Sources

Some sources to make the page:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/03/08/tucker_carlson_capitol_police_escorted_qanon_shaman_around_jan_6_committee_withheld_footage_from_attorneys.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.75.106 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources for this information? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How relevant or notable is, for example, him being a stay at home dad? Explicit efforts to "humanize" Chansley would seem to be showing interest in mitigating his criminal acts by portraying him as someone who wouldn't normal commit those acts ("but hes a good person"). This falls outside the purview of a wikipedia article. Petzl (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
There is no mention of "Angeli" on the BBC world news sections on the riot or his conviction. Where did "Angeli" come from? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59253090 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:5141:2FE9:8F86:5686 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Jake Angeli" at the bbc.co.uk website returns several articles. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Location

The inmate locator (BOP register # 24866-509) shows him currently at FCI Safford, could this be added to the article? 108.4.243.218 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added it, seems non-controversial. Not sure how to source it. Maybe someone else will comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy reference

The latest episode of Family Guy made a visual reference to this individual. I'm not clear if it should warrant a reference in the popular culture section or not, but passing it along. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 04:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have a reliable secondary source which draws conclusions, it's WP:OR and WP:UNDUE... Elizium23 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

How would he have a Dec 6 2023 release date from a 41-month prison sentence (= 3 years and 5 months)? Counting from Jan 21 3 years and 5 months later should be June 24. Dec 23 would be short before 3 years. --Blobstar (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New math…lol The release date must have factored in by working time off, or information given. Easeltine (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's even shortened to July 23. Where does that come from? --Blobstar (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The release date comes from the cited source ("Federal Prison Info - Safford FCI". Inmate Intake. Retrieved February 13, 2023.). We don't have a source for why it has changed, and we don't really need one in order to list the release date. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newly released video footage

I thought this might be useful for the article. Includes commentary from Fox News. It shows multiple police officers and multiple locations allowing him into different rooms.

What do others here think about including this in the article?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qajVw5rGk

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much more video footage. Skip to 17:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GITH8we-N3g
SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, after watching this, I don't think this wikipedia article does a very good job of explaining what this guy did to justify his multi-year prison sentence. I think the article needs to take this footage into account, and reexplain why he was sentenced to so long in prison.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the video on Carlson's report clearly shows police escorting him through the building, and even attempting to open doors for him. No one tries to impede his movements, which as Carlson points out, is unusual if his actions were illegal. He was unarmed and he passed through groups of half a dozen armed security/police, who actively move out of his way to let him through. Why does the article then claim he is "storming the capitol"?2604:3D09:C77:4E00:E866:521B:C19A:E46F (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Exactly. That's why I requested that the article be improved by taking this video footage into account. I really don't think the article does a good job of explaining what actually happened, what he actually did, or why he was sentenced to prison for so long. Thanks for your comment. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No article will contain any purported findings from selectively edited videos presented by Tucker Carlson unless they are fully corroborated by reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable sources" lied, again, just like they've lied about every other left-wing conspiracy theory - which is what the Jan. 6th "insurrection" is. Once again there is proof that it was propaganda. Will you guys fix it? 63.155.115.196 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't make interpretations based on footage, and we don't consider Tucker Carlson a reliable source. Until there are further developments reported on, I don't see what needs to change in this article. — Czello 12:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've all seen hours of footage of violence, in many places from many angles, but Carlson cherrypicks snippets of video to assert "The footage does not show an insurrection or a riot in progress. Taken as a whole, the video record does not support the claim that Jan. 6 was an insurrection. In fact, it demolishes that claim," calling them "sightseers." This is a delusional narrative. Are you aware that Fox News hosts and top executives recently acknowledged in private messages that they were lying to their viewers? I'm not confident that disclosure will chasten them; rather, I figure they're more likely to amp up their lying. Indeed, last night Carlson said, "In retrospect, it is clear the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of American democracy. Given the facts that have since emerged about that election, no honest person can deny it." In addition to being a total non sequitur from the video he was presenting, he's rekindling The Big Lie all over again. soibangla (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol your comment isn't removed for "soapboxing" or being off-topic yet a conservative one would be. Yeah I'm sure you've seen "hours of violence" and not snippets. "The Big Lie" is such an obvious term of propaganda yet it comes so easily from your mouth. 63.155.115.196 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
soibangla's comment wasn't removed because they're explaining why we don't accept Carlson as a reliable source. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing the topic - which is not what talk pages are for per WP:NOTAFORUM. — Czello 16:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This footage showing that the Police were his friends in this story of January 6th should be included in the article. It actually seems to indicate that Jake Angeli wanted to be thought of as a Martyr, to which the Justice System, and the Left-Wing Media sources, accommadated him by giving a longer Sentence than his activity deserved.Easeltine (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The police were not his friends, they did not "escort" him. They were following their riot training by passively standing off and watching him rather than get aggressive and exacerbate the riot. He was charged with multiple offenses and pleaded guilty, he gets out in four months. The media had nothing to do with it. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments everyone. The content that is in the article is reliably sourced, so he really did do what it says he did. I now realize that this newly released footage does not negate any of that. Still, it is interesting to see him getting along with the police. I won't be adding this to the article, but thanks for your comments everyone. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SquirrelHill,
Your brilliance is impressive. Are actually Attorney General Garland? Had to ask. Sincerely, Birkoff 71.38.148.252 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(The following is not just about Jake, but about basic principles.) Not all intruders were violent, yet they still broke the law by entering the Capitol in that situation. We forget that just because a person may lead an otherwise peaceful life, they still get punished for that one time they break the law. It is therefore not improper for the media to focus on that one event. People who seek fame and notoriety, as Jake did, get noticed more and have more influence. This just adds to the coverage and the poor effect of their influence. Now Jake is paying the price and will be released in four months. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does this comment mean, are you quoting something or responding with you opinion about something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a comment to provide context for the situation. Some imply that because Jake wasn't violent here, that he is somehow innocent of the crimes he confessed to committing. No, he did violate the law. (Fortunately for him, he gets out of prison in four months.) My point is that one should not read more into that footage than it warrants. It's only a partial glimpse from much more footage showing Jake and his actions. One should think of the whole situation, which Carlson didn't show. All the insurrectionists who entered the Capitol that day broke one or more laws. The next time you're behind someone who breaks the law to get into a building, don't follow them inside. That's all. Let's move on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seems you are discussing the event itself or the legal issues stemming from it, please focus on the content on this BLP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

Comment Would adding this be warranted? Any reformulations or alternatives are welcome:

In March 2023, selected video footage presented by Tucker Carlson on Fox News depicted Angeli walking through the Capitol building in the company of police officers who appeared to make no visible effort to stop him. Carlson, who was given exclusive access to the security footage by a top congressional Republican, characterized the officers as "tour guides" for Angeli and noted that none of the officers arrested him.[1] U.S. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger denounced Carlson's segment, calling the show "filled with offensive and misleading conclusions." Manger specifically took issue with Carlson's claim that Capitol Police officers acted as "tour guides" for Angeli. He maintained that Capitol Police officers were badly outnumbered and did their best to use de-escalation tactics to try to talk rioters into leaving the building.[2]
Angeli's attorney claimed to have no prior knowledge of the footage and contended that the government is obligated to present all evidence, even exculpatory evidence, and that this duty is absolute rather than discretionary. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether the footage can be used during court proceedings.[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooonswimmer (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mooonswimmer added this. Please sign your comments. I have created a sub-section to format as a proposal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missing sig added. It looks okay to me. It can always be tweaked by others, and that's what usually happens, which is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thx, i went ahead and added it as didnt seem to be objected to here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 'Arrest and criminal proceedings' is the best sub-section to add it under though. Mooonswimmer 01:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It would be better as the second paragraph in the "Participation in the 2021 Capitol attack" section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the move. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Fox News host Tucker Carlson not credible, says White House". BBC News. 2023-03-08. Retrieved 2023-03-09.
  2. ^ Jackman, Tom. "Capitol Police chief blasts Tucker Carlson over 'misleading' Jan. 6 footage". The Washington Post.
  3. ^ Polantz, Hannah Rabinowitz,Katelyn (2023-03-09). "Tucker Carlson's airing of security footage spills into January 6 criminal court cases | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-03-09.((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

birthplace

His Early Life sections seems to be missing a lot of information, like where he was born and who his father was, also family background. Leasnam (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any WP:BLP-good sources for content on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob chansley

Correct your information people. Watch the new video footage that has been released 2602:4C:612:7D00:1488:3CC9:2D9C:B093 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A print source is probably better to use for something like the full name than video footage. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already note his given name in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 March 2023

Jake Angeli → Jacob Chansley – WP:UCN. The so-called QAnon Shaman has been referred to as "Jacob Chansley" in court documents. Most press coverage since 2022 has referred to him as "Jacob Chansley". The Hill Reuters NBC News Schierbecker (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories