Talk:Jacob Chansley/Archive 3

Perhaps this should be merged into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
I am not going to formally propose that this article be merged into Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, . 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)

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.   Mel ma nn   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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Googling "Jake Angeli" at the bbc.co.uk website returns several articles. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2023 (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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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


 * The release date comes from the cited source . 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)

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)


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

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)


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

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * This release was subject of widespread coverage. I see it picked up by secondary source WP:NEWSWEEK here. RSP says "Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable." I see it was also picked up by WP:NYPOST. BBC also picks it up here and that would be an RS for text that says "[Angeli] was videoed wandering around the Capitol building trailed by police officers who show no signs, at least in the clips broadcast, of attempting to stop or arrest him." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(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)
 * What does this comment mean, are you quoting something or responding with you opinion about something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. 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.
 * 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooonswimmer (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * thx, i went ahead and added it as didnt seem to be objected to here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I made the move.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk</b> 01:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * We already note his given name in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2023
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. clear consensus to move (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

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) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * This is a remarkably quiet move discussion. I support the proposal for the reasons stated above. I'd also point out some earlier support further up this page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a case where a descriptive name probably would be more recognizable than either his legal name or pseudonymn (I'm not proposing moving it there, to be clear). Yes, weakly support move to the legal name that appears to be more frequently used in recent sources. VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Angeli is his second middle name, I never see him described as Angeli except in the context of an aka. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Jacob Chansley is the name used all over the news and the internet, so changing the name from Jake Angeli to Jacob Chansley on here makes sense. Froggly26rk (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: how does he refer to himself? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Still in custody of BOP facility
Article shows he is out of custody, but Bureau of Prisons records state Chansley's current location as RRM Phoenix, a federal residential reentry facility operated by the BOP with release date of May 25, 2023. The article cited cites the mother who may know understand the difference that he is still in federal custody since he is technically 'not in prison.' I think his status should be changed to In Custody, RRM Phoenix. His expected release date from custody is still May 25, 2023. Additional cites: cite 1 cite 2 Cite 3. Since this article has several maintaining editors, I'll just drop this here and let you all decide how to proceed. Cheers. P37307 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this paragraph accurate as stated?
"On November 17, Chansley was sentenced to 41 months in prison. He served his sentence at Federal Correctional Institution - Safford in Safford, Arizona, with an original release date of May 25, 2023. On March 30, 2023, attorney Albert Watkins announced Chansley had just been released from prison 14 months early and moved to a halfway house." This statement seems inaccurate to me, as it states Chansley was released from prison 14 months early, yet it lists the original release date as May 25, 2023, and his release date as March 30, 2023. That totals to less than two months, not the 14 months mentioned. Is there information here that may be missing? Or is this a typographical error? Thanks. Xanderson 08:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderson (talk • contribs)

The 41 months count from Jan 21, including the time he was already in custody before the sentence from Nov 21. A release in Mar 23 makes 27 months from Jan 21, which is 14 earlier than 41. --Blobstar (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your reply. I'm still not quite clear, though. Nov. 21, 2021 to March 23, 2023 is 28 months. Sorry if I seem picky, I just want to understand this and make sure it's accurate. If the custody date is Nov. 21, then shouldn't the original release date be 41 months after that, thus it would be April 21, 2024? This is where I'm confused. Thanks for your insights. Xanderson 07:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Xanderson 07:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderson (talk • contribs)
 * Because he was in pre-trial custody since Jan 9, 2021 you need to count from Jan 21, not Nov 21. January 2021 plus 3y5m (41m) would be May 2024. January 2021 to March 2023 was 27 months. That's why when he was released from prison in March 23, they said he was released after 27 months, 14 months earlier than the original 41. --Blobstar (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)