Talk:Sedition Caucus

"Is a term for"

We don't use "X is a term for Y" because of WP:REFERS. We describe how it actually relates to the topic, directly without beating around the bush. Elizium23 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for linking me that. However, I'm somewhat worried that the way it's written, people will interpret the Sedition Caucus as a legitimate group endorsed by WP:WIKIVOICE, rather than a political buzzword. As such, I used an introductory sentence similar to the one at The Squad (United States Congress). Still, if it's against WP policy to write it that way, I'll change it with no issues, though I'd like to come to another way to make this point clear. Any input is appreciated. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFERS says that the reason why "x is a term for y" is inappropriate is because the article is about x, not usage of the term "x". However, the article about the Congress members who voted to stop the electoral college vote count is ​2021 United States Electoral College vote count. This article is about those Congress members being referred to as the sedition caucus. What's different between this article and the one for the squad is that this one's section titles are "Background", Use of the term", and "In other legislators" The Squad article's sections are "Name", "History", and "membership". Clearly, this article is about the term "sedition caucus" more so with the caucus itself.

Had this article been about the actual representatives and not the term, I would have supported deletion on account that a caucus that is "not an actual organized group" with membership based on a single rubber-stamp vote is not notable, and that the title makes the page an Attack page. But since the page is about the fact that other people refer to the objection supporters as the "sedition caucus", the purpose of the page is to describe the accusations of sedition, not accuse the members of sedition. while this article could use improvement in the NPOV department, an article about an accusation is not an attack page.

Speaking of NPOV, "Sedition Caucus ... is a term for Republican members..." is more neutral than "Sedition Caucus ... consists of Republican members..." They don't identify as the "Sedition Caucus"; it is only a name people use to attack them politically. Wikipedia agreeing that there is a sedition caucus is also partaking in the accusation. While current consensus is that calling conspiracy theories baseless does not violate NPOV if reliable sources call them baseless, which has led Wikipedia to side with the democrats on whether the 2021 election was stolen, per BLPPUBLIC we should say that the congress members are accused of being a sedition caucus, not that they are one.

Yes, "X is a term for Y" should not normally be used. However, this is a case where WP:REFERS contradicts WP:BLPPUBLIC. Thus, this is an uncommon situation in which we must choose which rule to ignore. Ignoring BLP-Public results in the lead accusing people of sedition, while ignoring REFERS results in the lead accuratly prefacing the article as one about the term, not about the caucus. My stance is that ignoring REFERS would make Wikipedia better. Caleb M1 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree fully with the above. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I also agree. Wikipedia is commonly perceived as being liberal-biased and stating that the term is in fact pejorative so far back in the article only furthers this. Beaneater (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New section recently removed due to NYP ref?

Hi @AllegedlyHuman:,

The section that was recently removed, appeared to have been removed due to concerns regarding the poor quality reference used, namely the NY Post. Here is a proposed replacement for the section replacing the NY Post ref with one from Politico. Comments, agreements, disagreements?

Moves to disqualify Sedition Caucus members from running for office

On April 26th, 2021 representative Liz Cheney stated that, "I do think that some of our candidates who led the charge, particularly the senators who led the unconstitutional charge, not to certify the election, you know, in my view, that's disqualifying." Section three of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution states that, people who have taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution (shall be barred) from holding federal office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution.

Silly-boy-three (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Yes, my primary concern was the use of the New York Post, which is unreliable. Politico is fine. However, the second part of this seems to be largely original research; the argument of one scholar in a piece specifically mentioning Trump, not the Sedition Caucus. It's not clear that this Amendment is even what Liz Cheney was referring to. It would need to be all in one source; see WP:SYNTH. Even if that kind of sourcing exists, I also disagree that these developments warrant a new section. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again @AllegedlyHuman:,

I don't know how important or noteworthy you think the efforts and discussions to remove certain members of the Sedition Caucus from Congress, were that occurred on many news outlets and amongst many congressman around the time of the storming of the capital building last January. It seems to me that at that time it was very significant and noteworthy. A Google search on the terms "Cruz, Hauley, and removal" will show much discussion in the news media about this at that time. The topic has since "cooled down," but it seems to me that it may resurface and be worth an article or a section of an article in the meantime. If you were interested in working together with me on this, I would be happy to do so. Otherwise I certainly won't go it alone. Thanks for your insights and suggestions that's far. Thoughts?

Silly-boy-three (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added in some of what Liz Cheney said, with some explanation of the circumstances around her saying it, as provided in the article which mostly focuses on her possible presidential run. As this person who first created this page back in January, I certainly think it is a topic of high importance. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is the WP:COMMONNAME of a widely used political term. The article documents nothing other than the term itself, compare with axis of evil. There are many high-quality reliable sources in the article which speak to the term's notability. --AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have declined the request for speedy deletion. It does not even come close to meeting the criteria for speedy deletion. The user who wishes it deleted can either go to WP:AfD or accept that it won't be deleted. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, are you trying to say that this article, with lists of names of living people and a "dynamic list" of companies implicated in the blowback, is a WP:DICDEF? That sounds like a good WP:AFD argument in favor of deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The corporate list was added by a user today relating to a separate deletion discussion, and I disagree with its inclusion. And you're as free as anyone else to take your points to the AFD rather than here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove the list of names

Per WP:BLPCRIME, it seems like a bad move for us to be in the business of associating public figures (or private figures) with the federal crimes of sedition or seditious conspiracy without benefit of arrest, charges, trial, or conviction. Remove the list of names. Elizium23 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. I'd support removing the list of names. I don't think it violates WP:BLPCRIME and I don't feel strongly about it. I just think it'd be slightly better for preventing duplication (since the main article we'd be linking to already has the same list of names). That it makes it look less like an attack page is a nice bonus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. Replace with link to the pages about the votes taken or some such. I can't find it but something like this page List of congressional opponents of the Iraq War. What ever the outcome "Members of Congress described by the term" is far too vague a subtitle. I have gone through all the other intentionally negative names for people I know and I would not want a list of 50 people under any of them on Wikipedia. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Boldly removed by The owner of all (after they didn't get their way at the speedy delete, then the subsequent AFD) while discussion is still ongoing here. For the sake of it, keep, as it's directly related to the term and of course will be information readers are wondering about on this page. We aren't associating them with "federal crimes" more than anyone who uses the term is, and no one here is a "private figure" – they're all bluelinked sitting officeholders who made a vote with the eyes of the world upon them. By that same token, house.gov is in the business of associating politicians with the votes they make. This is entirely public, encyclopedic information. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Remove Let's recall that my AfD was because in my judgment the content of this article is sufficiently covered in other articles. If there's one thing that's duplicated, it's certainly the list of names, which one could easily find at 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. As for the assertion that I made the edit while this discussion was ongoing, here's a diff from 22 June, which precedes this discussion which began on 23 June. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedition_Caucus&diff=1029933658&oldid=1029899880 04:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

  Yes, and you redid it about 20 minutes ago. That's obviously what I was referring to. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove - I think it clutters up the article and makes it too long while adding little useful information. I don't think it is a BLP issue. - Note I have acted in an administrative capacity by declining a speedy delete as an attack page for this article, closer take that into account accordingly. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think it violates WP:BLPCRIME, but it doesn't matter much to me either way. However, if it is removed, it is important that a section hatnote direct people to another article, where a list of objectors can be found. Main Article, or See Also, or something. Also -- might be worth moving the "Here are the Republicans who objected to certifying the election results" source into the Further Reading section, just like "The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results" is already. In fact, I think I'll do that now. RexSueciae (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Per MOS:FURTHER, the further reading section "should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list." I don't think that's the case here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  True, but those particular references are about to be deleted (assuming consensus is established to remove the list, which cites those references) and in the event that they are, I figured that keeping them in Further Reading would preserve those very useful links. If the list is deleted, there would be no duplicate. RexSueciae (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. It is duplicate content. The hatnote (diff) suffices. Pinging @RexSueciae: to comment on the hatnote, as they suggested a hatnote. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Alalch Emis: Looks fine, if a bit long. Could be shortened to For a list of members of Congress who objected to the certification of the 2020 presidential election, and who have been described by the term "Sedition Caucus", see 2021 United States Electoral College vote count or something like that. But yeah, that's about what I was picturing. RexSueciae (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion should be moot since we are talking about PUBLIC FIGURES. Removing the names is not really an option here. SEE WP:BLPCRIME "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures". DN (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

People can have completely independent rationale for the end-result from the proposer. For example several people supported removing but not for BLPCRIME reasons. This means that it is not true that the discussion should be moot. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that this proposal/ TP section is regarding a non-existent WP:BLPCRIME violation. Since this proposal is based on WP:BLPCRIME by OP, and fails to meet the criteria, those other arguments would be better off in a separate proposal or talk page section. It will be far less confusing and more focused on the topic at hand IMO. DN (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not "non-existent". The relevant part of BLPCRIME is that instead of BLPCRIME applying to public figures, BLPPUBLIC applies. The relevant quote from BLPPUBLIC is, in an example about a politician that had an affair, "However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." The equivalent for the label "sedition" is that the article should state that these politicians were alleged to have committed sedition, although the way the article reads, generally asserts sedition as if it were true rather than merely alleged. This is why I think the article should have been deleted, but oh well. 03:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

"Let's recall that my AfD was because in my judgment the content of this article is sufficiently covered in other articles."

"The way the article reads generally asserts sedition as if it were true rather than merely alleged. This is why I think the article should have been deleted, but oh well." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a point or are you just here to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. There can be multiple valid reasons to delete an article. You are just biased because you created this article, and additionally you have not been disclosing that fact in the above discussions. 20:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

No, I'm not buying that. The first comment I highlighted was made to me to brush off the (obvious) point that you were angling to delete whatever you could here (and at other riot-related articles too) despite the clear, overwhelming consensus against you at every juncture, and a discussion literally on the topic of listing names taking place here. I say this is obvious by the very nature of the speedy delete – "attack page"? Seriously? Do not pretend you acted out of concern of the material being "sufficiently covered in other articles" – save yourself the embarrassment. The very first sentence of that policy specifies it is confined to "unsourced or poorly sourced" material, it was a frivolous waste of everyone else's time to begin with (that seems to be a thing with you!). I'll spare you speculation as to why you are so gung-ho to target this and similar articles – I'll only note that others have abundantly discussed your conduct happening simultaneously to this [1] [2] [3]. The second comment I highlighted was made just now, to Darknipples, and says what I knew to be true, and any other sensible person should know to be true, but you denied to me earlier – that the goal of the AfD was to shield these politicians from the criticism they have notably received. Listing your words, verbatim, without any kind of input of my own attached, cannot be an aspersion. It just points out, plainly, that you are contradicting yourself. And yes, I created this article, therefore I am "biased" against deleting it, as you are evidently "biased" toward deleting it. Congratulations, Holmes, you've done it again. Or, you could simply have noted that by my keep votes here and at the AfD – it doesn't matter either way. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I quoted from WP:BLPPUBLIC, which means WP policy is on my side and not yours. WP:BLPPUBLIC is clear, if a source says they committed sedition, but there has been no conviction of such, then WP says "X said Y committed sedition" and not simply "Y committed sedition". This page, from its title to its content, is full of the latter. 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

You're free to think that. In fact, I fully expect you'll continue to go on thinking you were right in the deletion discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people disagreed with you. This discussion is an entirely separate matter, but you insist on treating it like a microcosm of your gripe as a whole because you didn't get your way before. Whatever. I'm through with this, soapbox all you want. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy". 01:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

The owner of all It's important you realize that you we do need to work to build a consensus, and avoid WP:lawyering. DN (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In other words, when other editors cite Wikipedia policy for their edits, I am expected to comply, but when I cite Wikipedia policy for my edits, I get accused of Wikilawyering. 22:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

I just offered some friendly advice because that's what we're supposed to do, SEE WP:FAITH. You must be new, in which case I also recommend looking up WP:BATTLE. It will help you. Have a great day. DN (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. So long as an article on this term exists, it should include a list of who the term refers to. Readers expect that info, we shouldn't bowdlerize it. Obviously, BLPCRIME would prevent us from accusing anyone of a crime, but we're clear with readers this is a political term, not a statement of fact. Our article on Stop the Steal didn't imply anyone was guilty of the crime of theft, our article on the 1860s Copperheads doesn't imply anyone was guilty of treason. Feoffer (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe trim, or convert to bullet-point paragraphs This isn't like The Squad (United States Congress), where domestic terrorists have been repeatedly advocating for and attempting violence against these people (but even there we include a list, with photos, birthdays, congressional districts, and alma mater information -- thankfully we don't go so far as to list their home addresses). Without naming these people, this article would be nonsense, just writing about some nebulous concept and implying it is a "left wing media" creation. I do, however, wonder about the appropriateness of painting most of these people with the same brush as Boebert, who was actively live-tweeting the location of Democratic representatives during the riot and yet is not currently named anywhere in this article outside the list, without further context being given in running prose. The most reasonable point I've seen made for removal is that it clutters the article and takes up too much space, but the article is not especially long at the moment, and expanding the list of names so it includes a prose description of how each of these people came to be considered members of the "Sedition Caucus" would be a better solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to pay attention to what the sources say, the reliability and number of sources, also the weight of the content. I agree the article could use some work via WP:MOS. The contentiousness of the subject matter is what throws a lot of people off. I see it all the time. DN (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a BLPCRIME violation [so keep] - I'm open to a WP:WEIGHT or some other argument, but if this is mainly about BLPCRIME, I don't see it. If folks really feel like we're being too ambiguous in our framing of the list, just be clear: it's a list of people who voted against certification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The OP cited BLPCRIME, but the relevant policy is BLPPUBLIC and the same reasoning applies. We do not write "Y committed sedition", instead we write that "X [reliable source] says Y committed sedition" (or whatever phrasing is desired). 06:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    • In this case, we don't say either. We have lots of people using the term "Sedition Caucus," written as a proper noun. The only place the lowercase-s sedition appears is in the lead (as an aside, that line exists only in the lead and is unsourced). Since it's clear we're using this as a media-created term rather than including any statements at all about anyone being specifically accused of sedition, it seems like a non-issue. As an aside, I can't help but think this whole topic would be more at home in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, but that article is pretty unwieldy as it is. The only reason I can see spinning it out is because of the list itself rather than because the emergence of the term is important to cover independently (that is, if the list is gone, we might as well trim and merge it back). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: In response to your comment, specifically: if this is mainly about BLPCRIME, I don't see it -- this is not mainly about BLPCRIME, it's about removing the list of names. The topic here is an operable change, or lack thereof, that would lead to a desired state of the article. So would the article be better with the list or without the list, according to you (genuinely asking)? — Alalch Emis (talk)

this is not mainly about BLPCRIME - the proposal at the top of this section is above is mainly about BLPCRIME, but fair enough. My position is that as long as this is going to be a stand-alone article, it should probably have the list. If we remove the list, we might as well merge it back into the parent topic and redirect it. As whether it's merged/redirected is probably outside the scope of this particular proposal, I'm in favor of keeping the list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If we were to remove the list and conclude that the standalone article is no longer tenable, it would mean that the list is a core element of coverage of the subject, right (I presume you agree, please say if you don't)? But is it? Why would it be? I don't think that it is. I think that it's an add-on. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: so far, there's five for "keep," five for "remove," and one for "this should be moot." I don't think there's consensus on this issue. RexSueciae (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove- Calling certain members of Congress who actively encouraged a riot the "Sedition Caucus" I feel is appropriate. However, many of these members did not encourage a riot or go as far as Congressman Paul Gosar did. I'm willing to bet that at least some of the members who voted to object felt the need to do so out of fear for their families but I would never know that. But calling the collective of them the "Sedition Caucus" is in my view accusing them of actually committing the act when they have not been proven in a court of law to have done such a thing. Doing things like listing members and accusing them of Sedition which is a very serious crime in the United States I think sets a bad precedent and as long as that list remains. We can say that they voted to object to the election results but listing people under a pages called the "Sedition Caucus" I think would not allow Wikipedia to remain neutral as the term is being used in a more rhetorical sense quite frankly I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place but I'm fine with it minus the list besides the list of those who objected is listed on the electoral vote count so people will find that page and find out there which I'm willing to bet gets more traffic than this page. I understand the arguments for keeping them but from a neutral point of view which is how I base my edits off of this stinks. I understand if people disagree but I'm not sure if this is an official RFC yet or if any actions are taken on the issue of the list but I think it should be removed for the sake of keeping the page neutral because of the term's rhetorical use. Wollers14 (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Sedition Caucus into 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. I think that the content in the Sedition Caucus article can easily be explained in the context of 2021 United States Electoral College vote count, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former article will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned.

To keep the discussion in one place, do not comment in this section. Instead comment in the discussion at Talk:2021 United States Electoral College vote count#Merger proposal. 18:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️