![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 161.141.1.1 ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This man is caught up in a plot to discredit Robert Mueller with false sexual assault accusations. Given what Robert Mueller is doing with his investigation these fake accusations could end up being historic.
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Wikipeter ( talk) 17:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I assume the previous discussion that led to the deletion argued that the subject was not sufficiently relevant.
This has changed in the last 24 hours.
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Wikipeter ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
See previous contest.
This person is now sufficiently relevant and written about in multiple news sources.
Many people such as Cullen328 suggested that the pertinent information from the two deleted versions of this article should be added to the current article [1]. Someone will need to get REFUNDs for those articles, and maybe post them on a subpage here. Also, the penultimate AfD had lists of numerous usable citations that can be checked and used if valuable: WP:Articles for deletion/Jacob Wohl (2nd nomination). Lastly, one of the two previous iterations of the article, and/or the sources linked on that AfD, may have the citation for his birth date, or it may be in the edit history of one of those two versions. Softlavender ( talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This article may not be suitable for inclusion at this time. Yes, Jacob had his fifteen minutes of attention - not fame - but he has not demonstrated lasting notability. Even if the FBI indicts him, he will be less notable than any one Russian agent who Mueller has indicted for hacking. I abstained from voting, but now I'm having second thoughts about this article's suitability. Let's hear some thoughts! DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 18:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jacob Wohl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Wohl is barred for life from futures trading due to defrauding investors in 2016 by posing as a hedge fund manager and real estate investor." Wohl was never barred from futures trading, rather, her was barred from the nation futures association. And he was barred from the NFA for "Failure to cooperate with the NFA" as is stated clearly on the NFA's website here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Details.aspx?entityid=6zw%2bZxc9ysk%3d&rn=Y
Also remove the word Scammer from the first sentence. Wohl has never been convicted of a single crime, let along scamming. Furthermore, the only evidence of any sort of scam is an administrative action from the state of Arizona which he settled with no admission of wrongdoing. Jim Reicher ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
He is a Zionist American Per his verified Twitter account bio. [2]. Tsumikiria please tell me how is that grammatically incorrect? Are you just reverting any edit in this article? SharabSalam ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone mind changing the ref-names of consolidated citations to substantive information? Refs with names such as ":0" and ":1" make editing very difficult. Having ref-names that substantively reflect the link in question is important, and not doing so is in fact a violation of WP:REFNAME. I'm not sure who added the numeric ref-names, or whether a bot did it, but I and I'm sure others would appreciate it if the ref-names were now changed to comply with WP:REFNAME. Thank you. Softlavender ( talk) 03:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: Are you sure you want to add this? This is really not some due weight that is reflected in sources. The article body only has a one-liner describing his pro-trump stance, which is obviously unfit for being in the foremost part of the lead, if we're including this factoid in the lead at all. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 19:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've modified the NFA language in the body and lede, mainly matching what NBC news wrote in 2018. The previous text contained OR (mainly in the lede - e.g claiming he was "effectively banned for life from the U.S. futures market" (which I think is incorrect - the NFA's action was serious, however this "only" affects client business - I think!)), and was partially based on a primary source (the NFA itself). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I find this article extremely bias. He is not far right, not a troll nor a fraudster. He has said false information in the past, but CNN has spread more false information than him. This is not the only extremely bias article but this is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABBAlover11011 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted the "See Also" section of the article because I can't see how it's directly related to this subject. There's a similarity between Wohl's activities and the Russian troll campaign, but that's about it. Phiwum ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Tsumikiria: I'm not sure I agree that the Roy Cooper tweet needs its own section. Wohl's attempts to spread rumors about Harris and Omar were fairly heavily covered in the news, but I'm not seeing much other than the Politifact article discussing the Cooper issue. Wohl peddled a lot of false information via Twitter, and if we try to cover it comprehensively we'll end up with a hell of a long article.
Nice work on this page, by the way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm questioning whether the individual who is the focus of this article can be considered "notable" in the context of being worthy of Wikipedia and its guidelines -- which are admittedly not carved in to stone. The individual has not been indicted openly, so far as anyone knows, and does not appear to have sealed indictments, and there does not seem to be any level of core criminality confirmed by any prosecution offices anywhere which would elevate what is basically an Internet troll above the apparently endless sea of Internet trolls to warrant a Wikipedia page.
There does seem to be a growing awareness out in the real world that Wikipedia has become a swamp of irrelevant information mixed with a preponderance of legitimate, useful, valid, verified information about the broad spectrum of human knowledge (ahem) and giving one troll a Wiki page out of literally millions of trolls who meet or exceed this one's irrelevant (so far) antics seems a bit misguided -- as well as discounts guidelines for notability.
I don't recommend deleting the page, but I do recommend considering its deletion on notable guidelines as well as the never-ending desire not to grant trolls the attention they seek. Once the individual's indictments are presented to the public, this person would become notable. Until then it seems swampy to notice him. SoftwareThing ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The Hill Reporter published an article which implicates Wohl in the forgery of a search warrant by the Southern District of New York. It includes the forgery of a judicial signature (twice). It is currently under investigation as a federal crime by the US Marshall's office.
This information should be included in the article, in the section detailing the press conference involving Cass, whose failure prompted Wohl (allegedly) to reach out to the Hill Reporter with the forged warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBron ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The individual discussed in the WP:BLP was convicted of securities fraud, however I removed the proposed update to the categories which used the word "fraudster" because that's actionable, and these far right wing Republican extremists are always on the look-out for any excuse to sue anybody. Wikipedia WP:BLP sets forth guidelines for such things, and editors must error on the side of caution when covering people who express certain behavior. I hope that the editor who proposed that update does not take offense. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.Arguments by Tsumikiria and GorillaWarfare are sloppy and make no reference to the relevant policies. We don't apply a lower standard of WP:BLP for subjects even if they may be held in low esteem, justifiably or no, by the general public and editors on WP. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, we do not apply contentious or value-laden labels in Wikipedia voice without an in-text attribution, the "contentious" part isn't true and the "value-laden" part doesn't apply here. I think you might be thinking of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, which says that
biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution, but these are factual descriptors of Wohl that are supported by reliable sources. If Wikipedia didn't make contentious statements, Wikipedia wouldn't call anyone a fraudster, criminal, murderer, or any other negative but factual descriptor, but I could supply you with thousands of examples to the contrary. That's the whole point of WP:BLP—to make sure that contentious statements are sourced, which they are in this case. As for "value-laden", "fraudster" is not a "value-laden label" like "racist" is—it's a factual descriptor of someone who engages in fraudulent behavior, which Wohl provably has done, and which has been supported by reliable sourcing.
the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution—Tsumikiria and I have been restoring cited content that already meets that requirement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.For you to suggest that "fraudster" is not a value-laden label is absurd. Each of these terms should be accompanied by an in-text attribution. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
If the discussion doesn't result in consensus, then we should default towards the more BLP-compliant version until then. This is mandatory under
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and
WP:ARBBLP: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
This is something that you and Tsumikiria are blatantly disregarding for reasons that I find inexplicable. It is not in question that the subject has been implicated in securities fraud, expressed views characterized as far-right, and has been reported to be a propagator of conspiracy theories and called an "internet troll." These are facts which can be substantiated with sources, and I am not objecting to noting each of them. However, whether the labels "fraudster" and "conspiracy theorist" can be factually and unambiguously applied is dubious, as is the case with any labels that imply a value judgment. That's why
WP:LABEL is the relevant policy here, and it explicitly requires an
WP:INTEXT attribution, which means noting the source of the label in addition to citing it. The two of you have irresponsibly ignored these very clear guidelines for improper reasons. It's not about adding "unwarranted doubt" or "doing PR" (a reminder to
WP:AGF)) as Tsumikiria put it, it's about complying with fundamental policies regarding BLPs.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
21:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Not all negative descriptors are "value-laden"is case in point. "Fraudster" is a negative, value-laden label, and we should follow the WP:LABEL guidelines. And don't try to change the subject; we're not talking about categories, we're discussing the prose in the article, and if you'll notice, most of the BLPs under that category start by explaining what they did to earn the label and scrupulously avoid throwing out the term "fraudster" without explanation. This is how responsible editors handle these types of controversial pages, and that's the exact opposite of what's being done here. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Frank William Abagnale Jr. (/ˈæbəɡneɪl/; born April 27, 1948) is an American security consultant known for his background as a former con man, check forger, and impostor between the ages of 15 and 21.
Steven Robert Comisar (born December 30, 1961) is an American convicted con man and extortionist.
Russell Stephen King (born 1958 or 1959) is a convicted fraudster.
Steven Kunes (born 1956) is an American conman and former screenwriter.
Bernard Lawrence Madoff (/ˈmeɪdɔːf/; born April 29, 1938) is an American former market maker, investment advisor, financier, fraudster, and convicted felon, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence for offenses related to a massive Ponzi scheme.
Rose Marks (born c.1951) is the matriarch of a family of fraudulent psychics convicted of federal crimes in 2013 in Florida.
"Matt the Knife" (also called MTK; born 1981) was born in Massachusetts and grew up in Boston, but now resides in Rhode Island. He is a magician and mentalist and has broken a number of Guinness World Records, but began his career as a professional con man.
F. Bam Morrison is an American fraudster who fooled the town of Wetumka, Oklahoma, into sponsoring a non-existent circus. Some authorities name him as J. Bam Morrison.(note: I'm not 100% sure this person is still alive)
Ronald Pellar is an American hypnotist and fraudster who performed under the stage names Ronald Dante and Dr. Dante and who was briefly married to actress Lana Turner
Steven Jay Russell (born September 14, 1957) is an American con artist, known for escaping from prison multiple times.
Mel Spillman (born 1948) is an American probate clerk and fraudster who transferred properties of dead people to his own accounts.
Kevin Mark Trudeau (/truːˈdoʊ/; born February 6, 1963) is an American author, salesman, and pool enthusiast, known for his fraudulent promotion of his books and consequent legal cases.
I see different places claiming he was born in Orange while others say he was born in Corona. Does anyone have a definitive source to back up one or the other? HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wohl and friends have a long history of making fake accounts to promote himself. It's vulnerable to trolls. RoboJesus3 ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Good RS to use:
BullRangifer ( talk) 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The Hill Reporter published an article which implicates Wohl in the forgery of a search warrant by the Southern District of New York. It includes the forgery of a judicial signature (twice). It is currently under investigation as a federal crime by the US Marshall's office.
This information should be included in the article, in the section detailing the press conference involving Cass, whose failure prompted Wohl (allegedly) to reach out to the Hill Reporter with the forged warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBron ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The lede paragraph is full of sources. Is there a way to put a note next to a sentence and put all sources inside it because it seems a bit crowded.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 17:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464292-warren-trolls-right-wing-conspiracy-theorist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo7xYspCBU FusionLord ( talk) 01:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed Category:21st-century American criminals. The article does not say he is a criminal. I've seen no source saying he's convicted of a crime. He's been sanctioned for violating the law. But, not all violations of the law are necessarily criminal. He is facing felony criminal charges, for which he has not *yet* been convicted of. If he's been convicted of a criminal offense, please add that statement to the article, with an appropriate source. -- Rob ( talk) 05:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it okay under BLP policy to accuse a person (Wohl) of a crime (trying to frame someone for sexual misconduct) when he has not actually been indicted/charged much less convicted of anything along those lines?
This seems to be heresay via "The Advocate" and "Daily Beast".
What is clear is that SOMEONE put up a Medium.com post, and there are alternative accounts regarding who made it.
If Wohl wrote the post, then it's right to say he misrepresented the truth to frame Mayor Pete for a crime, but if he is disputing that and saying Hunter Kelly wrote the post, then unless we actually have a way of proving who wrote it, we don't really know who it was that tried to frame Mayor Pete?
It would seem just as wrong to accuse Hunter Kelly of framing Mayor Pete since we can't prove he did or didn't write it either, as far as I know?
If Wohl misrepresented Kelly, then Kelly is innocent and Wohl is guilty. If Kelly misled Wohl, then Wohl could just be a gullible pawn and Kelly is guilty. Without evidence (and this doesn't seem to have led to criminal charges against either party?) it doesn't seem right for us to assert either description. Olivia comet ( talk) 02:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Reason Magazine has a new attempt to frame Dr. Fauci, including the supposed victim recanting and providing a recording of Wohl. I leave it to people more used to dealing with this article to add. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes there is a new allegation of Wohl to go after Scarborough. 2601:640:C600:3C20:AD36:382A:798D:4353 ( talk) 21:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly can be gleaned from this for Wikipedia, but I thought I'd post it: [3]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 12:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This removal of the "fraudster" descriptor cause me to examine the sources. Before anyone reflexively revert this back in, I would caution us to examine high quality sources for a such a label per WP:BLPSOURCES and we should make sure that it's a widespread viewpoint that can be expressed in WP:WIKIVOICE. In my opinion, the subject is stone cold fraudster, but I'm not a reliable source.
Here are the sources for "fraudster":
I don't think this is adequate sourcing. Perhaps we just need to list better sources under footnote 16? - MrX 🖋 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, hoaxer,? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)accusedfraudster, and internet troll
I'll restore the removed material along with the stronger of the sources, since there seems to be general agreement on that. We can keep discussing here whether "hoaxer" ought to be added—I don't have a particularly strong preference either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This is now on BLP noticeboard, as this is a serious BLP violation. The edits labeling Jacob Wohl’s occupation as “fraudster“ is not in ANY reliable source. We have had rules promulgated for over a decade on when and when not to start labeling living persons’ occupation as a “criminal”. Rule is they have to be convicted. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:19F8:D4D5:8ECE:4C80 ( talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Silence from our IP now? Koncorde ( talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
Kia ora! I wonder if it would be worth trimming the lead? It seems excessively long. I wanted to get consensus if it was necessary first. Nauseous Man ( talk) 21:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think this article is fair. 2600:1005:B113:B815:D849:FA1B:4D8F:65CD ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jacob Wohl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Pat Garofalo, a Republican congressman from Minnesota" to "Pat Garofalo, a Republican state representative from Minnesota." Mr. Garofalo has never been a member of Congress. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Garofalo and/or www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/profile/12262. MissyPolsinelli ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article, especially the three paragraph, utterly unsourced diatribe opening, is quite libelous and I don't say that lightly. Whoever wrote this clearly has an egregious personal animosity toward this living person. I'm not even sure which tag to put on the top of the page. Gkoogz ( talk) 10:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 161.141.1.1 ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This man is caught up in a plot to discredit Robert Mueller with false sexual assault accusations. Given what Robert Mueller is doing with his investigation these fake accusations could end up being historic.
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Wikipeter ( talk) 17:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I assume the previous discussion that led to the deletion argued that the subject was not sufficiently relevant.
This has changed in the last 24 hours.
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Wikipeter ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
See previous contest.
This person is now sufficiently relevant and written about in multiple news sources.
Many people such as Cullen328 suggested that the pertinent information from the two deleted versions of this article should be added to the current article [1]. Someone will need to get REFUNDs for those articles, and maybe post them on a subpage here. Also, the penultimate AfD had lists of numerous usable citations that can be checked and used if valuable: WP:Articles for deletion/Jacob Wohl (2nd nomination). Lastly, one of the two previous iterations of the article, and/or the sources linked on that AfD, may have the citation for his birth date, or it may be in the edit history of one of those two versions. Softlavender ( talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This article may not be suitable for inclusion at this time. Yes, Jacob had his fifteen minutes of attention - not fame - but he has not demonstrated lasting notability. Even if the FBI indicts him, he will be less notable than any one Russian agent who Mueller has indicted for hacking. I abstained from voting, but now I'm having second thoughts about this article's suitability. Let's hear some thoughts! DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 18:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jacob Wohl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Wohl is barred for life from futures trading due to defrauding investors in 2016 by posing as a hedge fund manager and real estate investor." Wohl was never barred from futures trading, rather, her was barred from the nation futures association. And he was barred from the NFA for "Failure to cooperate with the NFA" as is stated clearly on the NFA's website here: https://www.nfa.futures.org/BasicNet/Details.aspx?entityid=6zw%2bZxc9ysk%3d&rn=Y
Also remove the word Scammer from the first sentence. Wohl has never been convicted of a single crime, let along scamming. Furthermore, the only evidence of any sort of scam is an administrative action from the state of Arizona which he settled with no admission of wrongdoing. Jim Reicher ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
He is a Zionist American Per his verified Twitter account bio. [2]. Tsumikiria please tell me how is that grammatically incorrect? Are you just reverting any edit in this article? SharabSalam ( talk) 12:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone mind changing the ref-names of consolidated citations to substantive information? Refs with names such as ":0" and ":1" make editing very difficult. Having ref-names that substantively reflect the link in question is important, and not doing so is in fact a violation of WP:REFNAME. I'm not sure who added the numeric ref-names, or whether a bot did it, but I and I'm sure others would appreciate it if the ref-names were now changed to comply with WP:REFNAME. Thank you. Softlavender ( talk) 03:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Soibangla: Are you sure you want to add this? This is really not some due weight that is reflected in sources. The article body only has a one-liner describing his pro-trump stance, which is obviously unfit for being in the foremost part of the lead, if we're including this factoid in the lead at all. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹 🌉 19:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've modified the NFA language in the body and lede, mainly matching what NBC news wrote in 2018. The previous text contained OR (mainly in the lede - e.g claiming he was "effectively banned for life from the U.S. futures market" (which I think is incorrect - the NFA's action was serious, however this "only" affects client business - I think!)), and was partially based on a primary source (the NFA itself). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I find this article extremely bias. He is not far right, not a troll nor a fraudster. He has said false information in the past, but CNN has spread more false information than him. This is not the only extremely bias article but this is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABBAlover11011 ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted the "See Also" section of the article because I can't see how it's directly related to this subject. There's a similarity between Wohl's activities and the Russian troll campaign, but that's about it. Phiwum ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Tsumikiria: I'm not sure I agree that the Roy Cooper tweet needs its own section. Wohl's attempts to spread rumors about Harris and Omar were fairly heavily covered in the news, but I'm not seeing much other than the Politifact article discussing the Cooper issue. Wohl peddled a lot of false information via Twitter, and if we try to cover it comprehensively we'll end up with a hell of a long article.
Nice work on this page, by the way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm questioning whether the individual who is the focus of this article can be considered "notable" in the context of being worthy of Wikipedia and its guidelines -- which are admittedly not carved in to stone. The individual has not been indicted openly, so far as anyone knows, and does not appear to have sealed indictments, and there does not seem to be any level of core criminality confirmed by any prosecution offices anywhere which would elevate what is basically an Internet troll above the apparently endless sea of Internet trolls to warrant a Wikipedia page.
There does seem to be a growing awareness out in the real world that Wikipedia has become a swamp of irrelevant information mixed with a preponderance of legitimate, useful, valid, verified information about the broad spectrum of human knowledge (ahem) and giving one troll a Wiki page out of literally millions of trolls who meet or exceed this one's irrelevant (so far) antics seems a bit misguided -- as well as discounts guidelines for notability.
I don't recommend deleting the page, but I do recommend considering its deletion on notable guidelines as well as the never-ending desire not to grant trolls the attention they seek. Once the individual's indictments are presented to the public, this person would become notable. Until then it seems swampy to notice him. SoftwareThing ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The Hill Reporter published an article which implicates Wohl in the forgery of a search warrant by the Southern District of New York. It includes the forgery of a judicial signature (twice). It is currently under investigation as a federal crime by the US Marshall's office.
This information should be included in the article, in the section detailing the press conference involving Cass, whose failure prompted Wohl (allegedly) to reach out to the Hill Reporter with the forged warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBron ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The individual discussed in the WP:BLP was convicted of securities fraud, however I removed the proposed update to the categories which used the word "fraudster" because that's actionable, and these far right wing Republican extremists are always on the look-out for any excuse to sue anybody. Wikipedia WP:BLP sets forth guidelines for such things, and editors must error on the side of caution when covering people who express certain behavior. I hope that the editor who proposed that update does not take offense. SoftwareThing ( talk) 15:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.Arguments by Tsumikiria and GorillaWarfare are sloppy and make no reference to the relevant policies. We don't apply a lower standard of WP:BLP for subjects even if they may be held in low esteem, justifiably or no, by the general public and editors on WP. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, we do not apply contentious or value-laden labels in Wikipedia voice without an in-text attribution, the "contentious" part isn't true and the "value-laden" part doesn't apply here. I think you might be thinking of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, which says that
biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution, but these are factual descriptors of Wohl that are supported by reliable sources. If Wikipedia didn't make contentious statements, Wikipedia wouldn't call anyone a fraudster, criminal, murderer, or any other negative but factual descriptor, but I could supply you with thousands of examples to the contrary. That's the whole point of WP:BLP—to make sure that contentious statements are sourced, which they are in this case. As for "value-laden", "fraudster" is not a "value-laden label" like "racist" is—it's a factual descriptor of someone who engages in fraudulent behavior, which Wohl provably has done, and which has been supported by reliable sourcing.
the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution—Tsumikiria and I have been restoring cited content that already meets that requirement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.For you to suggest that "fraudster" is not a value-laden label is absurd. Each of these terms should be accompanied by an in-text attribution. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 20:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
If the discussion doesn't result in consensus, then we should default towards the more BLP-compliant version until then. This is mandatory under
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and
WP:ARBBLP: Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
This is something that you and Tsumikiria are blatantly disregarding for reasons that I find inexplicable. It is not in question that the subject has been implicated in securities fraud, expressed views characterized as far-right, and has been reported to be a propagator of conspiracy theories and called an "internet troll." These are facts which can be substantiated with sources, and I am not objecting to noting each of them. However, whether the labels "fraudster" and "conspiracy theorist" can be factually and unambiguously applied is dubious, as is the case with any labels that imply a value judgment. That's why
WP:LABEL is the relevant policy here, and it explicitly requires an
WP:INTEXT attribution, which means noting the source of the label in addition to citing it. The two of you have irresponsibly ignored these very clear guidelines for improper reasons. It's not about adding "unwarranted doubt" or "doing PR" (a reminder to
WP:AGF)) as Tsumikiria put it, it's about complying with fundamental policies regarding BLPs.
Wikieditor19920 (
talk)
21:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Not all negative descriptors are "value-laden"is case in point. "Fraudster" is a negative, value-laden label, and we should follow the WP:LABEL guidelines. And don't try to change the subject; we're not talking about categories, we're discussing the prose in the article, and if you'll notice, most of the BLPs under that category start by explaining what they did to earn the label and scrupulously avoid throwing out the term "fraudster" without explanation. This is how responsible editors handle these types of controversial pages, and that's the exact opposite of what's being done here. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Frank William Abagnale Jr. (/ˈæbəɡneɪl/; born April 27, 1948) is an American security consultant known for his background as a former con man, check forger, and impostor between the ages of 15 and 21.
Steven Robert Comisar (born December 30, 1961) is an American convicted con man and extortionist.
Russell Stephen King (born 1958 or 1959) is a convicted fraudster.
Steven Kunes (born 1956) is an American conman and former screenwriter.
Bernard Lawrence Madoff (/ˈmeɪdɔːf/; born April 29, 1938) is an American former market maker, investment advisor, financier, fraudster, and convicted felon, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence for offenses related to a massive Ponzi scheme.
Rose Marks (born c.1951) is the matriarch of a family of fraudulent psychics convicted of federal crimes in 2013 in Florida.
"Matt the Knife" (also called MTK; born 1981) was born in Massachusetts and grew up in Boston, but now resides in Rhode Island. He is a magician and mentalist and has broken a number of Guinness World Records, but began his career as a professional con man.
F. Bam Morrison is an American fraudster who fooled the town of Wetumka, Oklahoma, into sponsoring a non-existent circus. Some authorities name him as J. Bam Morrison.(note: I'm not 100% sure this person is still alive)
Ronald Pellar is an American hypnotist and fraudster who performed under the stage names Ronald Dante and Dr. Dante and who was briefly married to actress Lana Turner
Steven Jay Russell (born September 14, 1957) is an American con artist, known for escaping from prison multiple times.
Mel Spillman (born 1948) is an American probate clerk and fraudster who transferred properties of dead people to his own accounts.
Kevin Mark Trudeau (/truːˈdoʊ/; born February 6, 1963) is an American author, salesman, and pool enthusiast, known for his fraudulent promotion of his books and consequent legal cases.
I see different places claiming he was born in Orange while others say he was born in Corona. Does anyone have a definitive source to back up one or the other? HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Wohl and friends have a long history of making fake accounts to promote himself. It's vulnerable to trolls. RoboJesus3 ( talk) 18:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Good RS to use:
BullRangifer ( talk) 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The Hill Reporter published an article which implicates Wohl in the forgery of a search warrant by the Southern District of New York. It includes the forgery of a judicial signature (twice). It is currently under investigation as a federal crime by the US Marshall's office.
This information should be included in the article, in the section detailing the press conference involving Cass, whose failure prompted Wohl (allegedly) to reach out to the Hill Reporter with the forged warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBron ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The lede paragraph is full of sources. Is there a way to put a note next to a sentence and put all sources inside it because it seems a bit crowded.-- SharabSalam ( talk) 17:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464292-warren-trolls-right-wing-conspiracy-theorist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZo7xYspCBU FusionLord ( talk) 01:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed Category:21st-century American criminals. The article does not say he is a criminal. I've seen no source saying he's convicted of a crime. He's been sanctioned for violating the law. But, not all violations of the law are necessarily criminal. He is facing felony criminal charges, for which he has not *yet* been convicted of. If he's been convicted of a criminal offense, please add that statement to the article, with an appropriate source. -- Rob ( talk) 05:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it okay under BLP policy to accuse a person (Wohl) of a crime (trying to frame someone for sexual misconduct) when he has not actually been indicted/charged much less convicted of anything along those lines?
This seems to be heresay via "The Advocate" and "Daily Beast".
What is clear is that SOMEONE put up a Medium.com post, and there are alternative accounts regarding who made it.
If Wohl wrote the post, then it's right to say he misrepresented the truth to frame Mayor Pete for a crime, but if he is disputing that and saying Hunter Kelly wrote the post, then unless we actually have a way of proving who wrote it, we don't really know who it was that tried to frame Mayor Pete?
It would seem just as wrong to accuse Hunter Kelly of framing Mayor Pete since we can't prove he did or didn't write it either, as far as I know?
If Wohl misrepresented Kelly, then Kelly is innocent and Wohl is guilty. If Kelly misled Wohl, then Wohl could just be a gullible pawn and Kelly is guilty. Without evidence (and this doesn't seem to have led to criminal charges against either party?) it doesn't seem right for us to assert either description. Olivia comet ( talk) 02:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Reason Magazine has a new attempt to frame Dr. Fauci, including the supposed victim recanting and providing a recording of Wohl. I leave it to people more used to dealing with this article to add. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes there is a new allegation of Wohl to go after Scarborough. 2601:640:C600:3C20:AD36:382A:798D:4353 ( talk) 21:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly can be gleaned from this for Wikipedia, but I thought I'd post it: [3]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 12:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This removal of the "fraudster" descriptor cause me to examine the sources. Before anyone reflexively revert this back in, I would caution us to examine high quality sources for a such a label per WP:BLPSOURCES and we should make sure that it's a widespread viewpoint that can be expressed in WP:WIKIVOICE. In my opinion, the subject is stone cold fraudster, but I'm not a reliable source.
Here are the sources for "fraudster":
I don't think this is adequate sourcing. Perhaps we just need to list better sources under footnote 16? - MrX 🖋 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, hoaxer,? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)accusedfraudster, and internet troll
I'll restore the removed material along with the stronger of the sources, since there seems to be general agreement on that. We can keep discussing here whether "hoaxer" ought to be added—I don't have a particularly strong preference either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This is now on BLP noticeboard, as this is a serious BLP violation. The edits labeling Jacob Wohl’s occupation as “fraudster“ is not in ANY reliable source. We have had rules promulgated for over a decade on when and when not to start labeling living persons’ occupation as a “criminal”. Rule is they have to be convicted. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:19F8:D4D5:8ECE:4C80 ( talk) 22:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Silence from our IP now? Koncorde ( talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
Kia ora! I wonder if it would be worth trimming the lead? It seems excessively long. I wanted to get consensus if it was necessary first. Nauseous Man ( talk) 21:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think this article is fair. 2600:1005:B113:B815:D849:FA1B:4D8F:65CD ( talk) 22:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jacob Wohl has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Pat Garofalo, a Republican congressman from Minnesota" to "Pat Garofalo, a Republican state representative from Minnesota." Mr. Garofalo has never been a member of Congress. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Garofalo and/or www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/profile/12262. MissyPolsinelli ( talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article, especially the three paragraph, utterly unsourced diatribe opening, is quite libelous and I don't say that lightly. Whoever wrote this clearly has an egregious personal animosity toward this living person. I'm not even sure which tag to put on the top of the page. Gkoogz ( talk) 10:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)