templates for stronger forms of protection). — Bilorv (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It has no Italian origin it's just a pseudonym

Jacob Anthony Chansley, a.k.a. Jake Angeli, of Arizona No italian origin. Please correct the name.

References

333 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.122.59 (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged, but I am not sure of the WP:BLPPRIMARY status of that source and we would probably not be able to use it until a WP:SECONDARY source cites it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct in what way? His full name is given in parentheses in the first sentence of the article. We refer to subjects by their most common name, in this case Angeli. So far as I can see we never assert Italian origin of the name or individual. — Bilorv (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Couple interesting things! It's already in the article (twice) though no source is cited - good job guys. Secondly, it's not a pseudonym if he's just using parts of his given name. All kinds of people do that. "Pseudonyms" are things you make up. Finally, I don't know why you want us to "correct" it. This article is already at its proper name: the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. The article will not be named after his birth name, which he does not use, and reliable sources do not refer to him that way. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

AP article

These paragraphs from https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-elections-1806ea8dc15a2c04f2a68acd6b55cace might be useful:

And Jake Chansley, who calls himself the “QAnon Shaman” and has long been a fixture at Trump rallies, surrendered to the FBI field office in Phoenix on Saturday. News photos show him at the riot shirtless, with his face painted and wearing a fur hat with horns, carrying a U.S. flag attached to a wooden pole topped with a spear.

Chansley’s unusual headwear is visible in a Nov. 7 AP photo at a rally of Trump supporters protesting election results outside of the Maricopa County election center in Phoenix. In that photo, Chansley, who also has gone by the last name Angeli, held a sign that read, “HOLD THE LINE PATRIOTS GOD WINS.” He also expressed his support for the president in an interview with the AP that day.

The FBI identified Chansley by his distinctive tattoos, which include bricks circling his biceps in an apparent reference to Trump’s border wall. Chansley didn’t respond last week to messages seeking comment to one of his social media accounts.

— Chrisahn (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename section „conspiracy theories“

to „conspiracy theories about Angeli “ to make clear it's not about c.t.s from him. In the introduction he's defined as a conspiracy theorist so it would be more expected to read about the c.t.s he believes in than that there are some about him. So, that should be made clearer, I think. --Blobstar (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Source claim that Jake Angeli says he was an actor before his political career

The article cited just says he has a backpage, and so seems to have been an actor.

Jasper0333 (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wild Hunt source

I disbelieve that the Wild Hunt, despite an impressive slate of staff, rises to the bar of reliable secondary source suitable for use in this BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

He is demanding pardon from Trump

and claiming no trespass because he had the invitation/request of the president to storm the capitol: https://www.politicalflare.com/2021/01/rioter-in-fur-and-horns-becomes-a-trump-nightmare-trump-invited-us-and-he-wants-a-pardon/ --78.55.156.251 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More secondary sources mentioning the arrest:

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

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

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

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

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

RFC: primary sources

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, are fbi.gov and justice.gov sources acceptable to use in this article, namely for the support of Angeli's arrest? Should they be removed now that we have secondary sources to replace them? Elizium23 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not ideal They should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. ~ HAL333 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not ideal, but acceptable of course, primary sources are never ideal, but this isn't too ambiguous or difficult like some primary sources are. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Non issue The two sources are not court records, court transcripts, booking documents, or anything like that. They are public communications from the FBI. One is a request to the public to identify pictured individuals, the other is a press release. These types of press releases are used all over Wikipedia. For example, in John G. Rowland and Obinwanne Okeke. There is nothing unusual about the press release and there is no conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Mo Billings (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Backup, don't replace - If there are secondary sources that backup the primary sources, just add the secondary sources. Why would we want to delete valuable sources? NickCT (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Replace - Per WP:RSPRIMARY ("Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred"), WP:RSBREAKING ("Claims sourced to initial news reports (READ AS: original FBI arrest notice/press release) should be immediately replaced with better-researched ones as soon as they are published"), and WP:NOT ("All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources")... they were useful (and useable) when they were the only source, but if there are now reliable secondary independent sources available, the primary sources should be replaced... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes replace per Adolphus79 above. Idealigic (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Add without replacing, per NickCT and Mo Billings. Primary sources are imperfect, not anathema. They have a role here as a supplement, and as Mo Billings notes, these sources aren't the most problematic kind. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Add, but not replace - as mentioned by others, primary sources are imperfect, but far from being useless and in this case they're being used properly. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Replace - Secondary RS over primary statements of law enforcement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be merged into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Notable arrests and charges

I am not going to formally propose that this article be merged into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol#Notable arrests and charges at this time. I don't think that would be appropriate so soon after the recent AfD was closed as a "weak keep". That said, he is covered it that sub-article at length (and more sparingly in the main article) which makes me question whether this stand alone article is necessary. I don't think that was really considered in depth in the AfD. In any event, I think it would be wise for us to look at this again in the coming months, or year. I tend to think that AfD was decided far WP:TOOSOON and without real consideration of whether he would pass the WP:TENYEARTEST. It may be wise for us to reconsider some point in the future when the main and sub-articles have progressed further, and when more has happened with the pending trials and investigations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Unlike some of the other arrestees from the Capitol event, Mr. Angeli was already a known figure for his prior activism/actions (and/or his distinct appearance), he simply gained more mainstream notoriety during his actions at the Capitol... he already passed WP:BASIC before the event, including several reliable sources because of his past protests, which means he does not qualify for WP:BLP1E... I understand the TENYEARTEST concerns, especially once all of the general Qanon/Trumpism activity in the country has passed/settles down (humans are fickle, trends fade), but I believe there is ample evidence to show he is notable enough for a standalone article per Wikipedia's standards... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't really want to re-litigate the AfD at this time (why I said we should look at this later), but I don't think it was established that Angeli met WP:GNG for events pre-1/6. We will see whether he indeed maintains "notability" when the dust settles after trials (impeachment and otherwise) and all investigations have run their course. That really isn't my point though. Whether he is notable or not doesn't mean we need to deal with the information about him in three places (ie the main article, aftermath article and here). The Black Dahlia was plenty notable but there is only one article about her AND her murder. We don't have to have multiple articles to cover the same content.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but he has nothing more than a single mere mention/link here on the main article, and one short paragraph on Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol specifically regarding his arrest (no biographical information)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, it strikes me as weird and pathological that this particular thread be pinned for ten years on this talk page. It seems... excessive. Elizium23 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I don't think it needs to be pinned here for ten years. I proposed that we reconsider in months or a year (ie when some of the trials/investigations are done). I just didn't want it to archive until that has occurred (as I have seen conversations here archive after about a week). I just used the default pin/sec code which seems to set the duration as ten years. Happy for this to be manually archived after some consideration is given at a future date (hopefully a little further than a week and a half after the event, which I think is simply WP:TOOSOON).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently there is no automatic archiving configured for this page at all. There may be some aggressive archivers going through with OneClickArchiver, which I do not appreciate. I would say a week is way too soon to archive a thread.

But it is also important to note that threads are only archived after periods of inactivity not their posting. So it would be reasonable to archive a thread after 60 days of inactivity.

I am curious as to why you want this thread to perdure for a long time. It would basically be ignored by the time it came mature. A better idea would be for you to set a personal calendar reminder to revisit it and then you can just link to the archived thread wherever it has landed by then. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is also not a bad thing for people to think about as the other articles mature, and as this one does. Perhaps, they could even comment. Not sure why this bothers you so much. Why is it such a tragedy if this sits here for six months or a year as a reminder that we should probably reconsider whether this content should exist in multiple articles whether a merger makes sense? If someone really thinks we should talk about a merger now we can do that, I am just admitting that I don't think it would be prudent for us to make a decision while so much is happening on a daily basis concerning 1/6 charges etc. It is not at all uncommon for discussions to sit on talk pages for years, and while editing has been at a fever pitch over the last week and a half, I don't expect it will stay that way for long. The idea seems to deeply offend you though so I have changed the archive notice to a year. Feel free to comment on the substance of what I have said too though, and not just make procedural quips.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly it just comes off as a sore loser who wants to make an end-run around WP:AFD duly deciding to keep this article for now. Everybody knows that if you don't like an AFD you just wait six months and then ram another AFD through until you eventually get what you want or someone procedurally stomps on you. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but that doesn't seem like a particularly subtle or well reasoned consideration of the WP:TENYEARTEST, WP:NOTNEWS, or WP:TOOSOON. Nor of whether a merger, or alternatively a condensing of the aftermath article could be warranted. Just more personal attacks. Classy. This isn't a standard AfD being reconsidered it is one that took place within a week of the one event from which the article topic gained any notoriety. It is hardly a surprise that it might be hard to judge his long term notabily a week and a half on. Maybe a merger will be appropriate, maybe not. Sorry, you seem to be having a hard time with these concepts. I also didn't realize that he had a whole paragraph about him in the aftermath article already (or does now anyway), and likely will have more if there is a trial or he pleads guilty. Now basically his entire reason for notoriety is dealt with in the aftermath article already. But I gather we are not allowed to consider any of that ever, because well, it bothers you... so have a swell day and I'll see you in six months when you have chilled out a bit.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Many books will be written about the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol. Many PhD theses as well. The vast majority will devote significant coverage to Jake Angeli. He's notable. This article and its curated references will be an exceptionally useful resource to those authors and academics. Removing or redirecting or suppressing this article would be as bizarre as Angeli is widely perceived to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that any books written about the event will have a picture of Angeli but he will probably not merit a great number of words. Although highly visible, he isn't known as a leader or organizer. He's just there. It will be interesting to see if there is anything more to say about him after his court cases have wrapped up. I suspect this will eventually get merged into a larger article but there's no rush. Mo Billings (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, Mo Billings. Any deep analysis of January 6 will include detailed descriptions of the various factions among the insurrectionists: Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters and others, especially QAnon. He is by far the most visible of the QAnon insurrectionists, and historians will try very hard to figure out what makes him tick, in the context of understanding that particular cult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

He's the Soo Catwoman of QAnon. Let's meet on your talk page in 10 years to see how things turn out. Mo Billings (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been noticing lately that his costume/get-up is now part of the popular culture vernacular. See this, for example, and this and this. Possibly (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Ramirez, eh? JA is absolutely having his 15 minutes (and perhaps more).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs)

Recent change of title

I'm not sure that was a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I checked for rename discussion. There wasn't any. QAnon Shaman is the commonly used name for the person Jacob Chansley. See [3] [4] [5] Walrus Ji (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a respectable WP:BOLD edit, but I disagree it's clear what is most common. Per the titles in the ref-section, it's close to 50/50, with JA before QS more often than not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Bold but incorrect. Seems a change from a real name to a nickname would require an RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Says who? I mean is there such a rule? AFAICS, the rule is about WP:COMMONNAME and the common name is clear here. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it? Jake Angeli and QAnon Shaman seem to be roughly equally utilized. Sakkura (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walrus Ji: I checked for rename discussion. There wasn't any. -- Do you think if there wasn't a discussion it might have been prudent to start one? I'm all for being bold, but this is an article with a lot of attention right now so I think it would have been wise to propose it first. — Czello 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This change was a bad idea. Doing it without discussion, was worse. While it is a slang name others have given him, I am not sure he has adopted it at all. In those circumstances this was a very bad idea. Regardless, I question whether the new title really is the common name as some have claimed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've undone the move for now. It clearly hasn't been received well and it's the sort of thing I think we'll need consensus for first. I'm not opposed to the article being named "QAnon Shaman", but only if it can be demonstrated that it's the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Let's talk it out first. — Czello 16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Chansley or Angeli?

Throughout most of this article, the subject is alternately referred to by surname as either "Chansley" or "Angeli." I'm not sure which one is correct according to WP policy, but shouldn't it be consistent throughout to avoid confusion? --Asenecal (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed that now. I do not know what his legal name is, but he is referred to as Angeli in reliable sources. Mo Billings (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To quote myself from a different discussion, "According to KMOV, his legal name is Jacob Anthony Chansley, but he is referred to as Jake Angeli. (This is likely based on a Press Release hosted on the Department of Justice website.) Based on that, I believe that Jacob Chansley or Jacob Anthony Chansley would be more appropriate. [...] The KMOV article uses Chansley seven times in the article, while the DoJ Press Release uses Chansley three times. By contrast, the only mention of "QAnon Shaman" occurs once in the text of the KMOV article."

Given that his lawyer refers to him as Chansley, it makes a bit more sense to me to refer to him as Chansley, even if he participates online as Jake Angeli. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave it the google test. The most common combination of his legal names used seems to be Jacob Anthony Chansley, with about 2 million hits. Jake Angeli clocks in at about 4 million hits. This seems roughly in line with what I've seen in quotable sources, so I think Angeli is the right choice for now. Sakkura (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this... from what I've seen, most sources name him as Angeli, those that mention Chansley generally include language such as "Chansley, who goes by Angeli", which makes me lean towards Angeli being his WP:COMMONNAME in this case... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say that there were comments in the move discussion above about using his preferred name, but I came across WP:NICKNAME and that seems to make even more sense than WP:COMMONNAME. Still, I wouldn't have checked without your comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Pardon and Regret in the Lead

• He requested Trump for a presidential pardon which remained ungranted. Chansley's lawyer later stated that Chansley regretted being duped by Trump.

Ref: Capitol rioters express regret after not getting pardoned | ksdk.com

This line that I had added has been deleted from the lead by User:Mo Billings. I think this is a major event in the subject's life. Expectedly this has made into headlines in the media. I strongly believe it should be restored back into the lead. --Walrus Ji (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Except he didn't actually ask Trump for a pardon... his lawyer merely suggested Trump pardon him in an interview, which never happened... not lede material... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Adolphus79, not true. He asked. He is arrested, do you expect him to visit Oval Office and kow tow Trump before you will call it a real ask for pardon?

“Unlike Lil Wayne, Image worthy Shaman, Jacob Chansley, did not receive a pardon from the exiting president despite his public request for same and despite overtures being made directly to the president through his chief of staff, Mark Meadows,” Watkins said in an email on Wednesday. St. Louis attorney’s statement on client not being pardoned in Capitol riot Walrus Ji (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you think this is important enough to be in the lead section. The lead is a brief summary of the major points. A pardon that didn't happen is not a major event. Mo Billings (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a major legal milestone. If it is important enough for news sites to mention in the title, it is important enough for Wikipedia to mention in the lead. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree on everything you have said and done here. Mo Billings (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't merit mention in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist

Mr Angeli was part of a violent group that stormed the United States Capitol, and wanted to execute innocent Members of Congress using a gallows constructed outside to further his political agenda. That is terrorism; it meets the offical FBI definition. Thus, it is important we call him a terrorist/ domestic terrorist. --Aubernas (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This strikes me very much as WP:OR. — Czello 11:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

How? I mentioned the offical FBI definition. You can read it here-https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 --Aubernas (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aubernas: You're reading the definition of terrorism and then deciding who it applies to: that's literally the definition of WP:OR. — Czello 12:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we can call him a terrorist in Wikipedia's voice without being afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It's a disputed label. VQuakr (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited are opinion pieces, and from what I can tell do not specifically name him as a terrorist... clearly fails both WP:RS as well as WP:NPOV... - Adolphus79 (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it's not biased. He wanted to commit violence against innocent people in the name of his ideology.That's literally terrorism. I can't understand why that is such a complicated thing for you to understand. If we don't call him what he is, that sets a dangerous precedent. And also, the 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers on 9/11 were all labeled terrorists. The 7/7 bombers were labeled terrorists. But Jake Angeli wasn't. We do not owe this man white privilege and white exemption; he knew that he was going to do harm, and broke into the Capitol with malice aforethought. I want consistency on Wikipedia so we are taken seriously, and not accused of racism.--Aubernas (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Once again, this is WP:OR. Also, it's not up to us to apply labels for fear of avoiding a "dangerous precedent". That onus is not upon us; our job is simply to state what reliable sources label him. — Czello 12:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Far-right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lead is too short

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Re-add credited source, which is being repeatedly removed despite accuracy, neutrality, and citation.

In prosecution against him, prosecutors wrote that "strong evidence, including Chansley's own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government." The filing describes Chansley as "a self-proclaimed leader of the QAnon" and drug user who "demonstrates scattered and fanciful thoughts, and is unable to appreciate reality. He is the shaman of a dangerous extremist group, putting his beliefs into action by attempting to violently overthrow the United States government."

Chansley has since disavowed his allegiance to Trump and has stated he would testify against him, claiming he feels "betrayed" Trump did not pardon him. 46.114.37.249 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• At this point, prosecutors assert. Conspiracy is a criminal accusation for which conviction is not yet secured. WP:BLPCRIME applies to both Angeli and his alleged co-conspirators. Also, please note that per WP:RSPS, while People magazine is generally reliable for biographies of living people, stronger sources are needed for contentious claims. • Gene93k (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• And the second statement about testifying against Trump is already included in the article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Referenced on Saturday Night Live

• https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/media/2021/01/31/snl-cold-open-what-still-works/4325970001/

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"That seemed inevitable, but they were glancing nods, nothing more. As it should be." IMO, to little to include atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, as many people as have been mentioned on SNL, damn near every BLP on here would have an extra line... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Jake Angleli was born some time in July of 1987 according to Oklahoma court records. OCSN.NET search for Jacob Chansley. Truckinusa (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not done @Truckinusa: In general, if the source is not published, Wikipedia should not use it. Also, edit requests should be in the format, "change X to Y," again citing a WP:reliable source. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
• In addition, Oklahoma State Courts Network (oscn.net) includes an accuracy disclaimer as a summary of official records. The sourced birth year currently in the article is good enough for now. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Humanize

The wiki article is missing information to humanize him, including that he’s a stay at home dad, or any information about his personal situation. Thoreaulylazy (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources for this information? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In some sense, that type of thing is trivia. Obviously it is part of who he is, but the only reason there is an article about him here is because of his activities at the Capitol, his arrest, and his charges. That is naturally going to be the focus of this article. Mo Billings (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The big things when covering personal information of that sort is that there needs to be quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources to back this up. Not just to verify the claims, but also to justify adding this into the article. Keep in mind that while Angeli has received enough coverage to warrant being on Wikipedia (whether he wants to be or not), his family likely has not. There may also be potential for real world harm for any mention of them, even without naming them, which is another reason Wikipedia tends to leave off information about spouses and kids. Other non-family information tends to fall within this area as well. As far as humanizing goes, that's not really Wikipedia's purpose. The site's purpose is to document notable topics. In many cases this results in an article about the given topic only covering what specific event(s), works, or so on that made them notable. Even in non-controversial cases the media/RS tends to center upon the notability giving elements, so this limits what Wikipedia can generally include. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actor?

Listed as an actor, yet there is no evidence this is factual. Arty Zifferelli (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The source states pretty clearly he is an actor. Actually in hindsight, I agree with BarrelProof with this edit — Czello 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source says he "was at one point looking for acting work". That does not make him an actor. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Arty Zifferelli On the off chance you are monitoring this talk page, concerns with your editing have been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arty_Zifferelli_reported_by_User:BarrelProof Slywriter (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Former supporter description?

Are we completely sure it's reasonable to call him a former supporter? Just based on the citation it looks like he feels betrayed, but that's not necessarily the same thing. If people think it's appropriate to leave it as is though I'm cool with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C402:3750:C25:645E:3FAF:B334 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Mental health diagnosis

I'm not sure how exactly to cover it in the article, but he has now been through a psych evaluation that led to several mental diagnoses. Sakkura (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on that link it is not officially publicized and is currently breaking news, so I would say we don't cover at all yet due to the conservative requirements that we avoid overcoverage and presume privacy in BLPs. If this ends up having an impact on the criminal proceedings, it clearly will need some terse coverage in our article (and likely multiple secondary sources will be available at that point, which we can reference to inform the language). VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Added, easy fit. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, as per above. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

What privacy, it's a highly public case, and Reuters just reported on it, citing his defense attorney. This is by far the most critical piece of information yet in the 'Legal defense' subsection. This is not overcoverage if only in that we already had the legal defense section and intended to include relevant developments there. This kind of overreaction to information on individuals' mental health is problematic, because by showing we are scared of this information, it's possible to inadvertently validate the stigma. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Its significance to the legal defense hasn't been established yet; see WP:CRYSTAL. There is no reason to rush adding this to the article. Out of curiosity, what part of the discussion above made you think adding this would be ok? VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

His lawyer is already using it in negotiations, so it has already impacted the criminal proceedings. Overcoverage does not seem to be a relevant objection as this is a key part of the criminal proceedings that the article already covers in detail, down to descriptions of his lawyer's career (far less important to this article). It is, however, true that the evaluation itself has not been made public yet. It's fine to consciously await further reports, but that is no reason to refuse to prepare for when those inevitably appear. Sakkura (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi attorney's comments are WP:DUE on the article. The subject is primarily notable due to his mental health issues and the actions that arose from it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Post-conviction

The insanity defense has been actualized again at the time of conviction -- see edit by Mysticair667537: diff. Pinging VQuakr to see if there could be new-found consensus in this section. I advocate measured inclusion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Article needs considerable work

I added a birth year. Police reports in mid-January 2021 had him listed as "33 years old." Plea agreement federal document (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/arizona-man-pleads-guilty-felony-charge-jan-6-capitol-breach) has him as 34 on September 3, 2021. Radaris has him born in January 1987. I deleted his self-description as an author. He self-published two books with unknown, if any, sales. I deleted a paragraph that speculates about him and contains trivia which served no useful purpose to the article. His attorney was listed as Albert Watkins, of Saint Louis, in mid-January but he was still representing him at the plea entry hearing on September 3. I would have done more work but only a single revert is allowed per day per the article's tag. It should be winnowed down considerably. I would replace the bio from source published in Spain in January, preferring one written in English. Activist (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Activist, In case helpful, Template:Birth based on age as of date yields a date range based on when a dated source notes someone's age. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Title

Back in January, I supported the Jake Angeli title because that seemed to be what most reliable sources called him. In recent months, it seems thst most reliable sources call him by his short legal name of Jacob Chansley. I have now concluded that the article should be moved to Jacob Chansley. Feedback welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We could be BOLD (citing COMMONNAME) or open a move discussion if you think there would be objection to that reasoning. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Jake Angeli is listed as an "American Activist" and I suggest that be edited to "American Insurrectionist". I base this change on the fact that he was convicted of being a member of the treasonous group that attacked the American Capitol on January 6, 2021. Leaving him labeled as an "Activist" could cause others to be inspired to do similar acts. Source Link: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/arizona-man-sentenced-41-months-prison-felony-charge-jan-6-capitol-breach 184.90.232.74 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 20:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

His insurrectionist activity was a one time event, but he was already known for being an activist long before January 6th. As far as anyone else "being inspired to do similar acts", I think the conviction will sway them more than whether he is labeled an activist or insurrectionist on Wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

HE is an American TERRORIST, please correct this . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.176.27 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

He is NOT an American Activist. He is an American TERRORIST. Please change this at once.

Change all references of " American Activist " to "

American Terrorist "' 206.55.176.27 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)