Talk:Ray Epps (military veteran)

Recent reverts, tone

An IP editor added material to the lead that wasn't included elsewhere. In some ways it hints towards perpetuating what the article and reliable sources describes as the conspiracy theory. The tone of the sentence "Despite..." seems like a WP:POV and unencyclopaedic tone.

Initially I moved the content down, edited for brevity and tone.

The IP editor has since reintroduced the same content.

Seeking consensus here. CT55555(talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a notification to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about this disagreement. CT55555(talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Why does the article lead out with stories of his past career? He gained notoriety for one thing. Madonna's page, for example, doesn't start out with "Madonna is a former employee at Dunkin' Donuts etc" -- she gained notoriety for her career in entertainment just as Ray Epps gained notoriety for his involvement in the protests leading up to Jan. 6. That's why people are seeking information about him. I can, perhaps, see why information about his military time etc would be included in a subsection, but to start out with it doesn't appear to be consistent with other entries on Wikipedia. So, I think the following is more appropriate:

For the basketball player, see Ray Epps.

James Ray Epps (born 1961 or 1962) is a former Oath Keepers chapter president who gained notoriety due to his involvement in the protests leading up to the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

Furthermore, there's vague assertions about conspiracy theories but no explanation as to where those theories come from - I substantiated my post with credible, main stream sources and added this, but it was reverted:

"Despite his participation in the events, which included Epps being recorded on camera encouraging protestors to enter the Capitol the day prior to the insurrection, no charges were filed against Epps. The reluctance of the FBI to prosecute Epps led speculation amongst some in the public, including suggestions of collusion between Epps and the FBI, or conspiracy. In July 2023, Epps started litigation against Fox News, who he accused of sharing "conspiracy theories" about him being an agent provocateur during the attack on the U.S. Capitol."

It's normal to mention someone's career in the opening line. Military work and wedding planning is this guys primary career and both are relevant to his notability. Madonna's part time jobs in early years are not.

I think more context on why there is a conspiracy theory is a good thing. But when you frame it "Despite..." it suggests it's unexpected that he was not charged. But there were thousands of participants and most were not charged, so not only does it imply it's unexpected, I think it's the opposite: to be expected, that most participants did not get charged. Additionally, adding content in the lead that is not in the main body of the article is against MOS:LEAD which is why that edit was edited. CT55555(talk) 23:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about if I change "despite" to "though he participated in the events" and left everything else the same? 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CT55555. The details added by the IP don't belong in the lead. And the wording (whether "despite" or "though he participated") grants more credence to the conspiracy theorists than to the sources which clearly label it "unsupported". Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The focus is on remaining factual, consistent to other entries, and as neutral as possible - not trying to control what a conspiracy theorist may or may not draw from it. I feel like my entry does that, but the issue seems to be with the word "despite" and you're saying the word "though" -- Is there another word you would choose to convey his participation in that sentence? 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You suggested "though" as a replacement for "despite". My contention is that it doesn't matter which of those words are used, the whole edit is arguing the conspiracy theorists' case in wikivoice. I'm also saying it's excessive detail for the lead and doesn't belong there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Myself and CT5555 agree that adding more context on why there is a conspiracy theory is a good thing. It's important to not let too much bias influence the direction one way or the other. Furthermore, I hear your issue with the lead and I will be happy to move it to the main body, but I want to agree on a description word that best accurately summarizes his participation rather than "despite" or "though" and am asking you for your recommendation. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you could add something along the lines of "He was falsely accused of....". I think you need to avoid any words or implication that his lack of arrest is unexpected or that the conspiracy theory is a logical conclusion of events.

And while I agree more context is useful, I see the more important priority here is to not perpetuate the conspiracy and to comply with WP:BLP guidelines.

So I'm open to improvements and of course you are free to suggest something here. CT55555(talk) 11:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would you add "falsely accused of"? He was recorded from several angles inciting the breach at the capitol. "Despite his participation in the events, which included Epps being recorded on camera encouraging protestors to enter the Capitol the day prior to the insurrection, no charges were filed against Epps" is the only correct statement in this case. 38.69.158.158 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Update, Washington Post published a helpful piece that allowed me to explain the conspiracy theory. I hope these edits satisfy you. Feedback is, of course, welcome. CT55555(talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. We need to protect him and make sure everyone knows he is NOT a federal agent. 47.4.30.23 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, in regard to his career, I used Madonna and Jacob Chansley (Q Anon Shaman) as my two references to try to draw my conclusion. In Jacob Chanley's, there's also no mention of his past job, just the thing that brought him to notoriety. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at Jacob Chansley's again and he too is a veteran but, again, the article doesn't lead with that. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with the IP user that the above lede would provide a better description for Epps. Personally, before this article I never knew he was a military vet or wedding venue host. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with the opening line as: "James Ray Epps (born 1961 or 1962) is a former Oath Keepers chapter president who gained notoriety due to his involvement in the protests leading up to the January 6 United States Capitol attack." I'm neutral to supportive of someone making that change and might make it myself, but will wait a little for more opinions.

I'm confused about the relevance of your personal awareness of things before you read about them. CT55555(talk) 17:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Likely not notable still.

Whether viewing from the perspective of WP:CRIME or WP:SINGLEEVENT, Ray Epps is not likely notable. This article's information should likely be folded into January 6 United States Capitol attack or another related page and this page deleted. 73.115.150.77 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable for more than one event: Protesting (2021), conspiracy theories that followed (2022-2023), legal action that followed (2023).

WP:BLP1E is the relevant guideline and it has three criteria and I'd say that clearly two out of the three are not met. He's doing media interviews, so is hardly a low profile individual. CT55555(talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Those are all tied to the one 2021 event, though. If we count public conspiracies and legal action as separate events, I'm not sure how anyone could meet BLP1E. And I've argued it elsewhere before, but I hate our lack of formal definition for "low profile". Publicly denying conspiracy theories that blame him for an insurrection isn't an attempt to build up a public profile, if that term is to mean anything. DFlhb (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:LOWPROFILE is a helpful explanatory essay about who is low profile, and it does support my point. Of course, it's not a policy or guidance, but it is often quoted as WP:AFD where notability tends to be established. CT55555(talk) 01:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I know that essay; it's part of what I was referring to. :) DFlhb (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WP:CRIME relevance here. He was briefly a suspect, but the article makes clear that no charges were brought. I therefore I don't think anything in the article suggests he is either the perpetrator or the victim of a crime, the legal issues in the article (litigation against Fox News) seem entirely civil in nature.

I've also added in 2021 and 2022 reporting just to absolutely remove doubt about WP:GNG criteria being met. CT55555(talk) 18:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy of dates

This article/biography of Ray Epps (military veteran) currently has a serious error in date of event used. The US Presidential Election was held Nov 2020, so Mr. Epps was speaking in Wash DC on Jan 5th 2021, the day prior to the infamous Jan 6th (2021) riot on Capitol Hill. The current version says he spoke on Jan 5, 2023---it should be corrected. Other dates should be cross checked for accuracy by editor.

Unsigned comments above by Special:Contributions/99.184.195.180

Thanks for mentioning this. I've corrected "2023" to "2021" CT55555(talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life

It should say that Epps claims to have voted for Trump, not that he did. There is no way of verifying which way he voted. 2602:FE43:1:1686:BC85:E621:43BA:F886 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)