Talk:Justice for J6 rally

Title
No opposition from me (as article creator) if editors prefer Justice for J6 as the page title. Feel free to move. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

result
It is way too early to say what the results is (and do we even need this for a demo). However increased security is not a result, it's a reaction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also is the civil conflict infobox even right for a peaceful demo?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This infobox is the norm for protests. It's used in practically all protest articles. Documentation says . Results is one of the most often included parameters. Everything has some kind of a result. I don't have many thoughts on the removal of results for now. In the future they can be added. I believe that the sources agree that the result is a general failure of the protest, because very few people showed up. This is what I had added, and it was removed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but I am still unsure how you determine the result for a demo like this. I do not think it should be "not a lot of people turned up".Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Going by sources mostly -- Guardian says "As a protest, it was a flop." ... admittedly, this source had not yet been included in the article. I find it natural to say that an organized event such as a scheduled demonstration can be a success or failure. When you show up in measly numbers and are outnumbered by journalists and barely visible in the photos, the message was not gotten across. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure that is true, as they clearly did get coverage. Now if they had been ignored....that would have been a failure. In fact if anything it got far more coverage than it deserved, and so, in fact (and in that sense), was a success.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole point of a protest is to say "we exist, we're here, we can't be deterred, and our opinion can't be ignored". In protests, you present yourself as a section of a larger population. This is what propels the message forward. And when you fail to accomplish that and appear to be at the absolute societal margin, basically a group of eccentrics, the message has not gone forward, it stuck in place. This is why Guardian calls it a flop. A failure to stage organized dissent to get the message across and make it appear relevant. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We are going round in circles, time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the Guardian not a reliable source? They call it a flop and the small number of attendees - an unmistakable sign of trumpism's decline - speaks for itself. This coverage sounds appropriate. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are aware that he told people to stay away?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds familiar. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While the Guardian is a reliable source, we don't report the opinions of its writers (in this case Chris McGreal) as fact. For those who are unaware, UK newspapers unlike those in the U.S., include a lot of partisan opinion in their articles. Historically, the Guardian is a Liberal paper, the Times, Telegraph (sometimes called the Torygraph), the Daily Mail and the Sun are Conservative and the Mirror is Labour. Furthermore, we don't know why the organizer applied for a permit for approximately 700 people. It could have been caution, in case attendance greatly exceeded expectations. Or he might have intended to overstate attendance, which is pretty common for demonstrations. TFD (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Calling the rally a pro-Trump rally in the opening description is extremely inaccurate. The rally was neither about or supported by President Trump (he even said that it was a "setup" with the media), but rather for the prisoners in Washington, D.C. From the official Look Ahead America website, it explicitly states in writing (and in the embedded video by Matt Braynard from 2:24-3:15): "Do not wear or bring political, candidate, or another organization’s paraphernalia. This includes clothing or banners supportive of President Trump or President Biden." https://lookaheadamerica.org/rally/ Braynard stated this much in various interviews as well stating it is “100% about #JusticeforJ6 and not the election or any candidate.” https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/572268-sept-18-rally-organizer-asks-attendees-not-to-wear-pro-trump Additionally, the first of the 2 articles cited does not support this claim as it does not state it was by or for Trump supporters, and the second one makes an inference based on Braynard's political affiliation (genetic fallacy) but ignored the fact that Trump discouraged attendance.

Curious, if Trump and right-wing figures, and far-right groups discouraged the rally, then why is this being called a right wing rally? Braynard made clear that it was about the prisoners and not about political parties or candidates. — Preceding unsigned 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Axios clearly confirms that the group is non-partisan: LAA is officially a nonpartisan charity and can legally engage in voter registration activities as long as they're not geared toward benefitting a specific candidate or party. https://www.axios.com/arizona-senate-candidate-millions-voter-registration-723dc7ae-5d17-486f-b037-60925684b066.html

Likewise they have IRS 501c3 standing, which confirms it. What is the source of "right wing" outside of opinion pieces? — Preceding 13:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * NO it does not say they are it seems to say they claim they are "ostensibly nonpartisan". And no we do not use opp-edds for they claim right wing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does the IRS 501c3 say they are non partisan? Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations 14:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that the article confirms "LAA is officially a nonpartisan charity and can legally engage in voter registration activities as long as they're not geared toward benefitting a specific candidate or party." Even the use of "obstensibly" (which is opinion masquerading as fact) doesn't diminish the fact that the group is nonpartisan.
 * First off, that does not say nonpartisan it says they can't "organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office", Nonpartisan means they are not biased or partisan, especially towards a particular political group. The tax code only covers candidates, not positions or affiliations. Secondly are they still on that list, as their tax status may have been revoked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The tax status was retroactively approved as of December 10, 2021. https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/dl/FinalLetter_82-1645970_LOOKAHEADAMERICAINC_03212021_00.tif
 * Fair enough, but it still does not mean they are nonpartisan, it means that they cannot directly specific candidates (and that is not what nonpartisan means). They can still have an ideology (and indeed have started they will support candidates who support certain positions). By the way, " nonpartisan" has no specific legal definition. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then this is admittedly an opinion being used as a criteria.
 * Look at the descriptions for clearly left-leaning organizations marked "nonpartisan". There are many more similar examples:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zendaya "In September 2020, she encouraged her fans with Michelle Obama, and her "When We All Vote" nonpartisan organization, to check their voter registration ahead of elections." [When We All Vote organization)
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Millionaires "Patriotic Millionaires is a nonpartisan organization of Americans with high net worth who promote the restructuring of the American tax system so that wealthy people pay a greater share of their income in taxes. Patriotic Millionaires was founded in 2010 by Erica Payne to advocate for expiration of the Bush tax cuts." [Supported and mobilized by President Obama]
 * Also, not sure where one gets the idea that "nonpartisan has no specific legal definition" -https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=7d27c01483db9c2125fd1d0162fadff2&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:5:Chapter:I:Subchapter:B:Part:734:Subpart:D:734.403
 * Additionally, Wikipedia explains nonpartisanism further in the USA:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisanism_in_the_United_States#Investigations_into_partisan_activities
 * '''501(c)(3) is a classification for organizations operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
 * Among the prohibitions, 501(c)(3) organizations may not become involved in political campaigns by "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." They may not contribute to campaign funds or make public statements in support of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.'''
 * However, such organizations may present public forums, publish voter education guides, and conduct certain other political activities that the Internal Revenue Service classifies as "non-partisan". They may also conduct activities "intended to encourage people to participate" in elections, such as voter registration, training programs, issue briefings, and "get out the vote" drives, if done without bias that would favor one or more candidates over others, or that would oppose candidates. When making public political statements they are required to concentrate on the broader issues, and not make comparisons between candidates. Public forums and other activities are also subject to a number of rules, such as a requirement to invite all viable candidates. Public charities (but not private foundations) may conduct some lobbying activities to influence legislation, if the lobbying activity is not a "substantial part" of its overall activities.
 * Organizations that violate the IRS rules may have their tax-exempt status revoked or denied, and may face penalties. In addition, concealing or misreporting prohibited activities may, depending on the circumstances, be a crime on the part of the individuals or organizations involved.
 * Other stuff is not a valid argument. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes
I see you reverted some recent changes by an editor, who has made additional changes to the page. Do you have time/interest to take another look to see if they should be kept or reverted? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the lead has seen better days. If that's something to go by... Either way, I'm not sure if I have the mental stamina to deal with this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like a rather better reason than who did it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I wasn't advocating for reverting or keeping, I just noticed you had reverted some prior edits so I wanted to bring more changes to your attention. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Justice For J6
In Spring 2021, I surmised that "January 6th" was too clunky for people to discuss easily, and began marketing the term "J6" through public engagement on Twitter. In May 2021, I launched JusticForJ6.com, which is where Matt Braynard got the name for the rally. I received no credit for my work whatsoever, nor any acknowledgement. I had also put forth the shorthand "J4J6" which stands for "Justice For January Six," which is the long-form. Matt Braynard was well aware of my work as we shared the same network of colleagues, namely John Pierce, Michelle Witthoeft, Cara Castronuova, David Sumrall, and Tayler Hansen, and I had communicated with his assistant at LAA, Kimmie Gonzalez. After the rally, Braynard would DM me "thank you for your support," as if I had just been a fan of his work. LAA is absolutely who organized this individual rally, however they are not the progenitors of the "Justice For J6" IP, nor did they catalyze the online movement through public engagement. I wore my fingers to the bone typing to individual people all day every day for many months in order to create branded language we could use to communicate more easily with the public about the topic. I have numerous pieces of documentation to support my claims and I am happy to share them. JusticeForJ6 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @JusticeForJ6 You are welcome to, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is tertiary. Even if an editor discovered, say, a massive corruption scandal, or a new chemical element, Wikipedia would not be the place to post novel information. That would be the job of the press.  Bremps  ...  00:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And also, you aren't allowed to have a promotional username on Wikipedia.  Bremps  ...  00:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)