Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sedition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:20, 18 January 2021 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,803 edits →RFC - Can Misplaced Pages state that Trump was impeached for sedition?: this is inappropriate: 1. for this page (per se.); and 2. because this RfC is, in effect, trying to circumvent the closed BLPN discussionTag: Manual revert← Previous edit Revision as of 13:37, 18 January 2021 edit undoAnonQuixote (talk | contribs)287 edits →Trump impeachment: new sectionNext edit →
Line 86: Line 86:
This section mixes civilians with the president, who is not a civilian (at least, at the time of writing this post). I recommend moving it to a new subsection entitled "Political" or "Politics." ] (]) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) This section mixes civilians with the president, who is not a civilian (at least, at the time of writing this post). I recommend moving it to a new subsection entitled "Political" or "Politics." ] (]) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
: Update: It seems like a reasonable thing so I went ahead and made the change. ] (]) 07:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC) : Update: It seems like a reasonable thing so I went ahead and made the change. ] (]) 07:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

== Trump impeachment ==

Concerning this sentence:
<blockquote>
Following the ], president ] was ] for ''seditious acts''.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Times staff |title=Read the House article of impeachment against President Trump |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-11/read-house-article-of-impeachment-against-donald-trump |work=Los Angeles Times |date=11 January 2021}}</ref>
<blockquote>

This appears to be based on a misreading of the source. The states that "incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed engaged in seditious acts." It does not state that Trump himself engaged in "seditious acts".

Additionally, while the source cited appears to be the *LA Times*, the actual information used comes from the quoted text of the impeachment, making this a ] source. Moreover, the impeachment text quoted in the source appears to be an earlier draft of the resolution that doesn't match the wording that was ultimately adopted. We should replace this ref with an up-to-date secondary source.

Suggested fix (note the refs would need to be expanded from bare urls):
<blockquote>
Following the ], president ] was ] for inciting insurrection.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html</ref> The article of impeachment stated that Trump had incited lawless action through his remarks, resulting in "violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts" by members of the crowd.<ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/<ref>
<blockquote>

-- ] (]) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Revision as of 13:37, 18 January 2021

WikiProject iconLaw C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Sedition and War

If the United States has not declared war, like in Iraq, are acts that interfere with the military still considered sedition? Acumensch 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Seditionist be merged into this article. 'Seditionist' is a stub article with highly related content, and no citations.

Dialectric (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the first sentence, there's nothing to merge. I'm all for it. MrZaius 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Not that there's much to add - one sentence in the intro? --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, doesn't appear to be any content (or likely potential content) that wouldn't be better suited to this article anyway. ~ mazca 12:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the merge. Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Smith Act unused since 1961? really?

The article states: Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law. Is that really the case, particularly in light of the subsequent paragraphs about Laura Berg and (separately) the Hutaree? Those sure look to me like post-1961 applications of the Smith Act to me, just based upon reading the article. But then, I'm no expert. Perhaps there is some distinction between "Smith Act" sedition and other laws (in the US) regarding sedition. If so, that needs to be explained in more detail for the sake of lay people like me. --TravisM (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See also section

This seems very much random or out of context, any ideas to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.118.79 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What it really is:

Zapping/undermining, established platforms, in such a manner as to cause severe collaterol damage onto those not a direct target. (ie: pertains to large collaterol damage in relation to the event and is therefore in relation to a potencial act of terrorism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.217.235 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems very vague/unclear. In the absence of a citation, I'm going to remove the note.--Tcgriffin (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera and Seditious Conspiracy

Labeling OLR as a political prisoner has been stated to be a biased opinion. While his sisters opinion as to why he turned down the clemency offer is interesting, the reality has more ominous tones. OLR refused to forswear violence even though the option he seeks has been voted in plebiscites in Puerto Rico with over 85% of the adults of voting age taking part.

In addition, the resurgence of the use of Seditious Conspiracy in charging individuals was because there were few other federal charges that one could use to pursue against organizations like the FALN who killed individuals with bombing. There were no federal murder charges, and in addition, it is difficult to convict a group with murder when the details of who did what are murky, but you know the details of who belonged to the group. In the case of the FALN, a few of the individuals, for example Haydee Torres Beltran were specifically convicted of killing an individual with a bomb, because her fingerprints tied her to the room where the bomb was placed, the morning the bomb was placed. She was seen in the room at the spot where the bomb was placed, etc. In the case of the Fraunces Tavern bombing, no such details were available, but the FALN claimed responsibility for the bombing at the time.Rococo1700 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —Talk to my owner:Online 07:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New article on Tukde Tukde Gang

A new article on Tukde Tukde Gang is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanhaiyaa Kumar (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sedition by White Supremacists in the United States

The paragraph on the 1987 sedition charges of white supremacists is very vague, and leaves me with no idea of what their allegedly seditious actions were. Could somebody who knows about this please expand and clarify this. I want to know more, because it's one of the few times sedition charges were brought against defendants on the right instead of the left. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a next to the first sentence. Gorba (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Examples Should Remain Great

It's not enough to list every instance of Sedition. All that is needed are a couple to a few that provide a tremendous defining point for that Nation. Further, any cited examples should cease from providing a lengthy summary. The reference link can sufficiently supply the details. Many of the examples cited are unnecessarily verbose. Gorba (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to clean up United States Civilian

This section mixes civilians with the president, who is not a civilian (at least, at the time of writing this post). I recommend moving it to a new subsection entitled "Political" or "Politics." Gorba (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: It seems like a reasonable thing so I went ahead and made the change. Gorba (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump impeachment

Concerning this sentence:

Following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, president Donald Trump was impeached for seditious acts.

This appears to be based on a misreading of the source. The text of the impeachment states that "incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed engaged in seditious acts." It does not state that Trump himself engaged in "seditious acts".

Additionally, while the source cited appears to be the *LA Times*, the actual information used comes from the quoted text of the impeachment, making this a WP:PRIMARY source. Moreover, the impeachment text quoted in the source appears to be an earlier draft of the resolution that doesn't match the wording that was ultimately adopted. We should replace this ref with an up-to-date secondary source.

Suggested fix (note the refs would need to be expanded from bare urls):

Following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, president Donald Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection. The article of impeachment stated that Trump had incited lawless action through his remarks, resulting in "violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts" by members of the crowd.<ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/<ref>

-- AnonQuixote (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Times staff (11 January 2021). "Read the House article of impeachment against President Trump". Los Angeles Times.
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html
Categories: