Talk:Jacob Chansley/Archive 2

Far-right
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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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 . 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. thank you for providing sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 27 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. ~ HAL  333  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 &#124; 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

@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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)


 * 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. 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)
 * 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)


 * 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
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/media/2021/01/31/snl-cold-open-what-still-works/4325970001/


 * "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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * X mark.svg Not done 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)

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)
 * The source says he "was at one point looking for acting work". That does not make him an actor. —&hairsp;BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On the off chance you are monitoring this talk page, concerns with your editing have been raised at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents 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)

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)
 * , 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)

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 : diff. Pinging 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)