Talk:JP Sears/Archive 1

JP's intention
What I'd like to see in the article is that his intention isn't primarily to make fun of people, but to raise awareness for how people do things (that he actually personally cares about) for the very wrong reasons without even being aware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:BBCA:D800:CD56:6667:7A8:3E6E (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

1. He does that, indeed.

2. Write it yourself here then. With RS of course.

Zezen (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability
I can't seem to find anything resembling wp:sigcov or evidence that Sears's work has earned "considerable attention", or "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.", or even "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.", as described by guidelines at wp:entertainer. I'm not going to AFD this yet, but I think these problems may warrant a future AfD. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He's notable and passes GN guidelines, as the new edits have demonstrated. The article was just lacking in content and refs before. Thanks for bringing this up anyway. Bezrat (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, JP is anti-vaccine...
...or pro-safe-vaccine, or pro-informed consent etc.

In 2017 he published a video saying "I want to be heavily vaccinated so I can be protected from the diseases that I’ve been told to be extremely afraid of."

He recently pushed a WHO/Big pharma conspiracy on his Instagram.

In April 2019, Sears posted a video about vaccines with the by-line “Are you pro vaccine or an anti-vaxxer? Either way, I set the record straight on vaccines.” In the video Sears peddles the false conspiracy theory that Bill Gates didn’t vaccinate his children (because elites), which is false.

There are no too many news articles that highlight the pseudoscientific side of JP Sears so it appears the mere mention of being anti-vaxx should be fine... — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * JP Sears is a parody/troll personality. Nothing from primary sources (esp. his channel) can be considered reliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/clown-prince-wellness — Paleo Neonate  – 23:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe something here? https://www.elephantjournal.com/2020/12/the-trouble-with-jp-sears-influencers/ Alex 21:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs)
 * That is an anonymous blog post and cannot be used (WP:BLPRS). It seems difficult to find mainstream news that discuss Sears (I found a few from 2016-2017 that weren't relevant here).  In general that's a sign of lack of notability.  Or maybe it takes some time for them to report about more recent events.  I found  https://www.dailywire.com/news/facebook-threatens-to-unpublish-comedian-jp-sears-after-mocking-covid-19-lockdowns  yet the few WP:RSN threads that discuss it appear to quote a Snopes entry that questions its reliability.  Then I read in its own voice: "Democrats’ hypocrisy, and the overall self-righteousness exhhibited by the pro-lockdown enthusiasts." displaying ignorance/disregard for the science involved, and the article mostly publishes censorship-outcry quotes...  I found better articles in skeptic magazines but they're also rarely usable in BLPs.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only WP:RS-compliant source I've found on this guy so far is this one: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/clown-prince-wellness &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

JP's publicist dropped him.
Sounds True dropped him because he lied about the terrorist attack on the capitol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.4.47 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that reported about this? Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I found out from a tweet with an excerpt of a statement from Sounds True. I'm not sure how reliable that is, but you can check the cache of Sounds True's page for JP. The present version is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadib100 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True or not, there's also the matter of WP:DUE &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

JP Sears is not a conspiracy theorist
Sears' videos are oriented to humor. He doesn't spread conspiracy theories. There's some kind of bias in those who created this entry. Alejo81 (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He's a conspiracy theorist. I've seen people claim that it's all satire, but they misunderstand what he says. It doesn't matter if JP says, "X is good," when he actually means "X is bad," when actually X is a completely false statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadib100 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

conspiracy theorist in the lede
Sears is not primarily known as a conspiracy theorist in the relms of alex jones and the crazies. I personally have never once heard the term used once, although I dont really follow him.

Put this here per WP:PRESERVE.

, and conspiracy theorist.

If you dont agree run an RFC, or I will this goes all TE bonkers without a lot of sources. This is a BLP after all.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also saw your revert. Office for Science and Society is very much a reliable source and Sears's promotion of fringe topics and conspiracy theories by way of his YouTube videos is core to what Sears does. Review Fringe_theories. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * thats a primary source. Feel free to discuss below in the rfc and dont edit disputed content that is under RFC Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this user here referred to the article's citation to the Office for Science and Society as follows: "your suggested university is a primary source and laughable". No clue what this guy is going on about with that or what he's up to here, but there's clearly some kind of POV motivation behind this bizarre approach and Wikipedia word salad (misuse of "primary source" and "status quo" and whatever "don't dispute content that is under RFC" is supposed to mean). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It means follow the wp process and participate in the RFC process that is now underway (below) and WP:AGF as well.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When a Wikipedia user starts describing a high-quality source, the Office for Science and Society, as "a primary source and laughable", that user has made it pretty clear where they're coming from—there is no reason to assume otherwise at that point. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 report from Vice
Vice has published a report on Sears's transition to conspiracy theories:
 * Merlan, Anna. 2021. "Leading New Age Conspiracy Influencers Plan Their Retreat to Utopian Lagoon", January 28, 2021. Online.

This piece follows up on McGill's Office for Science and Society and notes that:


 * Meanwhile, the comedian JP Sears, one of the reported backers of the Gold Star Oasis, according to Joyous Heart, has undergone a similar shift. Sears was once known for lighthearted videos making fun of the pieties and pretensions of the New Age world; he played a character in YouTube videos who was “ultra spiritual,” very into yoga and deeply insufferable; in character, he also did interviews with outlets like Yoga Journal. ...


 * 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."

The article contains further discussion about Sears, including commentary on Sears's decision to purchase a firearm in November 2020. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple sources that confirm the conspiracy theories then it would be a good idea to add them to the article. This is a much more reliable source than a university blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source this individual is bizarrely referring to as a "university blog" is a 2021 article from McGill University's Office for Science and Society, by any definition a high-quality source and without question well in compliance with WP:RS., take whatever is you're going on about to Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you need others to tell you the same. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, more a public education university project than a blog, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its a primary source regardless. If the subject really is a conspiracy theorist there will be many sources in RS, no reason to really debate what is or isnt a blog. That fact that the discussion is even going on evidences it isnt RS material for the lede of a BLP, that should be obvious. The comments of this bloodofox user appear to be politically motivated (red-pill, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Confusion on your part about the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources aside, re: "Red-pill,etc"—what on earth are you talking about? That is not a quote from me. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

- RE: your question above - Yes, I did read the Vice article. According to WP:RSP - There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications, so I'd be hesitant to say it's a reliable source for a contentious claim in a BLP. The author of the Vice article, a former blogger for Gawker Media, doesn't inspire confidence either, as she was named in a defamation lawsuit in relation to her blogging. And when Richard Bradley wrote a piece about the discredited and retracted Rolling Stone gang-rape story, she called his article a giant ball of shit, and also called Robby Soave an idiot for the story he wrote about the retracted RS article. She later apologized, but her history does call into question her diligence in relation to fact-checking, and reliability as a source for a contentious claim in a BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC
 * The author appears to have worked and written for numerous publications, including Jezebel, and it appears that the libel suit you're talking about resulted in little more than a settlement that involved Jezebel attaching a company's response to the article in question . She also appears to regularly write about conspirituality topics, which includes the Vice article. I see no red flags in this piece and I'm sure more will be forthcoming about this topic. I recommend you take the source to the WP:RS notice board if you have further concerns about it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no further concerns, Vice has already been to RSN, and there's no consensus on the reliability of it. RfC participants here can decide for themselves if this specific article is a reliable source to support a contentious claim about the subject of this BLP. In my view, it isn't. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

QAnon connection is tenuous and needs more sources.
The current QAnon connection is sourced through the mcgill piece, which makes a connection, but does not directly link JP Sears to the QAnon conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlas Schmatlas (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed it yesterday per your comments, but it was re-added. Normally we only do one RFC at a time on a talk page, so if it is still there when the above RFC closes, we can address the POV content next. Probably I should have addressed the content first (instead of the above RFC) but that was due to me not noticing that the article content was also poorly sourced as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Undue content
you re-added WP:LONGQUOTE and wp:undue content that I removed. This content is now challenged, and you can discuss it here. You may have noticed above there is also objections to the content as well, so it is likely going to go to RFC after the above RFC is finished. You can discuss it here in advance if you feel strongly about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey! Still waiting on the answer to those accusations you've made against me on your talk page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Content was re-added through revert here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this user has claimed to be unfamiliar with the material they're removing. Competence is required. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop the WP:BATTLE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the revert you're linking to was by . Do you have a different revert in mind? --Distelfinck (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I didn't know where to put the content regarding the reverted/added content (it was also relevant to some content I was discussing in the section above with ). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what do you want to talk about -- 's revert? --Distelfinck (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions, realized my dent was in the wrong location. It has now been moved out here. That should clarify it has nothing to do with your comments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are not excessively long quotes and my impression was that the proposed "summary" of those sources was basically missing most of their statements (resulting in whitewashing). — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Longquote says: "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text." Re-write it as you suggest then, but the quote is UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Vice piece seems fine to me but the entire Jonathan Jarry thing does seem UNDUE. This is a non-peer reviewed blog post by a guy with a master's degree in biology engaging in literary content analysis. Including criticism of a BLP is fine if that criticism is an example of significant viewpoints. Right now, however, one-third of this article is devoted to a single non-expert's criticism of the subject of the BLP. The mere fact that we can find an example of one person criticizing another person does not demand inclusion in a BLP. A BLP is not supposed to be a parade of horribles but a summary of significant viewpoints which a single declaration can't be. (I do think it might be DUE in the further reading section, however.) Further, our generally accepted essay WP:NOCRIT proscribes standalone "Criticism" sections. The fact this section uses the title "In the Media" doesn't change the fact that it's a standalone Criticism section. Its content should be seamlessly integrated into the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I again reverted out the addition by again here. I am not sure if any editors are for the inclusion of this content except bloodfox.  Bloodfox you need to find consensus to include it here. I had to run an RFC last time get some absurd content you were trying to add on this article, and it was a giant waste of everyone's time. Do we really need another RFC on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Correction: It was a waste of your time—which I told you ahead of time—and led to nothing. You've been repeatedly reverted for attempting to pull this information from this article. Wikipedia isn't censored, whether you like it or not. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To my admittedly inexperienced eye the Jarry and Vice sources look ok, but the section devoted to them seems excessive. It accounts for over half of the article body as currently written.  I'm sure it can be pared down some without losing too much information.  How about something like this:


 * 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 inaccurate claims about COVID-19 such as claiming that Vitamin D provides protection against the disease, and has referred to masks as "face suffocators."


 * In January 2021, following up on Office for Science and Society piece, 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.  According to Vice, Sears has implied that COVID related lockdowns are "a pretext to limit human freedom" and that the 2020 Presidential election was affected by voter fraud.


 * I don't use talk pages much, so if I've put this in the wrong place or otherwise screwed up the format of this comment please let me know, or feel free to fix it yourself. Squeakachu (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good compromise to me. Chetsford (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on conspiracy theorist in lead
Should ", and conspiracy theorist"  be included in the lede? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (conspiracy theorist in lead)

 * No, article subject is primarily known as satirist and makes satire of many subjects. In lede is WP:UNDUE weight it is sufficient to explore in the article and later if it becomes due, we can include it. One of the sources is a university, essentially a primary source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to take a break from editing Wikipedia until you have thoroughly reviewed WP:PRIMARY and gained an understanding of what a primary source is. This is fundamental. McGill University's Office for Science and Society (article) is a very high quality source (WP:RS), in this case a secondary source. The article's author is surveying primary sources to produce an analysis. The author, Jonathan Jarry, is not directly involved with these events or the individuals he discusses. Jarry is in fact a scholar, a science communicator. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK so now we agree it is a blog post by a university employee (or professor)? These statements are the very definition of primary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling or what? Familiarize yourself with WP:PRIMARY. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, i tend to patrol controversial BLPs, although I am not sure that is what you meant... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is unambiguously a WP:SECONDARY source, since it is a science communicator's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts rather than a personal account of someone close to the event. It should not be considered a blog post, since it's published through a general public-facing university publication staffed by professors, making it of similar reliability to a newspaper, a rung lower than a peer-reviewed journal. DaysonZhang (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In some form - WP:LEAD being a summary of the article body's important points, the conspiracy theories subsection is about 1/3 of the article, amost 1/2 of the body. It's not important if it's "and a conspiracy theorist", "promoted conspiracy theories", etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No - per WP:NPOV - it's undue for the lead based on the opinion of Jarry. If it's a widely held and significant viewpoint, then I would expect to see that label widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject of this BLP. Jarry's opinion is properly attributed in the body of the article, but I also think too much weight is being given to Jarry's POV with a separate sub-section, one sentence in the career section is enough. If more reliable sources can be found to support that label, then I might change my mind. It appears to me that his notability derives from being a comedian/satirist, not a conspiracy theorist. I'll also note that it shouldn't have been added back to the lead (in any form),, unattributed, in WP's voice, while this RfC is ongoing. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have not already, see Vice source below, which itself cites the Office for Science and Society as a source. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Labelling someone as having "promoted conspiracy theories" is not the same as stating that they are a "conspiracy theorist" which is what the vote is about. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In some form. The Office for Science and Society is a particularly high-quality source, but Sears's move toward conspiracy theories and right-wing politics is also documented by Vice—who quote the Office for Science and Society article—in the body. As always, Wikipedia isn't censored. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No per WP:BLPSTYLE, MOS:LABEL, and WP:NPOV. I thought the Morning Herald article would corroborate the "conspiracy theorist" label, but it does not. We can't state in WP:WIKIVOICE that he's a conspiracy theorist. I still have my doubts about the Office for Science and Society source, but if you're gonna use it at all, then at a minimum it would need attribution (also placing Jarry's POV in the lead seems kinda undue). is spot on. I've seen this occur many times on various BLPs where the BLP is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" in the article, but the sources only state that the BLP had promoted conspiracy theories--not that they were a conspiracy theorist. Someone like Joe Rogan has promoted conspiracy theories before, but that doesn't necessarily make him a conspiracy theorist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this also a vote that the claim "promoted conspiracy theories" should also not be in the lead, as some other commenters are implying? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was just responding to the proposed question. To be honest, it looks like we are already giving way too much weight to Jarry's article. I think it would be better to summarize Jarry's article in a maximum of three sentences (w/ attribution) and place it elsewhere in the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No - per WP:NPOV - Jarry's POV can only be supported if he can provide more valid sources that can be used to ascertain his claims.Sea Ane (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No per WP:BLP and the above arguments made by Isaidnoway and Dr. Swag Lord.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In some form – a MOS:LEAD section serves to summarise an articles most important contents, and his promotion of conspiracy theories is one half of the body of the article. It's adequately sourced and needed in summarising the article to say that he "has promoted conspiracy theories" in some way or another. His promotion of conspiracy theories was notable enough to make it's way to Vice as well, it seems pertinent to mention it in the lead as it is a relevant part of his notability. It also doesn't seem that anyone yet has objected to saying he has "promoted conspiracy theories" in the lead, so looking over this discussion it seems like that is what it makes the most sense to go for. Volteer1 (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to its inclusion in both the lede and the body. The body can potentially be cleaned up to be neutral, but the lede in wikivoice cannot. We are not talking about high quality sources here (a primary/COI source and vice)...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No: clearly WP:UNDUE in the lead of a BLP considering the quality of the sources. OK later in the article if handled correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck part of the above per Jtbobwaysf comment above. Clearly "in the body" needs to be discussed and a consensus reached. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No - Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. This is inappropriate for the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No - We cannot automatically classify legitimate opinions that are not mainstream as conspiracy. In this form it should definitely not be in the lead, or anywhere in the article. Bezrat (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this user previously made this edit to this page, and is here describing Covid-19 conspiracy theories as "legitimate opinions that are not mainstream". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You talking points/ accusations are pathetic and baseless (how surprising). While my edits improved the article, you were the one that introduced the term conspiracy theorist to the article without any prior consensus, and this is the result of it. Bezrat (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering your attempts at inserting obvious WP:RS-fails such as wikinetworth.com into the article and your comments aboiut "ruining a great comedian's reputation by finding a derogatory source", what's clear here is your need to become familiar with WP:RS and WP:CENSOR. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP - Idealigic (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (conspiracy theorist in lead)
This vote does not make a distinction between "conspiracy theorist" and "promoted conspiracy theories" The standard for including the former is much higher than the latter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, but the very definition of a conspiracy theorist is one who, so the standard is the same and it shouldn't have been added to the lead while this RfC is ongoing. When content has been disputed, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So it shouldn't appear anywhere in the lead, in any form, until consensus has been reached. Isaidnoway <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 07:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "the very definition of a conspiracy theorist is one who promotes conspiracy theories, so the standard is the same" No its not. Mainstream sources tend to only label people like Alex Jones and David Icke as outright conspiracy theorists, but are happy to describe others as having promoted conspiracy theories, without outright calling them conspiracy theorists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, using that logic, one has to wonder why Bloodofox added that label, since the source being used doesn't outright call him a conspiracy theorist.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Outside of the restrictions of Wikipedia, people whose income involves promoting conspiracy theories—definitely the case for the subject of this article—are known as conspiracy theorists. It's pretty natural. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that would constitute WP:OR. A highly contentious label like "conspiracy theorist" would need robust sourcing that explicitly states that the subject is a conspiracy theorist. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, I agree we shouldn't label him as a conspiracy theorist at the moment even though he probably is. The standard must be fairly high for bio articles. The OSS source is good, but we'd need several of those. That he promoted conspiracy theories is a fair thing to say, especially if we can pinpoint which ones. Robincantin (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be a due weight to refer to someone as a conspiracy theorist merely for having promoted some conspiracy theories at some point in time, since the fact that someone has promoted conspiracy theories might not be sufficiently important to make "conspiracy theorist" one of the primary labels for that person. Unless a large number of reliable sources call someone a conspiracy theorist, such a label is undue; and even when it is due to mention such a label, it still should, in some cases, be attributed per WP:LABEL.DaysonZhang (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Would be great if this RFC could be closed by someone uninvolved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Jarry content
Include/Remove the Jarry content Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Jarry content)

 * BLANK and discuss This content is WP:UNDUE and poorly sourced. Sourced from the personal opinion of a university employee as well as VICE. We can later find a consensus on what to add. It appears the content continues to be edited after the RFC, which makes it a challenge to discuss the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Wikipedia is not censored—it's obvious that Sears is deeply involved with conspirituality. This is well-sourced despite Jtbobwaysf's frequent attempts to sanitize the article, eagerness to make strange personal attacks aimed at journalists, and fondness for making vague accusations at editors the relatively new user deems to be attacking this article's subject. In fact, an association with conspirituality and related topics like Q-Anon is probably what JP Sears is best known for today—he's otherwise an obscure YouTuber and comedian. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but truncate coverage relative to due weight. Public-facing university publications—even if not peer reviewed—and news articles are sufficiently reliable, even for BLP sources. The fact that Anna Merlan also writes for other news sites is irrelevant. DaysonZhang (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form the content is clearly due, though how many words should be dedicated to it is something for further discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is clearly notable and WP:DUE. The current language can certainly be condensed and copy edited, but the content belongs in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but truncate coverage per Squeakachu's suggestion, in the section above this one. WP is WP:NOTCENSORED but it's also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:TRIVIA. This is a single OpEd in which a non-expert attempts to provide expert commentary (a person with a master's degree in biology engaging in literary analysis) and a second article from a borderline source that merely comments on the first article; it, therefore, does not represent significant thought on the subject as described by WP:DUE and is really on the cusp of being mere trivia. Chetsford (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it seems to be notable/useful to be kept. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information should be kept in the article. It seems quite significant. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's important for it to be kept. Sea Ane (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Jarry content)
what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I was unaware the brief relatd to the quote text. I was thinking it was just to tell editors to be brief. Appreciate the tip. Also the content continues to be edited after I ran the RFC, so I ammended the proposal to blank the section and reach consensus on talk before re-adding. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, this editor is proposing that we remove any and all mention of Sears's association with conspirituality, lol. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCBRIEF says Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the rfc tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs, if it is sufficiently brief; a long statement will fail to be copied. your edit had . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you! I was thinking only comments needed to be brief ;-), so i made my revision even more brief Jtbobwaysf (talk)
 * you are continuing to edit the RFC text in question after the RFC is started (Have you been admonished for that before?). There is no other suggestion but to delete it when dealing with WP:SEALION edits. Maybe some other editors will have some useful comments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess you're referring to me adding a new reference regarding Sears as a speaker and cording these connected items to its own section. I get that you're eager to censor the article—I've seen it all before many times over from other editors elsewhere on the site—but, as elsewhere, attempting to game Wikipedia's systems ultimately just wastes your time. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Jezebel & Washington Post coverage
Sears's involvement with conspirituality circles have also received some coverage from Jezebel in a piece focused on Jordan Maurice Bowditch:
 * Clark-Flory, Tracy. 2021. "'Brotherhood Is Healing': When Men's Self-Help Groups Collide With Covid Restrictions". Jezebel, January 7, 2021. Online.


 * Quote: Take the comedian JP Sears, an outspoken covid skeptic and mask antagonist, who is reportedly collaborating with the director of the debunked covid conspiracy film Plandemic. In early December, Sears shared a satirical video critiquing media narratives around covid, and in which Bowditch appears and delivers the line, “Bravery is refusing to get together with my friends and family that I love.”

I don't see any red flags with this piece. It should probably go in the article as a reference. Sears also received brief mention recently in a piece by the Washington Post about Q-Anon:


 * Meltzer, Marisa. 2021. "QAnon's Unexpected Roots in New Age Spirituality". The Washington Post, March 29, 2021. Online.


 * Quote: I think of the macho wellness dude as epitomized by the comedian-turned-podcaster Joe Rogan, who sells mugs and tube socks that read “conquer your inner b—-” and Hindu-deity-inspired T-shirt designs. (I reached out to Rogan, but his representative did not respond.) Then there is the pandemic-era bro upgrade to the mythopoetic archetype — which is how you find MMA fighters like Tim Kennedy on the podcast of comedian JP Sears, with both men arguing that we’ve overreacted to covid.

Whether we include these sources or not, the association between the article's subject and conspirituality is not up for debate at this point. It's time the article reflects this and includes mention of Sears's association with conspirituality in the lead: Wikipedia isn't censored. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The community believes that "Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons." The WaPo article's one-word reference to Sears seems to merely reinforce what the currently consensus-included Jarry text claims. It seems fine to add it as another reference reinforcing it; I doubt it's sustainable as new content, though. Chetsford (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "contentious" about any of this, nor is any of this controversial: This is all well established. Look, I get that you and Jtbobwaysf would very much like our conspirituality article deleted entirely and that you've been active here with another use in attempting to downplay these connections (see your post-RfC survey above with, of course, this article's resident scrubber Jtbobwaysf), but this is now very well established and consensus is clear. Wikipedia isn't censored. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If what Jezebel is saying is, like you say, "well established", then there will be other sources saying the same thing as Jezebel, so we wouldn't need Jezebel as a source. Wikipedia is not censored, but we also don't want to quote every single sentence from every source about the article subject -- we have to be selective in what from a source we mention and what we don't mention. See WP:UNDUE --Distelfinck (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Contentious means someone is is removing it. Take it to WP:RSN and see if you can overrule the WP:RSP for your WP:POV. Otherwise dont re-add it. Your edits are becoming a problem here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, our resident would-be scrubber. Oh hey, while you're here (and as you know), I'm still waiting for your response above where you falsely claim that "we have some problems where bloodfox materially changes the text subject of the RFC after the RFC is started which confuses the RFC". &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "you've been active here with another use in attempting to downplay these connections" That's a demonstrably false claim. In the previously closed RfC, I !voted to retain the Jarry article (see: ). "There's nothing "contentious" about any of this" "Contentious" means "likely to cause disagreement or argument" . Based on my reading of the discussion on this page, I believe a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the text you proposed inserting is likely to cause disagreement or argument. Because the Wikipedia community believes that "Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons." we should find a better source to cite the claim in question. So just source this to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, a book by the University of Chicago Press, an indexed journal, or something like those and you'll be set! No problem at all. Chetsford (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I haven't proposed adding these sources, although they'd only be "contentious" to you and Jtbobwaysf. The reporting there on this topic isn't remotely controversial: Plandemic stuff is all over the article subject's Twitter, for example. Meanwhile, you were also the lone vote for Jtbobwaysf's clearly bad faith attempt to delete English Wikipedia's Conspirituality article—ridiculous given how widespread the term is now used and how widely the concept is recognized in both academic and media circles. With that in mind, it's difficult to take your lawyering here in good faith. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "stuff is all over the article subject's Twitter" I'll have to take your word for it, I don't engage in WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please save the comments about WP:OR when it's a problem for the article's contents rather than a demonstration of your lack of familiarity with the article's subject. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox - with all due respect, you've become a bit of a bull in a china shop. I've added content to the article about a scandal JP Sears was involved with in Costa Rica, I've supported adding the Jarry content to the article , and so on and so forth. And yet — because I'm disagreeing with you on sourcing a BLP to a semi-satirical ex-Gawker Media blog — you've taken the position that I'm an apologist here to whitewash the article. You seem to have settled on the irrational idea that you are the breakwater of truth and anyone, therefore, who doesn't agree with you at all times and on all things is a fifth columnist trying to destroy WP from within. While you're entitled to hold non fact-based opinions, it is a bit disruptive when those opinions become so all-consuming that they require you to lambast every editor with whom you come in contact at the first sign they aren't here to serve as the Hallelujah chorus in your crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox you are being abusive on this talk page and your edits appear to be WP:OWN. You have been asked many times to stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Implementation of previous RfC
The preceding RfC closed with a consensus, read by buidhe, to include the Jarry content "although not necessarily in the exact same form as it appears in the diff". To implement that consensus ...

Should the preserved Jarry content be: <Br/> (a) Kept in the original form,<Br/>

(b) Modified to the Squeakachu proposal,

(c) No in-body text but preserved as a "Further Reading" external link (d) Something else <Br/> If "A" or "B" are selected, should this appear in: 1 - A "Conspirituality" section with a Level 2 heading "Conspirituality" <Br/> 2 - A "Conspirituality" section with a Level 3 heading "Conspirituality" nested under "In the Media" 3 - A "Conspirituality" section integrated into "In the Media" Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC); edited 04:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * B-3: I think the Squeakachu proposal overcomes the WP:DUE concerns that have been expressed. Having a dedicated section consisting of only critical coverage would be violative of our WP:NOCRIT concept even if the actual name of the section isn't "Criticism." As well, the stable version of this article has this content "In the Media". Chetsford (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A-1. This obscure YouTuber and comedian is only known today for his conspirituality activities and constant criticism of what he deems to be "the left", usually by way of an angle invoking conspirituality. He's receiving no other media coverage. It's inappropriate and in fact a form of censorship to water down or play down the reception this has so far received and/or to bury it in an 'in the media' section. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * B-3: Per Chetsford. This proposed content is barely due to terrible sourcing. Note this article subject had a wikipedia page long before this political criticism content showed up. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor has repeatedly attempted to have any and all material the editor deems to be critical of the article's subject removed from the article, often made odd accusations about educational institutions, journalists, and other editors along the way. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as an optional suggestion, it might be helpful to the eventual closer if we limited our discussion to the question of the thread and not use it to air grievances against individual editors. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * B-3 As per my comments on the first RfC, I think we are giving way too much weight to Jarry's article. Squeakachu's version condenses the original version quite nicely while retaining the main points of both articles. The reader will have no idea what "Conspirituality" is, a neologism created 10 seconds ago. And, it looks like Jarry is the only one who labels Sears as part of the "conspirituality trend," so there are some POV concerns if that's what we title the section. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the most recent RfC was closed with the statement "There is a clear consensus to include a section on "conspirituality" in some form, although not necessarily in the exact same form as it appears in the diff". Whether or not you care for the term conspirituality is irrelevant—the term is used by scholars to describe exactly the movement Sears has embraced over the past year. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you closed the RfC. But contrary to your closure statement, there actually wasn't a consensus in the RfC to mention conspirituality in the article. Rather there was consensus in the RfC to mention the Jarry source. Conspirituality is only one part of the Jarry source, and not the main topic of the Jarry source. The Jarry source also talks about other stuff. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These are all conspirituality topics: "The conflation of new spirituality and conspiracy culture" (Inga Bårdsen Tøllefsen & James R. Lewis 2015:7). There are some editors here who are actively attempting to remove any and all material they deem to be 'critical' of the article's subject and at least one attempting to have the term deleted off of Wikipedia. However, it's used by academics and, lately, media sources, and is perfectly appropriate for the material related to Sears and similar figures in New Age and anti-vaccine, etc., circles. All of this is unfortunately typical of fringe topics on English Wikipedia, which really draws invested parties out of the woodwork. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is an invested party? You mean people pushing the term "conspirituality", possibly because they have a book coming up on the topic or are otherwise to profit from the spread of the term? Do you have any conflicts of interest on this? --Distelfinck (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Invested parties are frequently fans of the article's subject or somehow otherwise involved in those circles. It's typical of fringe topics on Wikipedia, as anyone who has edited related topics would be well aware. Often they're also adherents, sometimes keen on sending off-site threats. I'm a regular presence in a wide variety of pseudoscience articles and have been for quite a while now, particularly when they intersect with folklore. I have nothing to sell you—but there's plenty out there you can read up on to familiarize yourself with this topic, both in academic and media circles. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you have changed the subject to fringe-adjacent Wikipedia articles in general, away from this particular article. Earlier you said about this particular article There are some editors here who are actively attempting to remove any and all material they deem to be 'critical' of the article's subject and at least one attempting to have the term deleted off of Wikipedia. [...] All of this is unfortunately typical of fringe topics on English Wikipedia, which really draws invested parties out of the woodwork. So what invested parties have been drawn to this particular article? --Distelfinck (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because it's just another fringe-related article on the site. As with any fringe-adjacent article on Wikipedia, ask yourself: Who is attempting to scrub this article? There's your answer. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous aspersion. If you look at the current AfD for the article, you'll also see that it's no only a podcast or about a book, it's a term used by many sources and in the context it matches the topic of this article.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that those people are editing Wikipedia (they probably don't). --Distelfinck (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Due to some confusion, I've edited the options for clarity, indicated by insertion marks, above. I'm pinging those who have already !voted to make them aware, in case this impacts their !vote (Bloodofox, Jtbobwaysf, Dr. Swag Lord). Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we have some problems where materially changes the text subject of the RFC after the RFC is started which confuses the RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not altered the RfC. What are you talking about? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * says you altered "the text subject of the RFC", i.e. the text in the article that is the subject of this RfC --Distelfinck (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let the user respond for himself. This user has a history of making odd and vague accusations and then refusing to answer about them unless pressed. Presumably he's referring to me adding a new citation to the body. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * a) I'm letting them respond. Me commenting doesn't prevent them from responding. b) It's not even been an hour since they've been mentioned in this conversation, so they might not have seen your question yet. You could be a little bit more patient ---Distelfinck (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recall that you edited Talk:JP Sears/Archive 1 so much that when I revised the RFC (due to template problem) that my second RFC I rather proposed to blank the section entirely. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I guess you mean by me placing my vote. I certainly didn't modify your proposal: It avalanche failed entirely on its own. I'll thank you not to suggest otherwise. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:JP Sears/Archive 1 started as of 15:31, 18 May 2021 and you made these edits Revision as of 17:48, 18 May 2021. I subsequently re-did the RFC (to fix the RFC bot publishing problem noted by another editor) as of 20:56, 18 May 2021 and made a much more broad proposal since it seemed expedient as you were editing the content the subject of the RFC. When dealing with POV TE it is easiest to just get more eyeballs on the issue, and my objective was accomplished. Now we are continuing to discuss what to do with the Jarry and other primary source content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While your scrubbing attempt has again failed (how many angles have you tried now?), I see you're still working out what a primary source is. Again, we're not discussing primary sources here. We're discussing independent sources. Again, here's a direct link to Wikipedia's definition of a primary source: No_original_research. I highly recommend you internalize that. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your edits of the RFC subject (which you dont dispute). Your response now is WP:SEALION. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Vice, he implied...
This line is terrible: "According to Vice, Sears has implied that COVID-19-related lockdowns are "a pretext to limit human freedom" and that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was affected by voter fraud.[21]" We are really quoting what someone else *thinks* the subject *implied*? Im going to boldly remove that, and note that most of the rest of that section is pretty terrible too. Bonewah (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What in the rest of "the section" do you take issue with? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of it is either a) Guilt by association, like "Other attendees included Plandemic producer Mikki Willis, anti-vaccine activist Del Bigtree, and Trump's ex-wife Marla Maples.[21]" or b) what some other person thinks of the subject like "Jonathan Jarry described Sears as part of the conspirituality trend, combining conspiracy theories and New Age spirituality." B is the bigger problem of the two.  Why do Jonathan Jarry, Vice media or The Spokesman-Review's opinion of Sears matter? Bonewah (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We build articles around WP:RS, and these sources are all well in compliance with WP:RS. They directly describe the subject's involvement with anti-vaxx and conspiracy theory circles, as well as the subject's propagation of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories through his platform. These articles mention who attends these events to illustrate what they are versus what they claim to be.
 * Since 2020, WP:RS attention on Sears has focused almost entirely on his involvement with the broader US anti-vaccine movement—it is now what he is known for. Much of the rest of the article is puffery about the subject's pre-2020 comedy career. Meanwhile, we've now seen repeated attempts to scrub this article of any mention of his anti-vaxx involvement, which is typical for fringe subjects—even if they don't like it, we report on what WP:RS say. It's for good reason that the 2022 New York Times article outright refers to Sears as a "conservative conspiracy theorist", Vice and The Spokesman-Review refer to him as an "anti-vaccine comedian"—that's how he's chosen to shift his identity since the beginning of the pandemic, as reflected by now serveral reliable sources, and so that is what the article reflects. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose removal. See WP:RSP there is no consensus on reliability so challenged content can be removed on a WP:BLP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no surprise there: This editor has been trying every angle possible to remove every reference to Sears's anti-vaxx activities since they were introduced. They're not going anywhere—all are fully WP:RS, and we've had a few RfCs on this already. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On this talk page I think we should discuss the content of the article, not other editors. Endwise (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Vice is really not a great source, I think for very controversial matters on a BLP we should try and stick to what high quality sources say. Particularly when this is analysis by Vice about what he implied, rather than just matter-of-fact recounting of events like "he attended this event on Feb 4" or etc., where we could possibly include it even despite a subpar reliability. Endwise (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There have indeed be various RFCs relating to the POV on this article. One of them resulted in the content being removed from the lede (the editor removed it in the middle of the RFC rather than letting the RFC finish). The second on the Jarry content resulted result was to include a section. I think the vice source is a reprint of the Jarry source. Maybe this should go to RSN instead. If the lone editor here keeps pushing the POV content to an UNDUE point (at least from my POV). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources: New York Times, The Spokesman-Review, Vice, & Washington Post
I haven't thought of this in quite some time, but noticed a new attempt at scrubbing the article. Unsurprisingly, a quick search yielded quite a few new articles on the article subject's anti-vaccine activism and 'newfound' right wing friends:


 * Chang, Kenneth. 2022. "Fauci cautions against overconfidence but says the U.S. wave looks like it’s ‘going in the right direction.’" The New York Times. January 23, 2022.
 * Quote:
 * Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist, ...


 * Condran, Ed. 2021. "Conservative, anti-vaccine comic J.P. Sears to crack wise in Spokane for first time". The Spokesman-Review. November 25, 2021.
 * Quote:
 * Who is your favorite conservative comic?
 * "Since there aren’t many, I’m a fan of myself."


 * Marchman, Tim. 2022. "At DC Rally, Anti-Vaxxers Claim the Legacy of Slavery and the Holocaust (Again and Again and Again)". Vice. January 25, 2022.
 * Quote:
 * The first was anti-vaccine influencer and comedian JP Sears, who emceed the event. (While he was in D.C., his wife, Amber Lee Sears, a fellow anti-vaccine influencer, was complaining about having to take care of their baby with no support, their nanny not having come over due to Amber having symptoms of something that sounds a lot like COVID, which she said on Telegram and Instagram that she has been treating with ivermectin and a bouquet of vitamins. “I’ve truly never experienced anything like this,” she wrote, also on Telegram.


 * Marlen, Anna. 2022. "Joe Rogan's Friends Assemble in D.C. to Do Something They Say Isn't an Anti-Vax Rally". Vice. January 20, 2022.
 * Quote:
 * And the so-called Defeat the Mandates march is, to be sure, more or less the same group of people; among them are Bigtree, Kennedy, Dr. Pierre Kory (best known for his advocacy of ivermectin, a discredited COVID treatment), and anti-vaccine comedian JP Sears, who said in an email newsletter that he’s sponsoring the march.


 * Merlan, Anna. 2022. "When Famous COVID Skeptics Finally Get Sick, It's a Marketing Opportunity". Vice. January 28, 2022.
 * Quote:
 * But given who Sears is, her physical state represented both a problem and an opportunity. Sears describes herself as a “holistic business and lifestyle coach” and she is married to JP Sears, a comedian and self-described “freedom fighter” who’s recently made opposition to vaccine mandates a huge part of his public persona. A few days after Lee Sears got sick, JP jetted off to Washington to help lead the so-called Defeat the Mandates march in DC. ...


 * Terris, Ben. 2021. "What if Republicans had a party and Trump wasn't there?". Washington Post. September 14, 2021.
 * Quote:
 * They were here to laugh: “It’s a war,” YouTube comedian J.P. Sears would say onstage, “don’t you want to be on a side with all the guns?” They were here to learn: Ben Shapiro would give them tips on how to destroy their liberal classmates in debates.

It looks like it's time to add "anti-vaccine activist" or similar and "conservative"—or, as the New York Times most accurately sums it up, "a conservative conspiracy theorist" to the opening description of the article's subject. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Its worth noting that the NYT and WP articles cited above only mention Sears in passing. The New York Times:"Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist, YouTube celebrity and comedian; Dr. Robert Malone, an infectious disease researcher and a vaccine skeptic; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the political scion and prominent anti-vaccine activist."  Thats it.  The WaPo says only whats quoted above, 'They were here to laugh' thats it. Bonewah (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. The fact that Sears, a fairly obscure comedian, is mentioned at all is notable enough. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, its not irrelevent. If Sears is only passing mention in the articles, we know that is UNDUE. If there is some sort of pattern of passing mention, then it might be due a single sentence 'Sears has attended a few anti-vaccine conferences and spoken at some.' Thats like one sentence, not a section that you are currently working on. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, the joys of working on fringe articles, where the lawyering to censor an article in favor of the article's subject never stops. In short: The WP:RS coverage isn't going anywhere. Coverage of this guy since 2020 from WP:RS has been almost entirely fixated on his contributions to the American anti-vaxx and conspiracy circles—it's now what he's known for. As the WP:RS coverage expands, so will coverage of those sources expand here. This article is no different than any of othe other articles on fringe figures and conspiracy proponents all over the site—get used to it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede covid content
and pinging you both since you have edited recently and the lede seems to being looked at. I am curious about the treatment of the left (seems now to be removed) from the lede as well as the covid content in the lede. Is Sear's notability sufficiently limited to his covid content that we should dedicate such a large amount of space (about 50%) to covid? Wikipedia does not focus on current news and I had heard of Sears during plenty of facebook shares from friends about his earlier yoga satire. Seems to be that the covid (now politized) content in the lede is undue as it trys to make this a political article, which is it not. Maybe just limit the lede to that he produces satire content on youtube, and read more about it in the article body. Thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're requesting that we remove mention of the subject's anti-vaccine activism and propagation of conspiracy theories from the lead. This has become his focus over the past few years. We report on what reliable sources say, and there are dozens of reliable sources over the past two years discussing Sears's pivot to anti-vaccine conspiracy theory propagation, as outlined above and in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored (What_Wikipedia_is_not). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of the comidian's most recent work is not more due than prior work. Wikipedia has policies about excess attention paid to current news, most experienced editors know that, you can read Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bulk of the section that you (maybe) have created is mostly focused on 3rd party opinions of the subject's work, such as Jarry & Spokesman-Review. Neither of those are even sufficiently notable to have their own article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Attempt to scrub the article all you like, What_Wikipedia_is_not. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Re-adding unsourced content here is maybe a violation of TE rules. You might want to revert this or add a source (if there is one). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Im confused, this RFC seems to have overwelming favored removing conspiracy from the lede. What is the justification for the conspiracy wording in the lede currently? Bonewah (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead does not refer to the subject as a "conspiracy theorist", which is what the RfC wa sabout. Since then, a bunch of new WP:RS-compliant sources appeared, including one that explicitly calls him a conspiracy theorist. The lead is a summary of the article's contents (WP:LEAD). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Bloodfox, did you add and then subsequently remove the conspiracy theorist content only after the RFC started? I recall you edited the content during the RFC, but I could be wrong so apologies in advance if I am wrong (my memory fades of this article). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever you're referring to, I invite you to find your own diffs. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

All this verbiage, and no one bothered to fact-check the article.
All this verbiage above, and no one bothered to fact-check the article. What a laugh—such a waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cleanup. It's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a clean-up guy. I see it as my duty on WP. Just as an aside, I know these merchant-influencers all too well. Had one for a housemate–marketed himself as the avatar of glowing health. In reality he was overweight, never exercised, and hacked and coughed all day. He could pick up the refrigerator but he looked like he ate everything in it. Made a very "healthy" income, though. Carlstak (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do some cleanup myself. Did extensive cleanup of Lisa Winter and rescued it as a declined draft. It's going to be on the main page shortly. I also do a lot of BLP cleanup, and handle thousands of edit requests. We all find our niches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking these, . I've been meaning to take a closer look at them but the constant attempts at removing anything deemed critical of the article's subject have been a major distraction for what time I have to offer to Wikipedia lately. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure, and I still agree with your points, Bloodofox. There is yet a serious imbalance in the article, parts of it sound almost breathlessly fawning. I have a feeling that there will be more notable not-so-friendly media commentary generated in the coming months, based on how this attention-seeking con-man operates, of a piece with the whole Republican grift machine, Trump at the apex. Sad that there are so many gullible marks in the US. Carlstak (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A vast improvement, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only had a chance to glance at the changes, but the changes seem like an improvement to me. It would have been nice if we could have made all these improvements without all the sneering. Bonewah (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they're improvements. It struck me that there was all this reverting of Bloodofox's edits with expressions of concern about the reliability of his sources, meanwhile the article was sitting there with cites of sources that didn't remotely support the content, a cite of a "Best of" Dallas Restaurants puff-piece described as "an article on gluten-free pizza", a non-existent list of "100 Most Influential People in Health and Fitness", and misrepresentation of a source's words. Where were the concerned editors when those were added to the article? Carlstak (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the article as I didn't know this person existed until Bloodofox posted on WP:FTN. Where were the concerned editors when those were added to the article? Likely the same place as you, somewhere else, doing something else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of this creature JP Sears until the day I responded to a call for "more eyes" on the article, either. Carlstak (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I don't think anyone involved in the section above other than Bloodofox and Jtbobwaysf have had any involvement with the article before this. This isn't some hardened core of JP Sears protectors, it's people who showed up from RFC notifications and noticeboard threads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * —Understandable. As with so many fringe and pseudoscience-articles, I stumbled upon coverage of the article's subject, went here to find out more, and then noted how that coverage had been conveniently left out. I added it and then ended up having to deal with all this nonsense. I honestly have no idea why some editors are making this complicated: It's not. As you know, we're supposed to simply report on what reliable sources say and call it a day. Instead, here we have editors who should really know better attempting to placate would-be scrubbers—of the sort one can find on just about any pseudoscience or fringe-related article on the site, of course—and even second guessing or excising straightforward coverage from reliable sources, like NYT. Meanwhile, these same editors are very happy to leave the puffery that existed in the article alone, completely unquestioned, while aggressively going after the individual who brought the reliable sources up in the first place. This is a sad reality I see all too often on fringe articles. At this point, I certainly know why so many editors avoid them. This sort of softening of coverage and placation of bad actors should not be tolerated on the site. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your comments on this talk page sound like WP:RGW and WP:OWN. Your feelings about this article subject or any other are in fact irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And your replies are certainly not helping anything. There's already an ANI thread open, take it up there if you think it would be constructive, or ignore them. The end of your reply was needlessly hostile as well, and will only serve to escalate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Didnt mean anything personal about the end of my reply and apologize for it appeared as such. Only to state that we need to check our opinions of article subjects at the door when editing BLPs, and probably more generally speaking on all articles. But this is especially the case for undesirable subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And your replies are certainly not helping anything. There's already an ANI thread open, take it up there if you think it would be constructive, or ignore them. The end of your reply was needlessly hostile as well, and will only serve to escalate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Didnt mean anything personal about the end of my reply and apologize for it appeared as such. Only to state that we need to check our opinions of article subjects at the door when editing BLPs, and probably more generally speaking on all articles. But this is especially the case for undesirable subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)