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)

Keep

Look, in the end of the day the truth is we don't know wheather the guy will become important or not. What we do know is that there is strong interest in learning about him, and that accurate information MIGHT become important (specially in combating fake news). A general article about the invasion is not the same, and won't attract as much attention about the subject as a specific article. It very well might be the case that he becomes just another guy using his 15 minutes of fame, but we live in a world in which the star from a b-listed reality show became the President. It is too soon to tell if he will actually become important. That said, there is literally nothing to loose by keeping the article. Really, think from a game theory point of view: the best way of maximising our minimum is by keeping the article. Worst case scenario, it will simply be one more unimportant article on the wikipedia. But if we delete the article, and he actually becomes important, we will loose the opportunity of informing people about the guy preciselly in the moment that people are googling him and he is growing in popularity.