A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 6, 2021.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Politics: American B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Sociology: Social Movements B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Government / History B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). U.S. Congress B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Events(s).

Template:Vital article

	Other talk page banners

This post needs to be fact checked according to newly released January 6 video on Tucker Carlson Tonight aired March 6, 2023.the There is a lot of disinformation in your article that needs to be corrected/updated as soon as possible. 69.14.41.220 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When reliable sources report on the video, it will be reflected in the article. Tucker Carlson himself is not a reliable source. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if the Washington Post reports on the exact same video, then the video can be referenced on Wikipedia. But because Tucker Carlson is the one reporting on the video, it can't be used. Noctis83 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an accurate description per Wikipedia policies. Feel free to have a look at the sourcing policy and/or the list of perennially discussed sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video is the source. Please keep this in mind. Brentleyland (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video is a primary source, which is subject to manipulation, as we saw on Tucker's show. This is why we need reliable secondary coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the video released by Tucker did show that the video released by the J6 committee turned out to be manipulated as well. Matt Smith (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as the committee didn't show footage where nothing was happening? I suppose that's a form of manipulation, but reliable sources have weighed in on the committee footage in ways they have not regarding Mr. Carlson's. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the J6 committee only released video which can depict Trump supporters as dangerous rioters and invaders, and they did not release video which show that Trump supporters who entered the Capitol were largely peaceful and some of them were even guided/leaded by the Capitol police to a certain places.

As for the "reliable sources" you mentioned, do they have apparent political bias towards Trump and his allies? Matt Smith (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's more reliable than you, the lying democrats and wikipedia 63.79.131.80 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Epoch Times, a highly credible source, has seriously questioned the mainstream media's (MSM) and Big Tech's false, Left-biased [just like Wikipedia has degenerated into; it's no longer neutral at ALL as one can clearly see since Wikipedia constantly takes the Leftist line on anything related to the proven (e.g., watch the honest, accurate, evidence-based, fair, and balanced documentary, "2000 Mules") criminally-stolen 11/3/2020 election] narrative on J6 as an "insurrection." Clearly, as we can ALL see for ourselves, it was NOT an insurrection. It was, at most, a riot of a tiny, tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of MAGA Americans there peacefully protesting (which IS THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT) the criminally-stolen 11/3/2020 election, and this riot was largely fomented by criminal Antifa members (as we KNOW from their prior social media posts) and law-breaking federal agent, Ray Epps. Meanwhile, hundreds of innocent Americans have been and are illegally held in horrible prisons in the D.C. area, in complete and despicable violation of their Amendment V, VI, VIII, and IX rights by the law-breaking (i.e., she made numerous false statements to law enforcement and the American people on purpose to very wrongfully and illegally deny the Constitutional and civil rights of these falsely-imprisoned people), should-be-prosecuted, Nancy Pelosi, and all those who illegally aided and abetted her in her crimes. The J6 "prisoners" deserve a fair, speedy, and public trial, as they ALL have a LEGAL right to under Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution, but they are being illegally denied this. Those stealing their Constitutional and civil rights need to be arrested, prosecuted, tried, and held fully accountable for their deliberate, serious, and repeated violations of the law, including the U.S. Constitution. Also, Ray Epps admitted to and bragged about fomenting many aspects of the J6 riot, and there is video, audio, text, and other documentary EVIDENCE AND PROOF of this. Despite Mr. Epps' later false claims to the sham, Left-biased, Democrat-stacked, lying-MSM-and-Big-Tech-pandering-to, partisan, completely-non-credible, lying "UNselect J6 subcommittee" [OF and FOR LIARS] that he was kidding, his actual ACTIONS (which speak louder than his false, later, self-serving words/lies) PROVE he was very much responsible for inciting many aspects of the riot, and he needs to also be prosecuted, brought to justice, and held fully accountable for his many crimes, lies, and false official statements. Lover of Truth and Honesty (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Epoch Times is not a credible source. Per WP:EPOCHTIMES: The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact. Everything else you've written is nonsense. Ray Epps was never a federal agent. He's one of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is one of Carlson's favorite misinformation/conspiracy theory topics. If it's from him, you can't trust it. He's doing this to please Trump's deluded followers. "Video that Carlson didn’t air shows police and rioters engaged in hours of violent combat that resulted in the injury of hundreds of police officers." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:18, 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. Should we presume you have not heard of the recent Dominion court filing? Fox News hasn't reported on it, after all, but the rest of the world has. soibangla (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This narrative is now blowing up in everyone's faces and rightly so. The selectively edited videos were those presented at the predetermined conclusion ("Trump should be barred from running for President again b/c Russia Collusion fell flat etc. and we couldn't remove him") committee. Carlson is presenting footage withheld from the public. This was an affront to the common sense of the public. Thought Trump asked for the National Guard to be present and Nancy refused. Gee I wonder why?--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were over 40,000 hours of video. Over the last two nights, Carlson has presented about five minutes of it. With 40,000 hours, it's not particularly difficult to cherrypick five minutes to manufacture a false narrative, including segments of lone rioters briefly looking at stuff in empty hallways to depict them as peaceful sightseers, and police supposedly "escorting" Jake Angeli when they're actually using the de-escalation methods they've been trained in to avoid exacerbating a riot in which they are outnumbered. They knew he was on camera, they knew he would be quickly identified and apprehended, so just let him do whatever he wants instead of risking, say, getting smashed in the head with a fire extinguisher. Most of this footage surely entails security video from likely hundreds of cameras spread across the vast Capitol complex and has no investigative value, so publicly releasing it is of no value to the public (except perhaps to those who want to surveil the entire Capitol for a future incursion). There's still lots of video publicly available that clearly shows what happened. But if people want to watch hour after hour of empty spaces, have at it. You are repeating a zombie myth that Trump called in the Guard but Pelosi blocked it. The truth is that days earlier Trump talked to aides about deploying the Guard, but did not do it, and his interest was not to protect the Capitol, but to protect his supporters from any counterattack by the ubiquitous antifa, and while he sat in the White House watching the event unfold on TV, Pelosi and Hoyer were calling the Pentagon and the governors of Virginia and Maryland asking them to deploy the Guard. It was captured on video, it's not hard to find with a minute of googling. If This narrative is now blowing up in everyone's faces and rightly so, it's Tucker's face people should be looking at. His little stunt was farcically amateurish. soibangla (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox and Carlson have admitted to lying, why should we believe them when they have edited down 40,000 to 5? I could take one of the above comments and edit it down to say " This post needs to be fact checked according to newly released January 6 video on Tucker Carlson Tonight aired March 6, 2023. There is a lot of information in your article". See how east it is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we should believe the originally scaled down 40,000 hours to the ludicrously miniscule X% released to the media initially? (This of course negating the original material released?) That initially released material was, I am sure, not cherry picked to skew a narrative? And after four years of incessant - ultimately disproven - theories imposed to the public with the intent of "impeach/remove/smear/discredit the b-word" Trump? Some people can see their hands in front of their faces. Why does The Boy Who Cried Wolf come to mind when expecting to believe a discredited side? Anyhow, I am staying away from politics.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What ultimately disproven theories? It was an attack. Members of the Oath Keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy.[1] The Proud Boys trial is ongoing. We can't help it if you don't accept the reality in front of your face, to borrow your expression. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When exactly have Fox and Carlson "admitted to lying"? The J6 committee edited down 40,000 hours to X, too. By the same logic, are we going to say the J6 committee lied and is not to be believed? Matt Smith (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News host Tucker Carlson tells interviewer: ‘I lie’, The Guardian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I call a misleading, taken-out-of-context heading, and I'm not surprised it's from The Guardian. Carlson was describing to the interviewer dire situations in which he is really cornered or something. He did not say he would lie on his talk shows or in everyday life. Also, that news was published 1.5 year ago and was not about the J6 video footage we're talking about. Fox and Carlson have never "admitted to lying" about the J6 video footage. Matt Smith (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is our community consensus to reject Fox News talk show as our reliable source, You are free to fork your own encyclopedia to spread your own truth though. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to sidetrack. We are not arguing whether Fox News talk show is reliable. Instead, we are checking someone's claim about Fox and Carlson "have admitted to lying" is true or false. Matt Smith (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted to lying, on the air, to their viewers? Well of course not, Fox is being sued for $4 billion, they're not about to confess and destroy their entire business model. But have you compared what they said in private messages to what they said on air? The messages show they knew they were lying. soibangla (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox new and Carlson admit lying

[[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]] Do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not need any more unhelpful or noncrucial articles like those.

The first source, The Independent one, is just another example of using misleading, taken-out-of-context heading like I described above.

The second source is, in my opinion, a typical criticism made by a left-wing outlet against a right-wing rival. We can also see that type of criticism made by a right-wing outlet against a left-wing rival. Anyway, the source was published in 2020 and did not say Fox News and Carlson admit lying. Please avoid exaggerating.

The third and the fourth sources are old news which reported the same Carlson's interview, although their headings provided context and are better than The Guardian and The Independent's.

All the four sources did not say Fox News admits lying or admits Carlson lies. As for Carlson's remarks in the old interview, I already explained enough above. Please desist from taking a sentence out of its context. Matt Smith (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK More then [[6]] [[7]] [[8]], want some more? We can keep on finding RS that says fox and Carlson have admitted to lying all day long. The simple fact is they are not reliable enough to be used to say anything about Jan 6th. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, there is no need to continue debating on Carlson's credibility. Matt Smith is a veteran editor on Chinese Wikipedia. He is fully aware of how Wikipedia's RS policy works, so this "Carlson doesn't admit he lies about J6" argument is a deliberate abuse of article talk page. This discussion should be closed immediately, unless we have better source on this story. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a deliberate abuse of article talk page"? I ask you not to denigrate an editor's reputation like that again. Matt Smith (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with a users conduct take it here wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release of 40,000 hours of capital security footage early in 2023 establish that this event was an "occupation" or a "trespass" or an "illegal protest", but certainly not an "attack". WmDKing (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cops who were beaten would disagree. Also please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson is not a reliable source. Once it is published and reviewed by reliable sources, it may be worth reconsidering, but common consensus is that it was an attack.

Couruu (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those 40,000 house of capital security footage mean nothing until reliable sources evaluate it and come to a conclusion. --Jayron32 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title with attack is the current consensus after 18 move requests. If one wishes to change it one can request a move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely full of false narratives that is biased towards one side. 74.36.63.55 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, biased towards what RS say, and the reality of people smashing down doors. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32 "facts don't exist unless the new york times say they do"

-wikipedia policy 87.1.18.129 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just the NYT. Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations,

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3800:583B:5523:977C:B620:CBE0 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.

But later they found sufficient evidence to prosecute Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy, and secure convictions for the former, while the PB trial is ongoing. soibangla (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the attack was premeditated, it was an attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a specific opinion either way about whether the Carlson footage is mentioned in the article, but it doesn't feel to me like it's worth mentioning in the summary of the article. Arkadios 200 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, is it a major part of our article? Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a major part of this at all. It could merit a mention in a subsection somewhere, or Tucker's page maybe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a major part of the events or the analysis thereof. Arkadios 200 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, an editor placed the following in the lead, which I also don't believe warrants a mention, and have no idea where it belongs in this article. So, it would be nice to see what others think. -Teammm ^talk? 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"On March 6, 2023, Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired exclusive footage of Jacob Chansley being escorted by capitol police officers during the riot. He also aired footage of officer Brian Sicknick walking and guiding Trump supporters out of the building as he wore a helmet, contradicting a popular narrative that he died of a head injury.^[1] These footages caused huge controversies. GOP Senators denounced the alternative view of the attack presented by Tucker Carlson as "mostly peaceful chaos".^[2] Ben Shapiro from Daily Wire said "the video raised questions about the way the riots have been portrayed in the media" on his podcast.^[3]"

Proposed edit is unsuitable for the article body due to use of WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS and unreliable Daily Wire. I wouldn't be opposed to a version of this existing somewhere in the article body that was sourced to RSs and used Wikivoice more cautiously. VQuakr (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not following Wikipedia's objective tone. BTW, "he wore a helmet, contradicting a popular narrative that he died of a head injury" doesn't make any sense. Does it mean you cannot die of head injuries with a helmet?!? I haven't done any research into the officer's death, but I do know that you can most assuredly die due to head injuries, even if you wore a helmet. Imagine a world with no motorcycle deaths, no falling deaths, no beating deaths, no any kind of head-impact deaths just because of the almighty helmet. That'd be nice! It's like wearing a seat-belt when hit by a train at high speed: yeeess... it might help a tad... but not as much as you'd hope. To be clear, helmets are invaluable help when protecting the head, generally speaking, and I urge everybody to wear them whenever appropriate, but they do have limits.WikiUser70176 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of the lede is a summary of our article, so unless this takes up a significant part of our article it should not be in the lede. Secondly, it is far from Neutral, as these would need to not be stated in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]