Talk:JP Sears/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Include conspiracy theorist content

Claim

Shall we include or exclude this content regarding the conspiracy theorist allegation. Seems to be the subject of recent TE that resulted in PP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Polling

• I'm leaning to Include this sentence: the article has a dedicated section covering his promotion of conspiracy theories and this sentence seems a reasonable introduction.P1221 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• NYT is reliable and lede should summarise the article so I would include (brought to this page by a bot) -----Snowded ^TALK 11:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude Im reading through the sources cited and none of them actually say what conspiracies he's is supposedly promoting. Several of them say he is a proponent of Conspirituality so that seems safe to inlcude. But to say he is a conspiracy theorist or promotes conspiracy theory without being able to name a single conspiracy he supports seems untenable to me. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  All of this is discussed at length in the McGill University source. The very basis of the concept of conspirituality ("conspiracy" + "spirituality") is a fixation on conspiracy theories. This fixation has resulted in the New York Times simply referring to him as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  And im fine saying he is a proponent of conspirituality on that basis. But to say repeatedly that he is a conspiracy theorist or promotes conspiracy theory when literally none of the sources cited name even a single conspiracy he supposedly promotes flies in the face of wp:RS. Bonewah (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  We need to stick to WP:RS. From the McGill University source: "There is a man on the Internet known for satirizing wellness trends who was recently censored on YouTube for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories" (this video was called "The COVID Conspiracy Theory Guy"—and promoted COVID-19 conspiracies, which is why YouTube removed it), "JP Sears is now using his massive online platforms to discredit public health measures against COVID-19 and to open the door to grand conspiracy theories", discusses his close friendship with Mikki Willis (the Plandemic guy—and thus Sear's 2020 podcast episode "Exposing Those Who Are Trying to Control the Narrative with Mikki Willis", wherein the two discuss how the pandemic is a conspiracy to strip the public of their freedoms by "them"—incoherently referring to the wealthy (especially Bill Gates) and/or the US government and/or the Chinese government, and/or some vague "powerful people who make people disappear", as Sears puts it—this stuff isn't known for its coherence), and so forth.

  In short, since 2020, Sears's big thing is that Covid-19 is an ambiguous government conspiracy to snatch your 'liberty' by some kind of ambiguous, powerful others, much in line with his associates and squarely in line with the conspiracy theory and anti-vaxx events he regularly features at. It's typical of the circles he's in—the media doesn't want you to know, Covid-19 is a government scheme to take away your 'liberty', THEY are coming for you, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Include, obviously. Since 2020, media coverage of the article's subject focuses almost entirely on the article subject's involvement in anti-vaxx and conspiracy theories, usually focused on Joe Biden, Covid-19, microchips, and the usual this or that from those circles. The article's lead is a summary of its contents (WP:LEAD) and the pivot toward a focus on conspiracy theories has plenty of WP:V. We report on what WP:RS have to say. And a quick reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Show me where in the sources cited he is called an anti-vaccine activist, please. The source for the "pivot towards a focus on conspiracy theories" also doesn't say that. A single sentence fragment in a 700 word story on the NYT calls him a "conservative conspiracy theorist", the OSS source doesn't mention vaccines or conservatism. the object of JP Sears’ sarcasm has abruptly shifted. is not he shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Downplay the NYT source all you like, it's well within WP:RS, well representative of the subject's pivot over the past few years as refleceted in media coverage, and a reference the NYT made for good reason: One listen to the subject's podcast shows exactly why. Additionally, since 2020, the fact that nearly all media coverage of the subject is focused on his appearances and involvement with anti-vaccine events (whether or not under the guise of "anti-mandates") is more than sufficient for summarizing that coverage. His repeated appearance at anti-vaccine events is straightforward anti-vaccine activism. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sources are clear that they are anti vaccine mandate events. That is significantly different. Find sources calling him an anti vaccine activist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Again, the NYT explicitly refers to the subject "conservative conspiracy theorist YouTube celebrity and comedian". And you're aggressively lawyering to keep out of the article. Given that there's a concerted effort to present the article's subject here as a freedom fighter over a conspiracy theorist, despite WP:RS, I guess we'll just need to wait for more sources to pile up (and then expect subsequent lawyering to try to keep them out.) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, more sources to provide weight to that viewpoint is what I was asking for. Also, WP:AGF a little bit. Maybe people don't have an ideological reason to want to follow WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Unless you think when I'm not writing articles on black civil rights activists from the early 1900s I'm a crypto-alt-right operative? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know your motives, but I do see that you're aggressively attempting to censor WP:RS coverage and the results are that the subject is now more portayed as a freedom fighter than what the WP:RS actually say. That's a big problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  No, I'm trying to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Look, this "conservative conspiracy theorist", as the NYT accurately refers to him, also had at least one video removed from YouTube for promoting Covid-19 conspiracy theories, which the McGill source mentions. Enough with the lawyering: We're not here to soften our presentation of our sources to present the guy as a freedom fighter over how our sources actually describe him: Together, they define him a conspiracy theorist deeply involved in conspirituality circles and events, with a specific focus on vaccines and vaccine-related mandates, and who uses his platform to promote these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Include something, not that specific prose. On Sunday, thousands of demonstrators marched against vaccine mandates to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., in a rally organized by a group called Defeat the Mandates: An American Homecoming. The rally drew conservatives and fringe groups across the political spectrum, including a wide range of conspiracy theorists. Some demonstrators used holocaust imagery. Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist, YouTube celebrity and comedian. We're hinging the anti-vaccine activism and conspiracy theorist on that. The source doesn't match what was added to the article. Speaking at what the NYT labels march(ed) against vaccine mandates does not make one an anti-vaccine activist. Only mention of vaccines in the other source is The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. I think using something more like the discredit public health measures against COVID-19 used in the OSS source would be better. This applies to the body as well as the lead, where we're again using "anti-vaccine activism" in a way unsupported by sources. The NYT source is almost useless, except for applying a label it doesn't discuss Sears' views, merely that he spoke at a rally, but not what he said or what views he expressed. The OSS source also seems to be a mix of opinion and factual reporting, and also includes What JP Sears asserts about COVID-19 (or is he joking?) tends to be factually inaccurate. We probably shouldn't be using it as a top tier source to make statements in the lead about a BLP. It's attributed in the body, which is good, so if it's used in the lead there should also be some attribution. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  A reminder that the article's lead is a summary of its contents: WP:LEAD. The 2022 NYT source, which explicitly mentions Sears's headlining involvement in an event headlined by prominent, yes, anti-vaxxers that bills itself as protesting Covid-19 health mandates explicitly refers to Sears as a "conservative conspiracy theorist", and there's zero reason we should not mention this in the article's body. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:WEIGHT Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A sentence fragment in a single 700 word source has very little prominence in the published, reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  We have a handful of sources on this guy, and one of the few that we do have—one of the best in terms of WP:RS, NYT—does not paint this guy as a freedom fighter, which is what he clearly wants to be portrayed as, but as an outright "conservative conspiracy theorist", and lists him next to the anti-vaxxer organizers of the event. The article needs to reflect that. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Include Bloodofox is right. The article as constituted here is clearly an attempt to sanitize this merch-pushing General Flynn-loving grifter. Carlstak (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think the whole point of this discussion is it is clear that this is maybe a merch pushing grifter, as you claim. But the conspiracy theorist is a stretch, he is not well known for that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  A look at his Facebook and Twitter posts, nauseating as they are, shows that it's not a stretch at all, and pretty obvious. I'm not here to argue: I'm here to respond to the poll and register my agreement with Bloodofox's points. That's it. Carlstak (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  For example, Kara Voight has published a Rolling Stone culture news article, " "I'm a Full Anti-Vaxxer Now': How the Conspiracists Are Winning Over Fresh Converts", in which she calls Sears "a comedian known for spreading conspiracy theories through sarcastic comedy". Carlstak (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:RSP, Rolling Stone isn't reliable, especially for contentious statements about BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not so. Apparently you didn't look. It says, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.)". As I said, this was published as a culture news piece. Carlstak (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you think an article that opens with When thousands of protesters gathered on the National Mall on Sunday morning to protest Covid vaccine mandates, they did so, they insisted, to preserve personal freedoms. is covered by politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. We don't use Rolling Stone's content categorization to decide if something falls under the unanimous consensus for being unreliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Don't you mean to say if I "think it isn't" covered by politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011? I read the article as news coverage of a cultural event, i.e., a gathering to protest Covid vaccine mandates. The fact that the reporter doesn't indulge in bothsidesism and dares to call misinformation what it is, doesn't make it political or social commentary. Carlstak (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is coverage of a protest of government policy, that is roughly as political a subject as you can get. Regarding The fact that the reporter doesn't indulge in bothsidesism and dares to call misinformation what it is, doesn't make it political or social commentary, the RSN entry isn't talking about them engaging in "political or social commentary" about political matters that is unreliable, it says that it is their reporting on political/socially sensitive matters that is unreliable. The author doesn't need to be interjecting her own commentary for WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS to apply. Endwise (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. We have no sources for "anti-vaccine activist/activism". What we have is a source that says he was at an anti-vaccine mandate rally, and a source that says he was friends with someone who endorses "anti-vaccine rhetoric": The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. We shouldn't include negative unsourced material in a BLP. Regarding "conspiracy theorist", to use a controversial label like that in Wikipedia's own voice I would prefer if it is something that is widely and consistently used in RS. A proposal that is something like ScottishFinnishRadish's below would be better for a case like this: He was characterized in coverage of an anti-vaccine mandate rally published in The New York Times as a "conservative conspiracy theorist." Endwise (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  You're greatly downplaying what these sources actually say. This isn't some game of guilt by association. The Office for Science and Society is entirely about how Sears "is now using his massive online platforms to discredit public health measures against COVID-19 and to open the door to grand conspiracy theories". He also notes that Sears himself was not a mere "friend", but that he also apparently attended the CHECK Institute, which, as the author highlights, promotes pseudoscience.

  Each source in this section mentions how Sears publicly appears with and collaborates with some of the most visible anti-vaxxers in the United States. The Vice article, called "Leading New Age Conspiracy Influencers Plan Their Retreat to Utopian Lagoon", we're told that Sears was at an obscure producer's with Plandemic creator Mikki Willis and well-known anti-vaxxer "to pray for President Trump" on election day." They also screened Willis's new movie, another conspiracy piece, this time more focused on George Soros (classic). The article discusses Plandemic and anti-vaxxer involvement in the growing conspirituality subculture at length.

  The Religion Dispatch article goes in depth about the anti-vaxxer focus of the most recent interation of the "Health Freedom Movement", where

  The Reason article that mentions Sears goes in depth about how the "Defeat the Mandates" article—where Sears was a master of ceremonies—was in fact an anti-vaccine rally operated by anti-vaxxers: The title of the article makes this very explicit, and the article includes significant discussion about "The abiding concern from people in the crowd wasn't so much partisanship as skepticism of the vaccines themselves."

  This is all unquestionably and quite clearly anti-vaxx activism, despite the smokescreen of 'concerned citizens of mandate laws'. Of course, the article's lead currently portrays the article's subject as an anti-government freedom fighter and concerned citizen rather than, as the NYT put it when describing Sears at the "Defeat the Mandates" event, a "conservative conspiracy theorist". :bloodofox: (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per Endwise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Remove part. This is both WP:BLP and WP:CONTROVERSIAL, so precision is important. The distinction between being against vaccine mandates and being against vaccines is a significant one. Unless there are multiple RS calling him antivax, or if he said he was antivax, then leave the antivax statement out. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written per Endwise above and Firefangledfeathers below. CutePeach (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This content has been the subject of recent IP address removals and recently ended up with PP being put on the article. Maybe the content is not neutral. There was an earlier discussion on the Jarry discussion Talk:JP_Sears/Archive_1#RFC_on_Jarry_content and another on the treatment in the lede Talk:JP_Sears/Archive_1#RFC_on_conspiracy_theorist_in_lead (which seems to have been dropped and the RFC was never closed). My opinion, probably not an RS, and it is often repeated by other publications. Here seems to be the NYT furthering the claim. Is it sufficient that we now include it in wikivoice?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing the IP's activities: Beyond attempting to scrub the article, the IP was in fact was in fact changing the lead's text from "During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, he shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism" to "During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, he shifted his focus to rational thinking and to promoting such thinking" ([1]). In other words, the IP is aligned with the article's subject, and is not a reader concerned about neutrality. Additionally, we're not dealing with "allegations", but coverage of fact from WP:RS. I get that you're also eager to scrub the article of any mention of Sears and his anti-vaccine activities—you've been trying this for years now, as this talk page makes very clear—but you're going to need to accurately approach the facts here or simply expect to be called out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Snowded:, its worth noting that the New York Times only mentions Sears in passing: Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist. Thats literally the only thing that sources says about the subject. Maybe you think Vice, et al make up for it, and thats fine, but you mentioned the NYT so i wanted to bring that to your attention. Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Key point is we have a single opinion from NYT. Jarry is not an RS. Does a single source from NYT meet the threshold for controversial content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The source this editor is keeps trying to get removed (and frequently claiming 'is not an RS') is this piece from McGill University's Office for Science and Society. For context, see Jtbobwaysf's earlier attempt to get the McGill University piece removed here. Obviously, it is very much an WP:RS, and the snowball keep for the source in the previous RfC the user requested reinforced the obvious—of which this user is well aware. However, this specific user has been fighting tooth and nail to scrub it—and anything else that doesn't read as promotional for the article's subject—from the article for years now. This user has also attempted to have our Conspirituality article deleted ([2]). Jt, do you have some connection to the article's subject or are you just a huge fan? Whatever the case, you're well in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing territory at this point. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No connection and not really a fan, but has made me laugh a couple of times on his yoga videos years ago. Your edits on this article exhibit WP:OWN. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it from the lead as a BLP violation. The sources absolutely do not support that wording. Please do not restore, per WP:BLPRESTORE until there has been a real consensus on wording and inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I am very much in favor of the series of edits ScottishFinnishRadish performed and is referring to above. As far as im concerned, this resolves all my concerns with this article at this time. Bonewah (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There should probably still be a mention in the lead about the anti public health measures thing, but the exact wording needs to be hashed out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How about "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sears advocated against mask and vaccine mandates." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly the type of prose I had in mind. From all the sources that I've (now, after looking at this article) read, it seems it's more of an issue with mandates, rather than anything else, per the RSs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added that. Again, this seems a reasonable summary. Bonewah (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

And I've bodly reverted these edits, which censor the article and misattribute the sources: The many sources we have go far beyond the article's subject simply "advocat[ing] against mask and vaccine mandates" to the point that the NYT blatantly refers to the article's subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". There's no sweeping that under the rug. The sources explicitly discuss the article's subjects in anti-vaccine circles, and his podcast, for example, is full of this sort of thing. Sears is not a 'concerned citizen': He is explicitly promoting Conspirituality, a fundamental aspect of which is the promotion of Covid-19 conspiracy theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The sources explicitly discuss the article's subjects in anti-vaccine circles: the lead said he was an anti-vaccine activist, not that he was friends with one. his podcast, for example, is full of this sort of thing: please read WP:OR. Endwise (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem provide sources saying he is exactly that. Please do not restore without consensus, per WP:BLPRESTORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

As you know, we do have the NYT referring to Sears as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" just recently, a quote which you've removed from the article and are actively lawyering to keep out (claiming it is "all but useless"). I recommend that you restore this quote. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a single sentence fragment in a single 700 word source that doesn't discuss him with any detail. We summarize the weight of sources, we don't cherry pick a passing mention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The NYT's coverage of an anti-vaxxer event that includes mention of JP Sears's appearance with a description of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theory" is by no means "cherry-picking"—it is directly relevant to understanding the subject's beliefs and political activities. I get that there's a desire to downplay the subject's involvement here either due to BLP concerns or editor personal beliefs, but these sources are clear and censoring coverage from WP:RS is not doing the article's readership any favors. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean anti-vaccine mandate event, as clearly stated by the source you keep referring to. The WP:WEIGHT of a single part of a sentence in an article with no other coverage of an article subject is very slight, and even still you continue to misrepresent the event being discussed. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The prominence of this is very slight. There are plenty of sources that go into more depth, and should get more weight. They're not referring to him as an "anti-vaccine activist" or "conspiracy theorist." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I definitely mean anti-vaxxer event, because the NYT makes clear by its roster that anti-vaxxers are behind it, as with so many of these events. We don't need to sugar coat it when discussing it on the talk page and I don't appreciate your lawyering to censor coverage here. This article clearly needs far more eyes on it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Where in the source does it call it an anti-vaxxer event? Or is that WP:OR you want to insert into a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The event's association with the broader anti-vaxx movement is clear not only from its organizer roster (which the NYT article highlights) but also discussed at length in coverage of the event by a variety of media sources, like this Time article, "How the Anti-Vax Movement is Taking Over the Right" (for example, "Haywood’s presence at the “Defeat the Mandates” rally was a window into a growing political cause that is beginning to unite a host of groups across the right. The anti-vaccine movement, once a fringe cohort, has repositioned itself as an opposition to mandates and government overreach. The distinction has attracted legions of supporters by tapping into the anger, exhaustion, grief and frustration of millions of Americans as the pandemic enters its third year.", "On stage, a host of anti-vaccine celebrities, from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to right-wing doctors promoting alternative COVID-19 treatments, compared U.S. vaccination policies to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Doctors in white coats falsely claimed that vaccines are “not working” and advocated for unproven treatments.", etc.). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so WP:SYNTH, gotcha. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. If you have to look up other articles that don't mention the article subject to try and connect things, that's a no-go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly use more than one source discuss an event, and we have no good reason to play ignorant about an event, either. While this article is not the place to go in-depth about the event's broader connection to the US anti-vaxx movement, the NYT highlights Sears's involvement as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" (which you've repeatedly removed), and the other speakers of the event ad explicitly anti-vaxxers. This is all notable: While the article currently portrays the article's subject as a freedom fighter over the NYT's explicit characterization of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist", that is not what the sources do. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The only sentence in the article that mentions freedom is In February 2021, Sears appeared as a speaker at the Health Freedom Summit, an online event featuring speakers promoting anti-vaccination and mask mandates, and pro-homeschool views. The source refers to him as JP Sears, a new age comedian who has recently begun making videos mocking mask wearing and social distancing. That's also the only time he's mentioned in that 1500 word source. I don't see how he's being portrayed as a freedom fighter, and it looks like the current prose is pretty close to what that source uses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT source says that Sears is a "conservative conspiracy theorist", but readers would never know that from this article. You've made quite sure of that. The McGill source also mentions that YouTube removed one of the subject's videos for promoting conspiracy theories (this video was, of course, called "The Covid Conspiracy Theory Guy", and about which the article's subject has been very vocal about). I've gone ahead and readded this. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A youtube media influencer having a video removed is hardly notable. You readding content removed by various editors is WP:OWN. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources used in article

• Vice 5+paragraphs and a well-known New Age comedian and podcaster named JP Sears... But Sears, too, appears increasingly redpilled, producing harder-edged videos mocking lockdowns and other COVID restrictions and increasingly implying those lockdowns are just a pretext to limit human freedom. No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism
• Religion Dispatches single mention JP Sears, a new age comedian who has recently begun making videos mocking mask wearing and social distancing No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism
• Reason One quote, one paragraph said J.P. Sears, a YouTuber and comedian who emceed the rally No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism
• NYT sentence fragment conservative conspiracy theorist No mention of anti-vaccine activism
• OSS Whole article JP Sears is now using his massive online platforms to discredit public health measures against COVID-19 and to open the door to grand conspiracy theories. No mention of anti-vaccine activism.

Just putting this here so we can, at a glance, see the prominence of coverage, and how he's referred to, and if they mention conspiracies or anti-vaccine activism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Enough with the lawyering: We can read the sources, and the text-to-mention ratio is both irrelevant and a red herring that raises red flags about your angle. We're building an article on what WP:RS say, not based on your opinions about the word count content of a WP:RS.

You've been very aggressive about softening our reporting on what these articles actually say, and as a result portraying the article's subject as more of the subject's preferred image as an anti-government freedom fighter than what the sources actually call him (NYT 2022 says he's a "conservative conspiracy theorist", which you've fought relentlessly to keep out), the subject has had at least one YouTube video promoting Covid-19 conspiracy theories removed from the platform, and since 2020, coverage of the subject almost entirely rotates around his involvement with anti-vaxxer circles, such as his close friendship with the creator Plandemic.

Our sources make this clear, and that is what this article needs to reflect. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, He is friends with the guy who made Plandemic. So WP:NPOV and actually following what sources say no longer matters? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and see how consensus turns out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We report on what WP:RS say. Sears's involvement and participation with the broader anti-vaxxer/conspirituality movement/subculture is well documented. Your attempt to reduce Sears's close involvement with, collaboration with, and promotion of anti-vaxxer circles/subculture, alongside promotion of Covid-19 conspiracy theories, and 'anti-mandate' activism down to that "he is friends with the guy who made Plandemic" would seem to speaks volumes about your angle here and perhaps exactly why you've been so aggressive about, for example, removing mention of the New York Times 2022 characterization of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Are we considering the previous RFC and FTN commentary in how we judge the consensus view? While it is not *exactly* the same thing, the subject of discussion is very close (conspiracy in the lede vs conspiracy generally). Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Office for Science and Society, too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No surprise that I was not pinged there—these discussions of fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters are so predictable. Many of these are new sources from after that RfC: For example, the NYT article referring to the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" is a very new source. However, the McGill University source mentioning YouTube removing one of the subject's videos for promoting covid conspiracy theories is not new. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the previous RFC and this one are similar in that they focus on the conspiracy theorist claim in wikivoice and the weight that is due, if any. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• In regards to a label of conspiracy theorist, is this article usable? It describes him as a YouTube comedian and conspiracy theorist and goes into some detail regarding a specific COVID-related conspiracy he's pushed. Looking at the website and who they're associated with (PolitiFact), it looks like a good shout. I also found a Rolling Stone article that described him the same way (citing the McGill source), but looking at WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, I'm not sure it's usable. – ².O.^Boxing 02:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Rolling Stone article would be a no-go, I think, but I'm not familiar with logically.ai. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's also the wording for the lead I suggested at WP:FTN here, something along the lines of During the COVID-19 pandemic he used his platform to spread conspiracy theories about the disease and the United States government's response to it. Looking more at logically.ai, I'm really not sure, as they seem to use a novel AI/analysis approach, and their site seems geared around selling products and services. They seem to have an app that you submit requests for fact checks through, then the request is run through an AI system to determine if something is true or not. The big issue I see with this source used in this article is what has been raised in the OSS/McGill source, He has escaped YouTube’s haphazard crackdown on COVID-19 misinformation, he thinks, because the artificial intelligence that scans video transcripts can’t detect sarcasm yet... What JP Sears asserts about COVID-19 (or is he joking?)...He has taken the red pill and he believes he sees things as they truly are. Or is he just having a laugh? The video that YouTube removed can be found on (*shudder*) BitChute here. It seems pretty clear that it's the kind of video an AI would have trouble looking at the transcript of and reading that it's pretty strong satire. All of that said, I don't really have a strong objection to using it for showing that he's using his platform to showcase conspiracy theories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Cheers for having a gander. In light of the lack of RS that specifically describe him as a conspiracy theorist (I can't find any more and I'd expect to see a lot more than three if we're going to label him as such), then I think something along the lines of what you suggested at FTN is appropriate. And just to clarify, I'm firmly on the side of 'he's an anti-vax conspiracy nut'. However, unless specifically backed by RS, this opinion is irrelevant. – ².O.^Boxing 11:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's where I fall too, although I wish we editors didn't have to stipulate that we're not crazy fringe people, and we agree someone believes and spreads wacky things every time a discussion like this comes up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment On the McGill source. If this is an SPS it cannot be used in a BLP. As per WP:V, under WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The bolding is in the original. I've run into this issue elsewhere, but had to accept this is policy. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know exactly what the editorial policy is with McGill/OSS, but there's a discussion open on WP:RSN for it right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wanted to bring up the NYT source again. I don't think we should use it for a wikivoice claim that Sears is a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think it's enough to demonstrate that a lead mention is due. I do think we should quote it with attribution in the Political activities section. Something like In coverage of the rally in the The New York Times, Sears was called a "conservative conspiracy theorist". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think it would be better to do something along the lines of He has used his platform to promote conspiracy theories related to (whatever sourced stuff we find. COVID-19 most likely, and if there's consensus on the logically ai source, Klaus Schwab). He has had content removed by YouTube for violating their policies on COVID-19 misinformation.(see below) Maybe another sentence of context here, if there's any sourcing to expand. He was characterized in coverage of an anti-vaccine mandate rally published in The New York Times as a "conservative conspiracy theorist."

  I'm not sure how best to word the summarization of "who was recently censored on YouTube for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories." The whole OSS source uses pretty sensational language, and if we're going to use "spreading unfounded conspiracy theories" then we should really use censored as well. This source poorly covers this, since it appears it was just a video automatically removed for COVID-19 misinformation, not censorship or spreading conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, there is so little coverage of this in RS that it's hard to put something together. Using the OSS source we don't even know if he had a comment moderated, a video removed, multiple videos removed, multiple comments deleted.

  All of the conspiracy stuff should really be put together to give it context. Tacking a "Oh, and someone called him a conservative conspiracy theorist" somewhere seems odd. We could have a whole paragraph that's just Vice called him a "New Age comedian and podcaster." He was referred to by Reason as "a YouTuber and comedian." My big issue with using that label from the NYT is there is no context at all, and the article doesn't actually discuss him, so you can't provide that context, and as a whole, the majority of RS's aren't calling him a conspiracy theorist, so picking out the single one that does and giving it a prominent placement seems WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your first proposal, but we're in agreement on the sticking point being a lack of guidance from sources on how to best summarize. I think putting the brief NYT mention in the paragraph about the rally means it's not overly tacked on, and the placement is not so prominent. Making the call on how DUE this one source's view is tough: it looks like the most high-profile RS mention of Sears in the past five years, so I think it deserves a weight above zero. While we work on a more comprehensive way to summarize the "conspiracy theory" angle, I think briefly touching on the NYT view helps the NPOV of the article more than it hurts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Vice and Reason mentions are pretty high profile, and Vice has some actual depth. We only have two sources, the OSS/McGill source and NYT that mention conspiracies, unless the logically.ai source is also okay, which puts it at 2(3) sources using conspiracy and 5 that don't. Almost none of these sources are good for various reasons, most of all depth of coverage. I agree that it's difficult to summarize in this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Unrelated to what I said above, but [3] apparently Sears gets mentioned above Pauly Shore. Am I really so old as to think the Pauly Shore is somewhat more famous than a youtube guy? Encino Man, Bio-dome, that one wear he wore chaps with no pants?! There's no culture, these days.

  More related, there is really not much in the way of sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  [4][5] The event’s partners and sponsors include Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, Children’s Health Defense, the International Alliance of Physicians & Medical Scientists and Awaken With JP Sears. These groups have been cited by public health officials and significant social media networks as a source of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. goes with "against vaccine mandates and other COVID-related restrictions."

  [6] Conservative YouTube comedian JP Sears got the ball rolling, goes with "anti-mandate rally"

  I found a reprint of the NYT piece in some Hawaiian newspaper too. That's all I could dig up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Refocus

Here are the sources we have describing the COVID-19/conspiracy related topic. I think we can build something decent with this, although some detail is still lacking in RS.

Sources

Vice 5+paragraphs and a well-known New Age comedian and podcaster named JP Sears... But Sears, too, appears increasingly redpilled, producing harder-edged videos mocking lockdowns and other COVID restrictions and increasingly implying those lockdowns are just a pretext to limit human freedom. No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism Religion Dispatches single mention JP Sears, a new age comedian who has recently begun making videos mocking mask wearing and social distancing No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism Reason One quote, one paragraph said J.P. Sears, a YouTuber and comedian who emceed the rally No mention of conspiracy, no mention of anti-vaccine activism NYT sentence fragment conservative conspiracy theorist No mention of anti-vaccine activism OSS Whole article JP Sears is now using his massive online platforms to discredit public health measures against COVID-19 and to open the door to grand conspiracy theories. No mention of anti-vaccine activism. [7] single mention as partner/sponsor The event’s partners and sponsors include Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, Children’s Health Defense, the International Alliance of Physicians & Medical Scientists and Awaken With JP Sears. These groups have been cited by public health officials and significant social media networks as a source of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. goes with "against vaccine mandates and other COVID-related restrictions." [8] few mentions, mostly quoting Conservative YouTube comedian JP Sears got the ball rolling, goes with "anti-mandate rally" Logically.ai -unsure of reliability - significant coverage YouTube comedian and conspiracy theorist JP Sears

Here's what I suggest for the body, broken down by sentence.

1. Sears has used his platform to promote disinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, and has mocked government response to the pandemic, implying that mandates were established to limit freedom. Sources 1, 5, 6.
2. If logically.ai has consensus He is a proponent of the Great Reset conspiracy theory, saying COVID-19 is a tool created by the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab that will be used to promote authoritarianism. 8
3. In a November 2020 article for the Office for Science and Society, McGill University science communicator Jonathan Jarry described Sears as part of the conspirituality trend, combining conspiracy theories and New Age spirituality. He notes that Sears has promoted claims about COVID-19 such as that Vitamin D provides protection against the disease, has referred to masks as "face suffocators" 5
4. A sentence about the video removal from youtube, if we can find a source with some manner of precision.
5. He was characterized in a New York Times article about an anti-vaccine mandate rally as a "conservative conspiracy theorist." 4

Paragraph break

1. In January 2021, Vice reported that in November 2020, on election day, Sears attended a gathering at the home of film producer Stephen Huntsman to pray for Donald Trump and to make "an implicit protest against COVID safety guidelines." Other attendees included Plandemic producer Mikki Willis, anti-vaccine activist Del Bigtree, and Trump's ex-wife Marla Maples. 1

Paragraph break

1. He has spoken at several anti-mandate and anti-vaccine rallies and events across the United States, and was a sponsor and master of ceremonies of the "Defeat the Mandates" march in Washington DC, which took place 23 January 2022. There, he spoke against vaccine mandates to around 10,000 protesters alongside anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and mRNA vaccine skeptic Robert W. Malone. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
2. In February 2021, Sears appeared as a speaker at the Health Freedom Summit, an online event featuring speakers "promoting anti-vaccination, anti-mask, and pro-homeschool views". 2

For the lead:

Sears has used his platform to promote disinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID-19, and has mocked government response to the pandemic. He has spoken at several anti-mandate and anti-vaccine events across the United States.

Does that about cover everything, give due weight to what's in sources, not imply or state anything that's not specifically in sources, and get the point across? It's all broken down by sentence to make discussion on individual points easier. I'm still not sure about logically.ai, and if we use it, it might be best to attribute it. Also, I think we're not in a good position to mention the video removal, because the single source we have that mentions that doesn't actually say he had a video removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Was also thinking, maybe swap paragraphs 2 and 3, so it's Conspiracy stuff, rally/event stuff, trump stuff. Could also tack paragraph 2 at the end of paragraph 3, since it's still sort of an event he attended, with the "implicit protest." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Im still opposed to language such as "promote disinformation and conspiracy theories" as being too vague. If we cant describe the conspiracy theory or disinformation we shoudnt include a vague mention of it. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I was taking that from source 7, These groups have been cited by public health officials and significant social media networks as a source of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. source 5, JP Sears is a businessman and emotional healing coach who used to satirize wellness trends but now endorses many while also pushing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and source 8 depending on consensus. I'm not tied to it, but trying to find a compromise that doesn't run counter to the sources, e.g. no anti-vaccine activism.

Maybe Sears has used his platform to promote disinformation related to COVID-19, and has mocked government response to the pandemic. then let sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 make the conspiracy argument? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My concern here isnt sourcing, its specificity. Disinformation and Conspiracy are so widely used now that they have lost all real meaning. *What* disinformation? *What* conspiracy? Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we're boned on that. There's videos mocking lockdowns and other COVID restrictions and increasingly implying those lockdowns are just a pretext to limit human freedom. from vice.

The OSS source is horrible for actually explaining what it's writing about. There's What JP Sears asserts about COVID-19 (or is he joking?) tends to be factually inaccurate. He claims, wrongfully, that virtually all COVID patients with insufficient vitamin D die, but that only 4% of COVID patients who have enough vitamin D die which leads off with the possibility that it's a joke. Then In another video, Sears mocks the notice on PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19 that say they should not be used to diagnose COVID-19. PCR kits can be used to diagnose COVID-19. which I don't really know. The one's I got all say that they can't be used to diagnose a medical condition. I understand that's standard legalese, but it's not really misinformation to point it out. Sears pulls out the big guns by pointing out the incongruity in closing down gyms when “obesity is a high risk factor for the illness.” The reason is that the virus can be airborne; people can still work out outside or at home; and not eating a calorie is actually easier than burning it, as it turns out. is the last example.

There's generally not a lot of context in any of the sources, and the one source fully about Sears is so poorly written it makes it difficult to use to assert much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope you all can solve these problems, I'm checking out of the discussion. Not trying to be smart or criticize, but it's difficult enough to read and process these walls of text without the green font, which makes it almost impossible for my brain to process. I realize that it's standard on talk pages, having used it myself in reviewing a featured article candidate, but in that context it was short segments that I could handle. I will say that the dearth of good sources for the subject is partly because he's not that notable in the first place, and he deliberately creates confusion about what he means to say, in true Trumpian fashion, and his followers also hear and respond to the dog whistles. As I said, I suspect that he will engage in more attention-seeking antics with the US mid-term elections coming up, and more suitable references will be probably be available. I'm tired of thinking about the cretin anyway. Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I use the green because I tend to lose quotation marks in large conversations. Thanks for the cleanup you did, and hopefully there's a decent section after all of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I think if there are not a lot of sources or context, then the default should not be to include vague statements that do little to inform the reader. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I'm trying to split the difference and make a compromise everyone accepts, and follows the sourcing we have. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Google also uses AI to create its search results, but we dont use those as sources. We try to use higher end publications where we assume there is editorial on top of it (to manage the output). I guess this gets more hard to do these days, and sourcing has tended over the past few years to contributors (as I think news organizations cant really pay for content anymore). So where does this leave this AI source? As for me, I dont support using AI to add controversial titles to BLPs. Is AI able to tell the difference between satire and the subject's actual opinion? I dont support the claim that he has used his platform to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. I land on the side with Bonewah, and wouldn't really use that term on any BLP, except those that we can all really agree on it (nut jobs like Alex Jones, etc). But a barely notable comedian where we are so thin on sources we are talking about a university blog and an AI source? Too far of a stretch. Here NYT today discusses AI written pieces, as AI is now gaining language. I suppose in the future this is more of a thing. How long until we at wikipedia discuss what types of AI pieces are RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Frightening to contemplate. We'll have AI-generated Donald Trump speeches perfectly replicating his unique speaking style: "Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true!"

Then guys like JP Sears will subscribe to an AI subscription service offered by Elon Musk that generates custom YouTube videos. When that happens, we'll know the singularity is imminent. Carlstak (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

PS: At first I was going to add a winking face ;-), but then I thought, nah, it's gonna happen. Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yah, i thought the suggestion of AI based fact checking as an RS sounded absurd. Never before had I heard this suggested. I wonder if we already include some AI sources on other articles and we dont even know it yet. I am using 'source' loosely, probably more likely these nice publications that none of us have heard of, and it has a nice looking website, so we accept it. I must admit I am guilty of looking at the news website of a source and thinking 'that looks ok to me, kinda-sorta' as long as the website is ok and there are no NFT or crypto pitches on the news homepage. Then just move on to the next article on my watchlist. We editors are somewhat able to manage review of articles as it takes time to create quality content and gain respect and reputation for that content (eg NYT or Washington Post has reputation). But what if we are facing thousands of AI sources and the search results when looking for a source yield 20 results. Yikes... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why we shouldn't be picking statements from interviews to quote

Sears said in an interview about his pivot to conservative comedy that "I'm not smart enough for this to be a career move." He went on to say, "What matters most to me is personal choice." He later clarified that he has no interest in flat-earth theories.

Sears said in an interview about his pivot to stand-up comedy, "It really is such a totally different animal. I was starting a whole new thing. I love it so much. Standup is such a challenge." Speaking about his home in Austin, TX he said, "I love diversity, so Austin is the perfect storm of unity and diversity."

Sears, speaking in an interview, said that Eddie Murphy and Bill Hicks were his largest comedic influences, and praised Hicks for using comedy to spread a message. He also said that he is a very spiritual person.

Sears said that pivoting to becoming a conservative comedian had "turned out to be great for my career" and that "I was never political before, but I'm insanely behind freedom. I have conservative values."

Aside from the fact that the pivot to conservative comedy makes an implication that is not present in the interview itself, it's really not up to us to pick and choose quotes from an interview to put our own interpretation into an article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've included the entire quote—and it's probably too long, which is why I reduced it. It is as follows:

I’m not smart enough for this to be a career move. But it’s turned out to be great for my career. When COVID hit, I started realizing our freedoms are being taken away. Things are not happening to protect people’s health. Our freedom was being taken away. I didn’t realize that freedom is my No. 1 value. Pro-freedom became a conservative movement. Giving up freedom became a movement on the left.

I was never political before, but I’m insanely behind freedom. I have conservative values. During the spring of 2020, me being pro-freedom caused some backlash. I realized if I spoke of my personal truth, I would possibly lose some of my audience, but I had to follow my heart and be true to myself. What happened is that my audience has grown exponentially since the majority of comics lean left. So few comics are conservative, and I play to a niche audience.

This section is called "political activities" and he's quite clearly saying that his pivot toward being a conservative comedian was a positive thing for him. This source is well within WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. This would be an issue if it were a fringe source, but it isn't. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is that more important than his comedic influences, or his liking diversity in Austin, or any other thing mentioned in the interview? I don't think there's any need for the quote at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, this section is called "political activities", and the quote is Sears discusses his political shift. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

So we should discuss why he made the shift, not if it had an effect on his career. I had done that originally, but then realized even leaving some of the quotes was a poor summary of the source, so I removed that too. We'd be better off summarizing, like an encyclopedia, rather than quoting, like whatever you call a reference of quotes. His comedy became conservative after the COVID-19 pandemic began, with his satire targeting what he saw as an attack on personal and medical freedom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And why shouldn't we mention his assessment of the impact on his career? That's just as relevant as the shift itself. Additionally, what he's discussing is Covid-19 conspiracy theories (Quote: "Things are not happening to protect people's health."). We're not here to sanitize the subject's fondness for espousing conspiracy theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

So would his thinking that he would possibly lose some of his audience be as pertinent as the shift increasing his audience? I would say that concerns about repercussions before making the shift would be more noteworthy than his views on what happened after. Neither of us should be making that call based on a primary source, though. We're not here to pick to specific parts of a primary source to paint the subject in a particular light, positive or negative. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The political "shift" should include the full context, because the context is what explains the shift. The 'effect on his career' isn't a political view. But since the quote is so long, it should be summed up in Wiki voice or left out. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Appears the above quote by bloodofox focuses on political content rather than BLP content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, do you think this might have something to do with the quote appearing in a section called "political activities"? :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You put the quote there right? Your constant reverts are becoming a problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me help you: I've provided every single source in the "Political activities" section. You've attempted to have every one of them removed. You are now up to date. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure quotes count as a primary source. I.... think they do, but im not really sure. If they are a primary source, then we would be running afoul of numbers 2,3 and 4 in the WP:PRIMARY list of things not to do, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Interviews#Primary or secondary? The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. I know that's just an essay, but it also comes up fairly often at AfD where interviews generally don't contribute to notability, as they are primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

OK i believe that article is correct. I would say then that this edit is improper per WP:PRIMARY Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. (emphasis in original). Bonewah (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is analyzing or synthesizing any material in this source. The subject is simply being quoted on his political pivot and in an WP:RS. If this were a fringe source, we'd have an issue, but this is fully in line with WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. As a side note, what source have now not attempted to have remove from the "political activities" section of the article? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's why I originally removed it here and here. Any picking of specific parts is going fall afoul of primary sourcing rules, we need secondary sourcing to determine what's important and notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So where's the synthesizing? You're acting as if any use of primary sources is synthesis, which is absolutely not what WP:PRIMARY says. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sears said that pivoting to becoming a conservative comedian had "turned out to be great for my career" and that "I was never political before, but I'm insanely behind freedom. I have conservative values." is the quote that was originally there. It leaves out that they were specifically asked about it, that they originally thought they may lose audience because of it, and that they did not do it as a career move. By picking and choosing which parts of a response to highlight we're violating WP:PRIMARY. Why would it be important to say that it turned out great for their career, but not that they thought their audience may shrink? Why is saying it turned out great for their career more important than covering that they said they weren't smart enough to make it as a career move. Quoting in that way gives the impression that they made a choice for their career, when that is the opposite of what is said in the full quote. We're placing false importance on parts of a single response in the interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That quote is not currently in the article. It's not clear to me why you're arguing against an earlier revision. Now, in my opinion, the current version sanitizes what Sears actually says—he's outright pushing conspiracy theories, as usual, and for some reason this consistently gets softened or sanitized at every corner here—but I do not see the point in what you're saiyng here. As an anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist, and general fringe figure, there's also the matter that Sears himself is simply not reliable, even when discussing himself. That's another reason why quoting him directly is important. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Health Freedom Summit

I was just glancing at this article and the following line in the "Political Activities" section jumped out at me.

"In February 2021, Sears appeared as a speaker at the Health Freedom Summit, an online event featuring speakers."

I'm new here, just trying to learn in the hope that I might become a helpful editor in the future...but this line seems useless to me. I think it would be best to either delete the line entirely or add more context explaining what the Health Freedom Summit is. Participating in an "online event featuring speakers" does not seem particularly notable to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunenoveggie (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Prunenoveggie: this is being discussed above Talk:JP_Sears#Wikipedia_is_not_Censored:_Yet_More_Attempts_at_Removing_WP:RS_from_the_Article. Feel free to join the discussion there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow thank you. I actually had read through that discussion and didn't realize I was talking about the same thing...Like I said, I'm new. Thanks for the help. Prunenoveggie (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Change to lede

I reverted this change by X-Editor (talk · contribs) to the lede that stated the article subject was now a political vlogger (to summarize). We can discuss here if there are enough sources to this change. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And I reverted your latest scrubbing attempt. The article's lead is a summary of its contents (WP:LEAD). We've got a whole section on this. Another reminder: Wikipedia is not censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a section and i think it is summarized in the lede. What you have re-added is WP:SYNTH that the subject is now more known politically for his yoga stuff. I dispute that, my own WP:OR. The recent video that youtube is promoting when i go to his channel page is about him mocking men in women's swimming competitions with 4M views. Referred to as stand up comedian in 2022 by RS Townsquare Media. Please bring forth your evidence he is now primarily known for politics. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This recent Rolling Stone article introduces Sears as "a comedian known for spreading conspiracy theories through sarcastic comedy". It is a Culture piece from RS, but it does touch on political issues as well. I tend to think the lede should place slightly more emphasis on his conspiracy theorizing/controversies, but I believe it would need to be sourced and ideally attributed to multiple sources (and perhaps not stated in wikivoice). Perhaps something like "Sears has been accused of spreading conspiracy theories through his comedy"? I would support something like that to the lede if there's 1 or 2 more WP:RS to confirm and clarify, as it is a somewhat contentious claim in a WP:BLP

@Jtbobwaysf, you ask for evidence that he is "primarily" known for politics. I see this slightly differently, asking "what are the primary ways Sears is described by RS (especially in recent articles)". Of course, I'm viewing this more generally and NOT about any specific edit(s) made in the past, and I wouldn't want to describe Sears as a "political vlogger" here unless he is described as such in RS. Are we on the same page with this, or am I missing something.

I am a bit concerned about using the puff piece describing him as a stand up comedian (my issue is with the source, not the claim which should be easy to verify elsewhere). That appears to be a promotional piece on a radio station's website. I believe it should be treated as a WP:SPS or perhaps a WP:PRIMARY source, and certainly not as an independant WP:RS. A RS may own the country music radio station whose website published that piece, but does that make it automatically reliable on its own? A blog on the website of a reliable news organization is not considered reliable, and I see no evidence this is distinct from a blog post or advertisement. From my understanding of radio/newspaper promo pieces, they are generally based on the PR materials submitted by the subject's agent. Using it as a reliable source seems no different to me than using a listing in the calendar section of a newspaper/radio station that describes someone as "The greatest singer in the world".

That being said, why is the only citation in the lede for the label of "comedian"? We can debate whether he should fairly be summarized in the lede as a comedian, a conspiracy theorist, a political vlogger, or something else. But if we choose to describe him as a "comedian", do we really need to provide a citation in the lede for that? I wouldn't think the label "comedian" is particularly contentious or likely to be challenged. If we do need to provide a citation for that, can we please use a different source? Prunenoveggie (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone isn't an acceptable source for anything related to politics, per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, which is why it was discounted in discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quick and clear reply. I did read the related discussion on this talk page, but it appeared to me there was some level of disagreement about whether these Rolling Stone could be considered "culture" or "politics and society". In a WP:BLP, it makes sense to interpret sourcing requirements in a stringent manner. I was thinking if the source were to be used, it would need to be attributed to Rolling Stone and backed up by other WP:RS, but I suppose in that case it would be preferable to use the other sources and leave out the Rolling Stone article. I'm inexperienced and will defer to the judgement of more experienced editors such as yourself.

I would think that a contentious description (such as the one I pulled from the Rolling Stone article) in the lede should be cited with multiple WP:RS, right? At the moment, the Jarry/McGill University article describes Sears as "spreading unfounded conspiracy theories", and the NY Times article describes him as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". In my mind, a single reliable source is not enough to add a contentious description to the lede, but how many sources would be enough? WP:BLP says we should not use "contentious labels...unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources". I'm unsure how to interpret that in regards to this page, as it seems we are lacking in recent, detailed coverage of the subject. Does that apply only to what is said in Wikivoice, or does it also apply to statements properly attributed to RS as well? The only thing I'm sure of is that we should be cautious!

I'd also be curious to hear your opinions on the KEZJ article promoting one of Sears' shows that I mentioned. Thanks again for helping me learn! Prunenoveggie (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of this has been discussed above pretty substantially. If you haven't already, you may want to look it over. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I used the KEJZ (owned by Townsquare Media) to anchor text he is known as a comedian. It seems you are suggesting that radio stations are no longer RS, and I suspect that is partially moving towards reality as radio plays less and less of a role in society. But as for now, I dont think that the subject is a comedian is in dispute. What is being discussed is if he is primarily known for comedy or for politics. There aren't many comedy editors here to join the discussion, but there are plenty of political editors at wikipedia. Next, you wont be able to override broader consensus on WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS here on this talk page by forming WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. We do cover BLPs where they are considered the greatest singer in the world, king of pop, the boss, etc. I dont think this article subject could be considered the greatest comedian in the world. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You're encountering into an unfortunately common problem in the more fringe corners of Wikipedia: Embedded editors motivated by ideology aligned with the article's subject. Take for example @Jtbobwaysf: here. This user's sole activities on this article consist of attempt after attempt to have every single reference to the article's subject's political activities (which are unquestionably very much a part of his comedy career post-COVID 19 outbreak) scrubbed from the article. They've been aided by a few other editors here who similarly only chime in to have 'political' material removed.

Now, we have WP:BLP for good reason, but it can also be abused to censor coverage in a way that favors an article's subject. This leads to skewed articles that don't reflect the reality of WP:RS coverage. This occurs as long as there are enough users around who allow it.

And there are other ways to manipulate articles as well. For example, take a look at this article's current lead. WP:LEAD mandates that the article's lead is a summary of the article's content. Now, we have plenty of WP:RS coverage in this article about Sears's anti-vaxx, conspiracy theory, and generally ultra fringe activities. However, due to constant lawyering to keep this article as aligned with the subject's preferred presentation of himself as possible, you'd never know exactly how out-there this guy is from the lead. That is a direct result of article talk page lobbying efforts. And Wikipedia article leads are especially targeted for this kind of scrubbing because they're often what search engines use for subject snippets.

Ultimately, even more WP:RS-compliant sources will appear that discuss the subject as the anti-vaxx/conspiracy theory/MAGA figure he quite objectively is, but in the meantime, this little article about this quasi-obscure figure makes for a good case study about how these dynamics can unfortunately play out on English Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, we generally lean towards excluding poorly sourced content that reflects negatively upon a BLP subject, just as we WP:AGF and dont cast WP:ASPERSIONS towards other editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to WP:AGF—it's a simple fact that that attempting to remove WP:RS-compliant sources involving the subject's fringe activities is all you've done here to date. A reminder: Wikipedia isn't censored and WP:BLP wasn't built as a tool for censorship. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is a good reminder for me of why AGF and civility matter. The aspersions cast and the battleground behavior overshadow any point you're trying to make. You do you, though. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem behavior, like constant attempts at scrubbing, needs to be called out, not ignored. Pearl-clutching when someone highlights it won't help. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. Calling out problem behavior. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Look, I get that you echo Jtbobways at every turn (you've made that clear all over the talk page), but the selective 'reminders' you keep sending my way aren't changing a thing: I'll keep providing sources as they appear, and you'll also simply have to deal with their existence. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Normally I would not bicker any further, and I think you're a good editor, but it's a bit disingenuous to try to twist my comment about civility into me having a problem with your sources, which I don't, and which is completely unrelated to what we're talking about. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I did read the above discussion, but I'm trying to gain clarity for my own benefit. Perhaps I'm arrogantly hoping my dumb newbie butt can somehow help bring about consensus...or just trying to learn and perhaps move the conversation forward a tiny bit.

@Jtbobwaysf I am not suggesting that radio stations are unreliable sources in general, but as far as I can tell the piece you linked is a promotional piece for one of his upcoming shows. I really have no idea how to judge this under WP:RS, but I'm trying to use WP:COMMONSENSE along with my knowledge of how these types of articles frequently copy directly from PR materials. I understand you only use it to source him as a comedian, but do we need a citation in the lede to call him a comedian? Is anyone disputing that? If so, he is mentioned as such by other sources on this page. As for which he's more well-known for...The sources show he was previously (pre 2020) known for comedy and politics were hardly mentioned (if at all). More recent sources tend to focus more on political and covid stuff, but still call him a comedian/satirist/youtuber. It seems clear to me that at the moment, he should be identified first and foremost as a YouTuber and comedian/satirist. But I'm curious what volume of reliable sourcing would be required for that to change.

And I'm not advocating overruling broad consensus on Rolling Stones Political coverage as a RS, but considering the article I linked (and the previous Rolling Stone article discussed above) appear in the Culture section of the paper which is deemed reliable, it seems fair to debate how to treat those specific articles under WP:RS (I personally see these articles as covering non-political, cultural issues, but I assume most of WP would disagree with me). My reading of WP:RSP says that we could theoretically use that article to source non-political claims, but anything contentious would still need to be attributed to Rolling Stone. Anyways, I'm not suggesting we use it, but I am trying to gain a better understanding of sourcing policies/opinions.

@Bloodofox I understand your frustration and sympathize. But most of the true censoring I've seen on this page's history appears to be from IP editors and less active users. Perhaps there might be 1-2 longer term "protectors", but like others, I would ask you to WP:AGF as I truly believe it will help you to achieve your goals, which seem to be a more accurate (from your perspective) article. From what I can see looking through the talk page and edit histories, some of the editors with whom you take issue seem to be cautiously following WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:RS, etc as they understand those policies. When I look at (most of) these editors talk pages and editing history, what I find gives me no cause for concern. I may disagree with some of their interpretations, and some editors will certainly be more cautious than others, but that doesn't mean their goal is any different from yours or mine.

As for the specifics: The current lede states that Sears "promotes conservative political views and advocates against COVID-19 face mask and vaccine mandates." It is not in the first sentence, but it all shows up in the blurb when I google him. Labeling hims a political vlogger seems strange. It makes sense to me to label him first as comedian (or satirist, which I feel is a more appropriate label but I'm not sure if the sourcing agrees with me) and YouTuber, as he has always been known as those things, and continues doing those things to this day. The political stuff is responsible for much of his recent coverage, but I think it's unfair to label him as a political vlogger first and foremost, comedian second. His political views and activities would not be notable if it weren't for his reach as a YouTube satirist. Honestly, I see him described more as a conspiracy theorist than a conservative political activist, but that is a more contentious label and would require more reliable sourcing and likely attribution. I personally think some of the WP:RS rules/interpretations can be a bit wacky at times, but if we could find more consensus-RS that describe him as a conspiracy theorist (such as this NY Times article and the Jarry article), I would certainly support adding that label to the lede as long as it was cited and attributed. Actually, I wonder if those two RS are enough to add it, but I doubt we'd find a consensus for that!

I apologize for being so long winded. Thank you all again for your input and for putting up with my inexperience. Prunenoveggie (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to be brief is better. But I too have been long winded too many times, so not making any judgements. I added a source from Paste (magazine) today that shows he is notable enough as a comedian to get mentioned in their 2021 annual review. The Paste source links to a substack (probably not an RS) that goes into more detail about the controversial comedian. Maybe we should consider using the term controversial instead of conservative, as he seems to be insulting not only the pro vaccine mainstream, but also transsexuals, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the above Paste article highlights a "JP Sears’ set explicitly calling for violence against trans people" that "made no dent on his upcoming dates at clubs like Helium, Cap City, and Skyline." If this is an RS, then Sear's calls for violence against trans people should also be in the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Eh, as with any claim, reliability (and notability) can vary within a single source. Especially on a BLP. If Paste is the only source making mention of the set, it may not be reliable for putting in the article (even with an 'according to Paste' attribution). Description as a comedian is not only a less contentious term to start with, but a more common one. So we really shouldn't be making the jump from "Paste is reliable sourcing for his being a comedian" to "Paste is reliable sourcing for a contentious label" without a deeper discussion as to why we think it's reliable for the second claim. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen you invoke an invented rationale that we require more than one source to cover something. That isn't the case. There's nothing in WP:BLP or WP:RS like that. If Paste is indeed an WP:RS, then we can report on what Paste says—it's that simple. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If Paste is an WP:RS, then we can report on what Paste says—it's that simple. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what RS says. Looking to WP:RSCONTEXT: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Even a quick look at WP:RS/P shows there is no universally reliable source. They are generally reliable for certain types of claims. Fox news is considered generally reliable for general information but not their politics and science coverage, and even the most reliable news media source is potentially unreliable for medical claims about primary studies.

For multiple sources, this is derived from WP:UNDUE. If only one source ever mentions a topic, that may be an indication it's not a notable aspect. As a BLP, we need to be particularly aware of this, particularly when the claim is contentious. Again, I'm not saying this is definitely unreliable, only that you need a more robust justification than "it's reliable for A, therefor it must also be reliable for B". Bakkster Man (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Nah, if it's RS, it's fine. This guy barely gets any coverage as is and if we required multiple sources for every item here, which again is not at all a policy, there wouldn't be much on this page at all. Now, this really isn't complicated, but the real question is, is Paste an RS? Because that's a lot less clear. Are you disputing that Paste is an RS? It's not listed on Wikipedia's perennial sources and seems to be about as quality as Rolling Stones coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm very concerned this (and other comments here) is crossing the line into WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, in addition to being a very significant misinterpretation of both WP:PAGs and the comment being replied to. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I looked in the archives, and there's no consensus for paste on politics, and it's ok for album reviews and the like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Replying to the edit, since you added mention of RS/P and Rolling Stone. This is a perfect example of why if it's RS, it's fine is wrong. Rolling stone is generally reliable in the context of culture, but generally unreliable in the context of politics. If you believe Paste is indeed reliable for the second claim "explicitly calling for violence against trans people", please expand on your reasoning why. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked you if you deemed Paste reliable but you don't seem to want to answer. What's up? Do we need to make an RfC on this? Pesonally, I actually don't think Paste is reliable for anything but maybe album reviews. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

For the topic of "is this person a comedian", I'd consider them reliable. On the topic of "did this person call for violence against a minority group", I'd probably say no unless someone gave a convincing reason. Which goes back to the WP:PAG issue of RS depending on context, something you appear to be misinterpreting. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That Paste magazine citation contains only a single line mentioning Sears and the claim that he advocated violence against trans people is a link to a blog. Id prefer we didnt use it at all, or if we do, its limited to "is this person a comedian?" Bonewah (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree and my intention on adding it was to demonstrate article subject seems to be a notable comedian (and that's it), so much so that he is mentioned in a year end wrap up with the other notable comedians. Thanks Jtbobwaysf 01:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Thanks for updating the source on that. I think I had unfounded fears about that KTEZ source being used for other (more controversial) claims. I also found that Substack article, which to my understanding would be considered a WP:SPS under current guidelines, but I'm curious how Substack will be treated in the future. As mentioned, the claim in Paste about advocating for violence against trans people is sourced directly to that Substack. I found similar claims in various reviews, but they were all clearly WP:SPS. I think a description as "controversial" may be justified considering the transphobia etc, but has anyone found any WP:RS describing him as transphobic? At least we have the NY Times article that describes him as a "conservative conspiracy theorist".

@Bloodofox, here's part of WP:BLP that I read as constraining in these circumstances: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Again, I'm inexperienced and could easily be misinterpreting all sorts of things, but I read this as preventing us from describing him as, say, a conservative conspiracy theorist and transphobic activist unless he's described as such in multiple RS. I definitely see the issue in this case caused by a lack of recent media coverage, but I imagine this article will look very different in a few years. Prunenoveggie (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Censored: Yet More Attempts at Removing WP:RS from the Article

We've recently seen repeated attempts to remove the long-standing Vice piece reporting on Sears praying for Donald Trump's win on election day with a some of the highest-profile anti-vaxxers and Trump's ex-wife. The first edit, by @Some of everything:, removed the source with the reasoning that it was a "private event" [9] (WP:RS carves out no special policy ignoring media coverage of "private events" among public figures), followed by long-time embedded user @Jtbobwaysf: suddenly deeming this source to be WP:TRIVIA (after repeatedly lobbying to have the entire section removed, of course). This is a reminder that the source is fully in compliance with WP:RS ([10]) and that Wikipedia is not censored—and that his article, and similar conspirituality-related articles, need more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Some of everything:, this is trivia and should be removed no matter what you think of the sourcing. Bonewah (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you've also expressed your desire to remove the piece—and the New York Times coverage too. Actually, looking at your comments above, have you contributed to any discussion here that wasn't you simply voicing support for removing WP:RS-compliant coverage of 'critical' media coverage of the article's subject? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The New York Times 'coverage' that consists of a single sentence in an unrelated article. Yes, i think wp:undue applies here. Bonewah (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this inclusion, but I'm not sure that WP:TRIVIA really applies here. Mentioning things in a section of reasonable length is not necessarily TRIVIA. This seems more about content policy as it relates to WP:BLP. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, TRIVIA clearly doesn't apply, as it wasn't in a Trivia section. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies. This is more a question of WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I am likewise on the fence about the inclusion, but I'm concerned by multiple removals without a valid content policy reason cited.

Is the opposition because they feel this participation was isolated, and not indicative of a pattern of pro-Trump political activism? Can those who support inclusion point to additional WP:RS of Sears' activism for Trump? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant trivial in the usual sense of the word, as opposed to WP:TRIVIA the policy. As in "this information is true, but of little to no value". Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to this diff which did cite WP:TRIVIA. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware that WP:TRIVIA referred only to lists. Maybe I misused it, and for the confusion, I apologize. JP_Sears#Political_activities to me fits a sort of miscellaneous format (which I thought TRIVIA referred to) in the way it is structured, sometimes with insignificant content, mixed with DUE content (my opinion). It is clear and undisputed that Sears is related to some conservative political movements, etc and the question is what we shall consider DUE for inclusion and what is trivial (with the L attached). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that political activism activities in a page about someone who is a politically active public figure should be considered trivial in a broad sense. The question is whether this specific event is DUE, and has reliable enough sourcing. Bakkster Man (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, well put. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep user conduct discussion off article pages

Bloodofox, it seems every change that you dont like on this article you revert. You should note that I was reverting your revert in which you re-added the content after Some of everything removed it. Normally per BRD that should have been the end of it and you should take it to talk and discuss why you think it deserves to be included when other editors are saying it doesnt. Your WP:OWN and WP:BATTLE activity on this article is troublesome and you can see there is again little support for your addition here. This is just an article about a hardly important and fringe youtube vlogger, I fail to see the worthiness here, other than the same BLP rules we apply on all articles also apply here, regardless of how distasteful the article subject may or may not be. I dont see how attending dinner parties is worthy of inclusion and I also dont see how it is worthy of discussion here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Exactly what have you done on this article beyond lobbying to have every WP:RS you deem 'critical' of the article's subject removed? You've been embedded on this article since before I arrived and your sole purpose here seems to be remove WP:RS-compliant coverage of the article's subject, particularly those that report on the subject's strong association with anti-vaxxers and promotion of misinformation. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder to everyone here, this place is for discussing edits to articles. Please keep user conduct discussions in the appropriate user talk pages, or the administrator's noticeboards if necessary MarshallKe (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the content. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourced and relevant, not seeing a real issue here. Zaathras (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The content is fine. It tells us something about who Sears associates with, and that's illuminating; it certainly isn't trivia. Carlstak (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why this part is being targeted.

• On the one hand, we describe him in this section as speaking at anti-vax events and promoting COVID misinformation and conspiracy theories (significantly enough that YouTube removed a video) – activities that most educated people hold in disdain.
• On the other hand, we describe him in this section as going to someone else's house to pray – an activity that billions of people engage in regularly.

I'd understand if someone didn't want him accurately labeled as a conspiracy theories, but why is the second item considered such a shameful or disreputable thing that some people want it hushed up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"that some people want it hushed up?" someone didn't want him accurately labeled as a conspiracy theories Do you think its possible that the people who advocate removing this actually mean what they say? That it is trivial cruft in an article jammed full of trivial cruft? If you are struggling to understand maybe the issue is in your initial assumptions. Bonewah (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That possibility seems highly unlikely. Zaathras (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if you think it's unlikely, we do still need to WP:AGF. I recommend making a case for the event's notability and it being given due weight, rather than arguing there is no good-faith reason to remove it. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That would be nice. For those of you who are still bothering to follow the rules of Wikipedia, its worth noting that contra bloodofox above, Vice is not "fully in compliance with WP:RS", WP:RSP says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." This does not preclude the use of Vice, but its not the ideal source. WP:RSP also says that "Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest." so take that as you will. Bonewah (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Although this editor's sole function on this page to date has been to lobby to have sources in this section removed (yes, another one of those), the source is fine, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which just says there's no consensus on Vice despite repeated discussions. This is in fact fully in compliance with WP:RS. This ain't an article about biomedicine, it's an article about an anti-vaxx/MAGA/conspiritualist comedian praying with a bunch of famous antivaxxers during Trump's failed reelection. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

One exercise I like to do is whenever I'm thinking "this editor isn't trying to improve the article, they're trying to push an agenda," I try to imagine if they could say the same about me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's true the article isn't about WP:BIOMED, but it is about a WP:BLP which is the other one of the two examples of what needs to have the best sourcing available. Despite being anti-vaxx/MAGA/conspiritualist comedian praying with a bunch of famous antivaxxers during Trump's failed reelection, they're still a living person, and this is still a biography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And there's nothing contentious about the report. The guy is quite openly an anti-vaxx/MAGA/conspiritualist: It's exactly how he has styled himself in the Covid era and the meat and potatoes of the content he has produced since the beginning of the pandemic. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the lack of consensus on WP:RS/P is not a suggestion that the source is definitely suitable for a claim on a BLP. Quite the opposite, it means that if there's a reasonable concern that this particular Vice article might not reliable for this claim, it must be removed until we reach consensus that it's suitable. On a quick reread of the above, I don't see an explicit suggestion of unreliability, just non-notability. Please correct me if I'm wrong. We still need to discuss notability if we think it is reliable, but my read of WP:BLP draws a hard line in the sand on unreliability. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The only reliability issue I would see is with and to make "an implicit protest against COVID safety guidelines." That is reporting on what a SPS source, the Conspirituality podcast, is saying. It's being provided as a quote in the prose without attribution to who actually said it. As for due-ness, it's tough to say because there's not a whole lot of sourcing around this in general. All of the sourcing I could find is listed above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an edit war happening over this, so someone should just create an RfC for this one statement. Include or exclude. If we have a consensus, then we can all go walk our dogs. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, I might just do that now. (I don't have particularly strong opinions on the matter for the record). Endwise (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Should the following paragraph, sourced to VICE (RSP entry), be included in the "Political activities" section?

Extended content
In January 2021, Vice reported that in November, on election day, Sears attended a gathering at the home of film producer Stephen Huntsman to pray for Donald Trump and to make "an implicit protest against COVID safety guidelines." Other attendees included Plandemic producer Mikki Willis, anti-vaccine activist Del Bigtree, and Trump's ex-wife Marla Maples. References

See the back and forth in the page history after this edit, and the discussion in the section above. Endwise (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely. This is a relevant and informative piece regarding the activities and political beliefs of the subject, and the source is perfectly fine for this article. It makes no contentious claims—Sears is indeed best known for being an anti-vaxxer/MAGA/conspiritualist comedian today and it is aligned with broader media coverage of the subject. Context is also important here: Normally, few would question the inclusion of a piece like this, media coverage of an individual meeting with and praying with some of the best known anti-vaxxer figures in the US to pray for former US President Donald Trump, but take one look at the talk page of this article and you'll find endless RfCs from a handful of embedded editors who watch this page solely to remove any 'political' or 'negative' media coverage about the subject—that is all they've done here and likely all they'll do here. This is just the latest example of that ongoing attempt. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• No. It's hard to see things like this neutrally but we have to try. Imagine the tables were turned ideologically. Would you think this one passing report of some people gathering at someone's house would belong in their bio? As I see it, this is a BLP issue and contentious statements (yes, it's contentious, or people wouldn't be removing it) require higher barriers to inclusion. I question the motives of both sides of this, but all else being equal, this addition is not a well-sourced or significant piece of information to add to a BLP. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "passing report"? Endwise (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's one article (not solely about Sears), apparently not covered by any other journalists, about a gathering at someone's house by a digital publisher with questionable reliability. Maybe there's a better term I can use, but that's what I meant. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. I've had a think about it, and I'll have to agree with bloodofox here for the most part. This article talks about Sears quite a lot actually, it's not just a passing comment about a list of people which happened to include his name, the article was primarily about that gathering, and discussed Sears in detail. It's a piece of factual information you can refer to that is emblematic of his overall political/new age/conspiratorial shift (which is more informative than for instance "so and so newspaper described him as a conspiracy theorist"). It seems a lot more than mere trivia. Regarding Vice – on articles which broach upon technical matters with which I'm familiar I have spotted multiple inaccuracies in the past so I'm not the biggest fan of them, but in this case, the article talks about the event at length; It's not just a suspect passing comment, so there's no reason to believe he mightn't actually have been there or something. TLDR, it's non-trivial information from a contextually reliable source. Endwise (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, mostly. We're in a situation where there isn't much sourcing in general, but it is important context, so we have to make due with what we can, WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:PARITY apply. The only section I'm hesitant about is the and to make "an implicit protest against COVID safety guidelines." That wording is from a source even worse than Vice, and is presented without attribution, making it unclear that it is a WP:SPS podcast's read of the situation. The source actually says: as the podcast Conspirituality noted: making an implicit protest against COVID safety guidelines by meeting together indoors and apparently maskless. Quoting the assumption of an SPS through a marginally reliable source is not something I'm over the moon about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot) but already watching the talk page anyway
• Yes, with agreement with the caveat by ScottishFinnishRadish. Really, if the only source for that particular bit were a podcast that Vice quoted, I would just omit that particular phrase altogether. But for the rest, I don't think there's any genuine doubt that he attended the event, and I think that is of relevance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, with ScottishFinnishRadish's caveat that the presumed "implicit protest" be removed, as it does not meet the reliability standard of a BLP like bare attendance at the event. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• No, changing opinion per rationales below. If the event was notable enough on the topic of his activism, I'd expect we'd have an additional corroborating source. And as a BLP, we should err on the side of not including it without very high confidence in the sole source. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you implying that there's something controversial enough about the source's report that we need more than one source covering it? The subject subsequently spoke at numerous anti-vaxxer events with some of these same figures, like Del Bigtree—there's nothing controversial here and the article's subject receives almost no coverage exterior to his anti-vaxxer activities since shifting his persona to be focused on consprituality topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Not controversial, just non-notable. Specifically, because it was a private event with no apparent follow-on notable coverage (controversial or otherwise). We cover the public events sufficiently enough not to need further gild the lily on the topic with a source about which there are reasonable concerns regarding a private event. I can't come up with a cohesive argument that it isn't WP:COATRACK; even though I agree he probably attended the party and supports those causes, I wouldn't stake my reputation on an edit to that effect with only the one Vice source. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sears subsequently went on to attend—and in fact feature at—rallies with these same individuals and on these same topics. How is this not notable? Additionally, why is it that this uncontroversial material is so quick to go under the knife as "non-notable" while the rest of the article doesn't get a second look? There's a clear break in the coverage the subject recived in the pre-pandemic era versus the post-pandemic period. A really interesting dynamic we have going on with this fringe subject article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The public rallies and positions are what's notable, I don't feel the same about the private meeting. And I'm not confident enough in this sole source making the further links that may have come from the meeting and associations which would be the notable topics to include (Gold Star Oasis, the Soros movie, gun ownership). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes the activities of antivaxxers, when covered by reliable sources, are relevant to the people involved. Zaathras (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I would go along with removing the bit about "implicit protest", as ScottishFinnishRadish suggests. Carlstak (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• No It fails sourcing guidelines with WP:RSP stating that Vice has "no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." This doesnt meet the criteria for anchoring controversial text so we need a better source for this and if we dont have it, then delete it. This is a WP:BLP sourcing violation and WP:PILLARS are more important than this somewhat unimportant article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • My goodness, there is a lot to unpack in there. First, there is no valid issue of BLP, as there's no question that the JP Sears took part in the gathering, this is solid, grounded fact. JP Sears has also made numerous statements that reliable sources characterize as antivax, so there is no BLP issue arising by tying him to a meeting of prominent antivaxxers. Second, when there is no consensus on a source, i.e. Vice, being a reliable source, that means it is settled on a case-by-case basis, i.e. talk page discussions and Requests for Comment. That's what we're doing right now, holding an RfC to see if there is consensus to use this source. Saying "no, we can't use it because there's no consensus to use it" during the RfC that is being held to determine its usability is just ... wow. The chutzpah. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    The sources actually don't call him anti-vax, rather they call him anti-vaccine mandate or talk about him taking part on anti-vaccine mandate rallys, which is an important distinction in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

    It actually isn't, Mr. Cherry-picker. Zaathras (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  But "no consensus on reliability" does not mean "consensus it is unreliable". You have to make the case and get consensus it is unreliable for use here, not presume unreliability. If would be red on RS/P if that was the case. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt mean it is reliable either. It appears we are not discussing the source here, most of all these comments are some kind of blah blah if he is vax, or anti vax, or conspiracy theory, or whatever. All beside the point. We have only one semi-unreliable source without any RS confirmation and this is a BLP. It is as simple as that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Who here is debating "if he is" an anti-vaxxer MAGA conspiracy theorist comedian? Any passing familiarity with the article's subject makes that pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, unless one or two sources (depending on the sources) more reliable than VICE can be found that covers it. There is no consensus on the reliability of VICE, (RSP entry). I don't think there's actual doubt that he attended the event, however, the reliability of sources doesn't just matter for determining whether what the source says is true, but whether it is notable enough to a disinterested person to be included in an encyclopedia. This is especially the case in a BLP. WP:BLP says that BLPs need to be written conservatively, and it is not the place for titillating claims or tabloid like content. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, if Sears is seen as a public figure, says that if an incident is noteworthy for inclusion it should be covered by multiple reliable sources. WP:NPF, if Sears isn't seen as a public figure, says that only material relevant to the person's notability should be included, focusing on high quality secondary sources. There isn't a consensus on the reliability of VICE, so it isn't a high quality secondary source, and I don't think its reporting is representative of whether something is notable enough for a BLP. His anti-vaccine and conspiratorial views are definitely notable, but whether particular incidents or events relating to those views are notable enough for a BLP is a different question, especially if the event isn't a public event. Tristario (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Wikilawyering bingo! A reminder: Vice is in fact not a red-listed source and is prefectly fine for non-controversial reports such as this. There's zero doubt that this anti-vaxxer conspiritualist MAGA comedian was hanging with his anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist buds—in fact, some of the most visible anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists in the United States—and praying for former US president Donald Trump. Since Covid, amplifying conspiracy theories about vaccines and the government is pretty much all this guy seems to do. And we're not conspiracy theorist's PR team—we report on what WP:RS says and Vice is no doubt an WP:RS for this, no matter who would prefer we didn't report on it here or why. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. The second sentence is particularly WP:GOSSIPY. Best to leave VICE out of a BLPs when contested. CutePeach (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• No The source for this claim is marginal at best and the claims being made are pretty trivial. He attended some party? So what? Bonewah (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Weak yes - I agree with some of the "no" votes here in that the sourcing isn't the highest quality. That said, looking at the "no" arguments, the main rationales seem to be that the material is either 1) too contentious, or 2) too trivial to include. I'm really struggling to see why it might be too contentious. There's a lot of sources pointing to Sears' odd views on COVID. Is adding another source stating as much really controversial? Folks arguing the content is too trivial aren't basing their arguments in policy. The standard for additions of content is simply that the content is verifiable. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @NickCT: The standard for additions of content is simply that the content is verifiable This incorrect, as the Verifiable subsection, WP:VNOT plainly states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Indeed, the title of that subsection is "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" You may disagree that this information is trivial, but claims of triviality are very much grounded in policy. Bonewah (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Bonewah: - Right. So the key language is "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article". Basically that means if something is verifiable, then the onus is on "excluders" to explain why the content ought to be omitted. WP:NOTGOSSIP was a reasonable argument, but that policy says that events for "which [celebrities] have notability" fall outside the policy. Sears seems to be notable as an anti-COVID guy, thus antending an anti-COVID party seems related. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @NickCT:Ok, 1) The standard for inclusion is not simply that the content is Verifiable, as you claim. 2)The onus is absolutely not on the 'excluders' as you claim. The final sentence of WP:VNOT clearly states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Im not sure why who has to prove what matters as we are currently in the process of determining consensus and the material is currently excluded. As for WP:NOTGOSSIP, this is going to be a editor judgement call and its fine that your and my judgement are different on this matter. However, saying my arguments, and by extension my judgement is not based in policy is totally false. Bonewah (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
        • @Bonewah: - The sentence preceding the final sentence says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." That's step 1. So it is, as I stated, the case that verifiable information can be included, unless consensus determines otherwise. re "a editor judgement call" - So you disagree Sears is notable for his COVID positions, or that content in question deals with those COVID positions? re "not based in policy is totally false" - Apologies. I should have said based on a misreading of policy. NickCT (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

          All content that doesn't violate policy is a judgment call by a collaboration of editors. Including vs excluding is beside the point. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My no vote relates to a sourcing violation, not only to the type of content. I will explain. If we are going to insert content then it must be WP:DUE. We test this with both content and sourcing (as you stated). In this case the sourcing fails per RSP (no consensus) and the content is also borderline unencyclopedic, thus it fails on both fronts. It is a strike one WP:BLP, strike two WP:RSP, then strike three trivial content WP:UNDUE. These issues all exist together, and in viewed in totality, it is three strikes out at the 'ole ball game. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we've currently got consensus that the source should remain. Of course it's perfectly due–pretty much the only RS coverage this guy has gotten since the pandemic began are articles that focus on his anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theory, and MAGA activities. (And I'm sure that your sole purpose here being to repeatedly attempt to scrub the article of material you deem 'negative' about the subject—as demonstrated by your repeated RfCs and lobbying all over this talk page—has nothing to do with your invocation of wiki-this-or-that.) :bloodofox: (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@NickCT:I think Sears is notable in part for his COVID positions. I dont think that his attendance in a party that a bad source thinks was an implicit something something counts a 'COVID position'. Even a fair number of 'include' editors here agree that the opinions of what some Vice writer thinks the party was really about is unfit for inclusion. Without that line what do we have left? That Sears attended a party along with some people that some US culture warriors think are enemy culture warriors. So what? Bonewah (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Uh, this event included Del Bigtree, Mikki Willis (Plandemic), and Marla Maples, and involved praying for Trump during his failed re-election. These figures were also meeting for a new film promoting conspiracies about George Soros. Sears subsequently sponsored and performed at anti-vaxxer events organized by and featuring some of these same figures, which we cover. So, 'really about'? 'Implicit something'? 'Some people US culture warriors think are enemy culture warriors'? Are you really going to try to 'both sides' some of the best known figures of the US anti-vaxxer and conspirituality subculture here? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You actually appear to have confirmed Bonewah's point in this response regarding the culture war. Please take your ideological battle elsewhere. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have provided every reference under the 'political activities' section, and you have now attempted to remove every one of them (literally each one of them!). I will continue to provide them as they appear, and invite others to do so, scrubbing attempts from ideologically-motivated editors or not. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• weak keep...I think - I believe the "implicit protest" bit ought to go, and I wonder if the location (Stephen Huntsman's home) should be removed as well, as I couldn't find much notable about him in the Vice article or elsewhere. Perhaps we could replace those bits with other information from the article to add context, though some of it might require additional sourcing. The stuff about Gold Star Oasis might make a nice addition if they were verifiable, but I've been unable to find confirmation that JP Sears is involved in that. Actually, I can't find anything about that company other than vague LLC listings and other articles that reference the Vice article and/or Conspirituality podcast, such as this from Rolling Stone. Not sure if the Rolling Stone article provides any value here. I also wonder if we should include info that the Vice article attributes to Sears' YouTube videos or podcasts, such as his claims of potential voter fraud and his belief that his videos weren't censored because YT couldn't detect sarcasm. But this might be dicey, as he is a satirist. On a possibly related note...I was directed here because of my question about the inclusion of the sentence regarding Sears speaking at the World Health Freedom summit, which might be separate from this issue, as it is attributed to a different source. I believe this sentence needs a description of the event for more context or it should be deleted. I have no idea if the source (Religion Dispatches) is appropriate for a WP:BLP, though a quick Google search reveals that JP Sears was featured on promotional material for the event and listed as a speaker by the organization's Facebook page, so I wouldn't consider the information contentious or disputed. Those are my thoughts, and hopefully they are at least somewhat coherent and maybe even helpful. However...I am a new and inexperienced editor trying to learn, so please take anything I say/do with that in mind Any advice, help, or criticism is appreciated.Prunenoveggie (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

how is this nonsense allowed in an article as if it is proof of anything?

Sears began attempting to discredit some of the public health measures taken against COVID-19 and promote COVID-19 conspiracy theories. Science communicator Jonathan Jarry of the Office for Science and Society, McGill University described Sears as part of the conspirituality trend, combining conspiracy theories and New Age spirituality. He notes that Sears has promoted claims about COVID-19 such as that Vitamin D provides protection against the disease, has referred to masks as "face suffocators", and had a video removed by YouTube "for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories". 2600:1702:1760:EB00:38A6:35B6:2C46:82CB (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2023

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

JP Sears → JP Sears (comedian) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. For context, the other topic with this name is JP Sears (baseball). Monthly average pageviews for the two articles (starting with the athlete's MLB debut in April 2022) can be found here, and show the comedian receiving a little over three times the average views of the baseball player. This may be partially buttressed by his holding the primary title, but outgoing pageviews show that only 15% of people (as of the most recent data) travel from the comedian's article directly to the baseball player's article. This suggests there's not a terribly large portion of readers being confused by the current setup. The evidence seems to narrowly support the comedian being the PRIMARYTOPIC, but it's definitely a close call. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment nominating editor is a paid editor as disclosed on his talk page. I am also Weak oppose per comments by ModernDayTrilobite above. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment my most recent paid edit was March 2017; this is irrelevant to this move nomination. Joeykai (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per ModernDayTrilobite. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.