Talk:John Earle Sullivan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notable?[edit]

Is there enough here is to establish notability? This could be a case WP:BLP1E unless there is sufficient evidence of activities beyond the storming of the capitol. --Salix alba (talk): 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just one event. As can be seen from the article, Sullivan has been actively involved in several events during 2020.
In terms of representing the violent side of the BLM movement, Sullivan is arguably the closest person the movement has to Jake Angeli, whose talk page is far longer. Which other BLM activists have attracted the FBI's attention, fairly or not, for their participation in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol?
I'm therefore in favor of keeping this page on the ground that it helps calibrate the level of violence of the BLM movement when compared with that of white supremacy movements like Proud Boys and the QAnon conspiracy theory.
If there are other activist BLM supporters in as much trouble with the FBI as Sullivan then an article listing them would further calibrate that level.
In any event Wikipedia definitely needs material that allows people to compare levels of violence between movements. The internet is a vast web of disinformation where one can read that the violence is all due to the BLM movement, Antifa, and other such movements advocating for fair treatment and opposed to fascism. While Wikipedia humbly denies being a WP:RS it has nevertheless become a de facto one, and therefore needs to assume the responsibility for keeping the record as straight as it can. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage Salix to consider redacting the BLP1E proposal as there's clearly many activities beyond the capitol-storming to cover his notability: the 2016 uber commercial, the 2018 olympic tryouts, and the two the month-apart clashes with police in two separate towns during summer of anti-police riots. WakandaQT (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the subject and not the article
The truth is going to appear, now he denies being part of an extreme socialist group, it is for convenience nothing more. But in time the true identity is going to be revealed soon. Because it's like BLM claims to Biden to give them a place in his government, it was right after January 6, the socialists have no patience.Pole6464 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, this article was then nominated for deletion for this reason, but there was no consensus to delete. -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Why is that log not on the top of the page?2603:7080:4C3D:959B:25AF:6DCF:46C8:73C4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter[edit]

If from now on, the twitter texts cited by the author (himself) are no longer reliable, then, the use of twitter on the web must be prohibited, and twitter must be closed. Because all the texts posted around the world are no longer reliable!? Pole6464 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pole6464: Wikipedia's policy on how to use Twitter is documented at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter. If you are referring to removal of this addition, perhaps that account was unverified? It has since been suspended, so the link is not useful to readers. If you are referring to this revert, most of the claims in the text you added were not supported by the sources you cited. Because WP:BLP applies here, such material must be removed immediately. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of antifa hashtags is also already covered in the "2021 storming of the USA Capitol" section, with better sourcing. -- Beland (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute?[edit]

RE: [1], what part is being disputed? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Scott[edit]

The article refers to a "Lex Scott" as though he or she were a credible source. I doubt this and suggest references cited to him or her be removed. Thanks for your attention. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody identified this person, so we can leave it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa conspiracy theory[edit]

@Soibangla: In reponse to the revert, the hatnote doesn't indicate at all that the subject is officially linked to antifa, but serves to provide crucial context (why antifa of all things? the answer: there has been an ongoing conspiracy theory), which is the conspiracy theory. The linked content is not the antifa article as such, but the conspiracy section within that article. It's a proper use of the broader template. Edit: in other words the subject is not officialy linked to antifa – instead, the subject is verifiably linked with the conspiracy theory relating to antifa. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, thanks. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the lead, also antifa-related[edit]

@Soibangla: I hope you find this to be an improvement: diff

@Soibangla:Cont. in reply to revert (diff): He is actually noted for the film, and the involvement. It's apparent from the sources. (Edit: for example, from this source) — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: This seems good to you? Diff.
I don't have a problem with the film being in the lead, I have a problem with it being mentioned as the first reason he's notable. If he hadn't been there and accused of being antifa, this BLP (created 1/8) likely wouldn't exist. Everything else is a distant second. soibangla (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I really don't like that so much weight is on the non-factual aspect of the subject. Basically the "genealogy of notability" doesn't matter once notability of the subject in particular volume, in a particular mode, has been established. I mean, I agree that probably the news orgs would not have made the subject as notable had there not been that kind of controversy to start with, but once they started digging and created major positive-factual (as opposed to negative-, i.e. debunking-style) coverage, one can't go back and point to the original cause for coverage as the "true" aspect of notability. I hope these words can translate my thinking accurately to you. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToDo/Notes to self[edit]

  • Get dates of major media appearances. John and Jade on CNN, when?
  • Dates of major speeches, protests, etc
  • Date of FBI interview
  • Civilized Awakening founding date / docs
  • Better source for Insurrection USA founding date
  • James kicked off PB stage for ties to John??? when/when (if even factual)
  • John, James and Jade outside VP debate?
  • James in DC on Jan 6?
  • James recruiting: Factual/Debunkable/Unworthy-of-mention?
  • Jade before John and James
  • Jade not CNN.
    • CNN video. Have transcript
  • Transcript of Portland remarks
  • If this is a bio, we need SOMETHING about John before 2020. He did exist, right? lol. Alternately, rename to something focused on 2020-22 "activism of" etc. Dude's a BLP but are we really doing a B, or just events + aftermath?
    • yeah, rename to focus on the activism of 2020-2022. Not seeing any' sourcing on John and James until recently.

Feoffer (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Earle_Sullivan&oldid=1212846470"