Talk:Jacob Wohl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

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.

Contested deletion 2

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.

Contested deletion 3

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.

Information from previous iterations of this article

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)

See deletionPedia - however that doesn't have the article history. IIRC concurrent to the AfD (2nd) in which I added a bunch of info there was an edit-war involving limited-use accounts and IPs (from a pro-Wohl standpoint and from an anti-Wohl standpoint (e.g. adding information on various schemes - some of which at the time had BLP issues)) - so returning the article history would be useful - the version that was in place at the time of the actual deletion (or whenever deltionpedia grabbed it) may have been an in-flux version. Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that the dust has settled...

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)

The article passed WP:AFD just 10 days ago. Let's leave it be for a while. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

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)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

recent edits

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)

Given his past activities, he can say that he is a gorilla on his Twitter bio. That doesn't mean we have to follow. So please provide reliable, secondary sources that describes his self-description as a Zionist. Also, far-right isn't an occupation (noun), but an adjective on a subject's political beliefs. To phrase it as "... a far-right, scammer, blogger, ..." is thus incorrect. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 15:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok I got the first point but can we not mix scamming with being far-right? It would be better (and less offensive) when you say far-right conspiracy theorist, scammer than far-right scammer SharabSalam (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

From my observation, political affiliation + occupation is a widespread practice for description of persons known for their political views or activities. This individual is primarily known for both being a conspiracy theorist and a fraudster. I have no preference on the order between the two, but the former one is based on a single event (framing Muller) and the latter one is based on his historical activities. So I guess the current one makes more sense. More editors' input would be helpful. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 16:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFNAME

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)

@Softlavender: Would you mind if I continue to use the sourcename_YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601) format? Both numerical and phrase refnames can be confusing as contents and refs may be reordered as articles progress and source articles can be used to support more than just some particular wordings. I've been considering to write it on my userpage as a recommendation. Any opinions? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding the source name would definitely and obviously be an improvement. Beyond that, or the use of any other identifying factor (such as [portions of] author, title, or phrase), I have no opinion or preference. I do not agree however that using phrases is problematical. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Softlavender. A ref-name should be a mnemonic to assist editors in multiple uses of a reference. Relevant words or short phrases are far more useful than numbers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's just my obsession on having everything metricated and standardized regardless of context. I'd prefer using |quote= parameter for phrases. Anyway, I hope my little personal preference is still permissible. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"Pro-Trump"

@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)

NFA

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)

Extreme Bias

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)

Reliable sources describe him as all of these things, so Wikipedia does as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

See Also

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)

Governor Cooper

@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 don't think that way either, although the paragraph being longer than above false claim sections prompted me to make it into a separate subsection. Presumed that he doesn't die in a car accident - he has a shitton of exploits to come. We can sure use a "other claims" subsection.

Thanks for your tireless work copyediting the article, GW. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An "other claims" section makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

As a meta comment - we don't want this page to promote Wohl's views (per, umm, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV). When Wohl's comments receive wide coverage then perhaps they are DUE for inclusion (and meet WP:FRIND), however we need to be careful on including stuff that hasn't been analyzed in reliable secondary sources in depth. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the article even "notable?"

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)

And yes, I did notice the previous deletion requests. :) But getting mentioned in newspapers and television talk shows does not attain the level og notability to warrant a Wiki page, in my not-very-humble opinion. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

His notability isn't just getting mentions. It's entire articles dedicated to him by pretty much all of the MSM both initially for his claims (which would usually be on Mueller's page rather than here) and then subsequently for the fallout and subsequent reactions (which is where his notability comes in). Wohl a long time ago achieved a level of notoriety that shouldn't have even got the level of attention it did, but the falsification of evidence will do that for you. Koncorde (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That opinion runs contrary to the general notability guideline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One does not have to be indicted to be notable enough for Wikipedia, and (perhaps unfortunately) there is no exemption from the GNG saying that we should not deny shock jocks, internet trolls, and other notoriety-seeking folks Wikipedia biographies. Wohl quite clearly meets the GNG based on the sheer amount of independent coverage, though if you disagree, AfD is probably the best place for such a discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought he was notable via the hedge fund scandals prior to Mueller back in 2017 (which led to a number of full length profiles + coverage by a well regarded columnist on Bloomberg - there were, umm, novel aspects to various bits in the case). He surely passes GNG now - AfD would be a futile exercise. Enwiki's notability standards would need to change to a merit based system (opposed!) or something not coverage based for him to be non-notable here. (On the Hebrew Wikipedia they run a (mainly) merit based system with sraight voting headcount (it is all democratic, large participation votes, no strength of arguement) - over there (and on other Wikis with a similar system) he might fail AfD - not here.Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that you're both right, now that you mention it, his behavior and infamy did rise to the level of notable due to being banned by the FTC, that alone would qualify, I had forgotten about that. Yes, he's a notable troll. :) I had not done my research before bringing it up here, my bad. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for considering our points! GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Forgery of judicial signature

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)

"fraudster" had to be removed

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)

Another editor has re-added the text, and had they not, I would have. Wikipedia can (and should) describe people as they have been described in reliable, third-party sources. Wohl has been described as such repeatedly, and you can click on the inline citations to verify that. As BullRangifer mentioned in their edit summary, it's best to avoid describing things as "actionable" like you did in your edit summary. The additional context here makes it clear that you're worried other people might pursue legal action, but in your edit summary it did sound a bit like you were making a legal threat. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Wohl did threaten to sue us and, perhaps realizing that he can't possibly win and most likely make a fool of himself, unilaterally dropped the threat and thanking us for "fixing it" while the only change in the article in the meantime was "fraudster" moved from the first descriptor to the second descriptor. Comical. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 05:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As this isn't an old type infobox, I can't figure out how to rearrange the contents. I'd like to move fraudster to the middle position (just as it is in the lead) so it looks like this: conspiracy theorist, fraudster, internet troll. Would someone please do that? It flows better and is less offensive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a shot on Wikidata by bumping up the rank, but it ended up removing "fraudster" and "internet troll" from the infobox entirely. I've just replaced the infobox with a local ("old type") infobox instead, and adjusted the ordering. I don't have any strong opinions about what order they go in, but it makes sense for the ordering in the infobox to match that of the first sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would avoid fraudster in our voice. We're presently sourcing this to two pieces in Snopes - the first just briefly mentions this ("20-year-old financial securities fraudster turned pro-Trump Twitter influencer.") the second says "Jacob Wohl, known for committing securities fraud at age 19 " linking to this story in azcentral. The azcentral story doesn't say fraudster but rather "was accused by Arizona authorities of defrauding investors in 2015 and 2016." - and makes clear he wasn't convicted. I don't think a Snopes political article is the best source for info on securities fraud (nor do I think that the affair in Arizona - of misleading investors - was technically securities fraud in the normal sense of the term - though it might) - and in the story they're linking to this doesn't quite support it for us to say this in our voice for a BLP. (As a side note - he was also involved with the NFA - not just the Arizona commission). We should definitely describe his questionable securities/hedge-fund activities - but I would avoid "fraudster" or "securities fraud" until he's actually convicted of such. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Then we can attribute it with sources and say "described as a fraudster", or something like that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added two more sources that verbatim describe him as a "fraudster". It's a bit of an unusual word so I think it's telling that there are three sources that use it specifically, in addition to many more that simply describe him as someone who is known for fraud. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think splinternews.com (in what appears to be an oped) is a good source. GQ is better - but not great - and this is a political article - an opinionated one (possibly also in oped territory). Note that GQ's source for "the teenage hedge-fund fraudster turned professional Islamophobe" is The Daily Beast - which does not use "fraudster". Their title is "Was Accused of Cheating Clients", their body is "But what Wohl doesn’t mention is that the hedge funds he says he founded as a teenager have faced national and state investigations, due in part to customers who claimed Wohl scammed them" (and then a long list - Wohl girls, NFA, the Arizona side, etc.). "Fraudster" - in my mind at least - says that our BLP was convicted of a criminal fraud charge. This hasn't happened (yet at least) - he's face numerous client complaints, regulatory bodies took action against him (including a life ban from the NFA, cease and desist in Arizona to which he consented), but he hasn't been charged - let alone convicted - in court. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked RSN and didn't see anything about Splinter being overall unreliable, though I do agree this is not the strongest source. As for GQ, they're the one calling Wohl a fraudster, not The Daily Beast.

I'm not sure I agree that "fraudster" implies a conviction. I've seen some sources describe him as a "hoaxer", but that seems to be a separate thing to me—"fraudster" is discussing his financial dealings, whereas "hoaxer" would seem to refer to the Mueller/etc. incidents. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The GQ is linking to the Daily Beast in "teenage hedge-fund fraudster" (which is mentioned in passing)- it reads like an oped and focuses on the Minneapolis "death threats" video. For the financial side of Wohl's exploits we should stick, in my mind, to sources who cover the finance/investor aspect (as opposed to politics oriented sources that make a summary in passing). 16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

I think that the existing sources are sufficient to leave the descriptor in, and that requiring financial sources only is arbitrary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is enough RS support for this descriptor, and it doens't have to require a criminal conviction. We have lead explaining that he has been charged and forced to restitute for commiting securties fraud. There is enough weight in body too. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 21:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It violates WP:BLP which will likely eventually fall under the gaze of a Wiki admin for removal inasmuch as it opens Wikipedia up to liability -- which is why the BLP guidelines suggest that such rhetoric not be employed. I can see why some people might consider the application of the actionable term to be warranted however WP:BLP guidelines take in to consideration actionable edits not only to maintain WP:NPOV but to avoid litigation from people who have ideological behavior which indicates a willingness to use the courts to silence the truth about them. Personally I don't feel strongly either way about its removal or not, though I'm sure an Admin responsible for mitigating Wikipedia's civil liability will contemplate whether to pass the proposed text on to Wiki's attorneys. At least she should. You don't employ the "f-word" haphazardly when discussing people with a disturbing mental demeanor and enough ideological followers who are willing to donate to lawsuits to "own the libs." SoftwareThing (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP does not disallow cited content just because it is negative, nor does it make special dispensations for those who are particularly litigious. Furthermore, the Wikimedia legal team does not screen and approve (or disapprove) article content on request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

As long as we stand by our principles on using reliable sources and NPOV, there is no need to fear these lawsuit-happy lunatics looking to censor information about them. What we don't do is castrating ourselves just to fulfill some fastastical threats. At most, even if they sue us, it will just materialize as yet another embarrasing section on their own page and they will eat it whether they like it or not. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 20:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

One thing we do need to avoid is describing article subjects as "people with a disturbing mental demeanor" or "lawsuit-happy lunatics", even on article talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are significant reliable sources that call him fraudster then there is no reason to remove it. This is like calling a criminal a criminal or a terrorist a terrorist etc. In the other hand, if there are no significant reliable sources that call him fraudster then this basically should be removed from the lead and instead we can say in the body of the article "some media outlets have discribe him as a fraudster..."--20:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

We should not apply a contentious label without in-text contribution, this is basic BLP. From WP:LABEL: 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)

Why did you just make an edit that removed the in-text attribution, then? Both Tsumikiria and I have made reference to relevant policies, including BLP, NPOV, and RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

An in-text attribution in the opening line was missing before I edited it; see WP:INTEXT. My version conveys the exact same information, but does not do so in Wikipedia voice. Please do not restore the previous iteration until you have reviewed the definition of an in-text attribution and understand why it is necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Your edit removed several references, and then you asserted the information was not sufficiently sourced. I am quite familiar with in-text attributions, thank you, but they are not needed here. Please familiarize yourself with the edit warring policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Your version didn't convey the same exact information. We don't dance around in "has been described" when content is verified by enough reputable RS (WaPo, Politifact, NYT， Snopes, etc). Per-word citation is sufficient to inform readers what sources we use and avoids cluttering with explicit attributions. Plus, Wohl has long ceased being a professional blogger or columnist, prevailing outdated information over more recent RS doesn't make much sense. We're not supposed to be someone else's PR crew. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare That's why I also mentioned WP:CITEOVERKILL. The same seven sources do not need to be cited following every term in the sentence, nor does that number of citations need to be provided in the lead in the first place. See MOS:LEADCITE. Tsumikiria the fact that you may be unaware of what an in-text attribution is does not justify repeatedly inserting a BLP violation. Again, we do not apply contentious or value-laden labels in Wikipedia voice without an in-text attribution. WP:LABEL is the relevant policy page in case you need it linked again. That's not PR, that's following policy, which applies no matter how disreputable a subject is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Also neither of you have consensus, in which case the WP:BURDEN is on you to obtain it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The large number of citations is because it's necessary to use abundant citations in order to support potentially contentious content about a living person. It's not logical to point to WP:CITEOVERKILL to remove citations, and then complain that the assertions are not adequately sourced to be made in Wikipedia's voice.

As for 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.

You don't seem to understand how WP:CONSENSUS works—you can't just come to an article, make major changes, and then tell anyone who reverts you that they don't have consensus. See WP:BRD—you were bold in editing the article, you were reverted (several times), and now we must (continue to) discuss the opening sentence until we reach a consensus. You're pointing to WP:BURDEN, which says that 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)

Are you saying that this discussion has resulted in consensus for your proposed version? I see that opinions are divided. You are in no position to declare that consensus has been reached, and the WP:ONUS is on you for removing an in-text attribution and applying labels in the opening line. WP:OSE is not an argument for language that contravenes policy, and WP:LABEL is unequivocal: 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)

I don't see consensus for "fraudster". I think we shoud factually state the proceedings by the NFA and ACC - they are bad enough (and more or less imply the label without stating it in our voice).Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what I did with my earlier edit. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No, this discussion hasn't resulted in any consensus. You'll note this discussion is about whether or not to remove the fraudster label, and no consensus has been reached on that. Do you feel that "criminal" is a value-laden label? Or "white supremacist"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The "fraudster" along with other descriptors were added early in the article's existence and all GW and I did was to provide sufficient citations to verify these possibly contentious descriptors, which then remained since. As other major contributors to the page have yet to show up, declaring no consensus seems premature. The weight held by NFA and ACC proceedings and the wide occurrence among reliable sources are sufficient and adding "by journalists and media commentators" adds unwarranted doubt against the RS we're using. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:08, 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)

To be clear, I'm saying that this discussion has not yet produced consensus, not that it has concluded with a "no consensus" result. Right now I'm just trying to understand what objections you have to Wohl being labeled a fraudster or conspiracy theorist that you don't have with other conspiracy theorists or fraudsters on Wikipedia. I'm aware of the "do no harm" BLP consideration, but it needs to be balanced with some amount of reasonable application to prevent whitewashing of negative but verifiable descriptors such as these. So far you've said that you agree that Wohl has been described as a fraudster and conspiracy theorist by reliable sources, but have given no understandable rationale for why these descriptors can't be applied in "Wikipedia's voice" other than that you feel they are "value-laden", which I disagree with, and which you have not explained further. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that we have not yet reached consensus means we should default to the "safe" option until then, which is in-text attribution. I'll reiterate that I am not advocating removing the material, so your suggestion of "whitewashing" is unfounded. I also have issues with editors who cite BLP as a reason to wholesale remove sourced content. What I am recommending is very simple: we should not take what the sources have said verbatim and apply them as labels in Wiki voice, we should instead provide in-text attribution. I'm not really interested in debating whether terms like "fraudster" or "conspiracy theorist" are value-laden, as I think you know better. It would not be wrong to assume they are, and we should follow WP:BLP, WP:LABEL, and WP:INTEXT in how we handle introducing the subject in the opening line. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You cannot just make the change to in-text attribution, citing the "value-laden" part of WP:INTEXT, and then refuse to discuss why you think they are "value-laden" when someone disagrees with you. You still have not answered my above question about the other articles in Category:Fraudsters or Category:Conspiracy theorists. Not all negative descriptors are "value-laden", and even if they were, we do not need to use in-text attribution for descriptors of a person that are widely used in reliable sources. As an example, "neo-Nazi" is included as an example in WP:LABEL, but we still use this label in Wikipedia's voice when it's adequately cited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your oxymoronic statement 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)

Don't forget that editors are here as volunteers, probably not paid to improve articles here, and remaining polite is a happy thing to do. :)

@Wikieditor19920: I'm not changing the subject, I simply linked to Category:Fraudsters rather than specific articles for brevity's sake. But since you seem to wish to see specific articles that demonstrate it's not unusual for BLPs to use this type of language without in-text attribution, I'll provide a few examples (emphasis mine):

• Frank Abagnale: 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.
• Steve Comisar: Steven Robert Comisar (born December 30, 1961) is an American convicted con man and extortionist.
• Russell King (fraudster): Russell Stephen King (born 1958 or 1959) is a convicted fraudster.
• Steven Kunes: Steven Kunes (born 1956) is an American conman and former screenwriter.
• Bernie Madoff: 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: 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: "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: 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: 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: Steven Jay Russell (born September 14, 1957) is an American con artist, known for escaping from prison multiple times.
• Mel Spillman: Mel Spillman (born 1948) is an American probate clerk and fraudster who transferred properties of dead people to his own accounts.
• Kevin Trudeau: 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 can see Icewhiz's concerns about "fraudster" implying a criminal conviction and, though I don't necessarily agree, I can at least see where they are coming from and am more than willing to discuss it further. You however seem to be making the point that "fraudster" (or similarly negative labels) can't ever be used in Wikipedia's voice, even when supported by sourcing, which is provably false as I've shown above and as I've mentioned in the context of "criminals" in a previous comment, and is not supported by policy as you claim.

This article on Wohl is not "throwing out the term 'fraudster' without explanation"—there's a whole section detailing it. I wouldn't object to moving more of an explanation of what he did to earn the descriptor to the lead, if that's what you're looking for, though it might be a bit tricky to trim it to a reasonable length for the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The core issue that I have with the extant article is that it opens up Wikipedia to liability inasmuch as some of the rhetoric is actionable. I've voiced my concerns enough so I'll clam shut about it, yet seeing aggressive commentary in the Talk: page motivated me to once again lament the actionable wording of the article in its current form. Maybe for the sake of my blood pressure I'll un-watch the article. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think "conspiracy theorist" is fine - I see several high quality sources using these - including in their titles (e.g. The Atlantic, or NBC) - a very simple BEFORE for this returns lots and lots of hits - and good ones. "Fraudster" is a separate story - it implies a criminal conviction for fraud (I'd question someone losing a civil case - however this hasn't happened here). The sources we are using - essentially passing mentions in op-edy pieces in not so great sources (GQ, Splinter) - which do not focus on the financial aspect - are simply far from great. In my BEFORE I don't see a great many sources using this language. I do see sources who describe Wohl's record in finance - including of course the accusation that he misled investors. I think we should do the same - clearly state NFA and ACC accusations/procedures (NFA - acting to a large extent due to a very bizarre non-compliance - see Matt Levine on Bloomberg - describing how Wohl's attorney father said he complained to the LAPD about the regulator and threatened to take out a restraining order). Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with you on "conspiracy theorist". I do see your point on "fraudster", although I don't necessarily see it as implying a criminal conviction. It's certainly used widely enough on Wikipedia to refer to folks who haven't been convicted—in fact, Category:American fraudsters has 259 articles of its own that aren't in the subcategory of Category:American people convicted of fraud‎ (though the two could use some grooming as I don't think they're all correctly categorized). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not read too much into the cats - e.g. Steven Jay Russell seems right (even if not convicted for fraud (not sure), was convicted for related stuff). The wiki cats are probably a combination of: Wikipedia slopiness, conviction for related crimes that are not fraud in the legal sense but are in the common sense, escaping or dying prior to conviction, or dead historical figures considered as such in RSes who were not convicted.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace

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)

Article should be protected ASAP

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)

Seems unnecessary. No obvious fake accounts have been identified, and they would be identified relatively quickly I would have thought. If there is evidence of it happening, let us know. Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is fairly closely watched, and like Koncorde has said, there is no evidence that Wohl et al are modifying this article (or wish to). If that changes, WP:RFPP is the place to request protection of pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Meet the GOP operatives who aim to smear the 2020 Democrats - but keep bungling it"

Good RS to use:

• Meet the GOP operatives who aim to smear the 2020 Democrats - but keep bungling it

BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Forgery of judicial signature

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)

@DanBron: I see you just restored this section. Sorry for not responding to it sooner. One concern I have is that this only appears to be reported by the Hill Reporter, and I don't think it's a usable source. This article on Wohl possibly forging a document is open about the fact that they're being very speculative, but also firmly drawing the conclusion that Wohl is behind all this. It's not clear that the Hill Reporter has an editorial board, they have a declared political slant, the authors of this article are activists themselves, and there's no discussion of the Reporter at WP:RSN—which I suppose makes sense, since this article is the only article on Wikipedia that cites them! I'm going to remove the current citation because I'm not sure about the reliability. Until this is covered in other reliable sources, though, I don't think it should be mentioned in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The lede paragraph

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)

Hm, let me try something. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: What do you think of my edit? Does that help? I've only changed the first sentence; you're right that there are a lot of sources in the lede in general, but to me it seems like it's mainly the first sentence that was really extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that fixed the issue. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well done, GorillaWarfare! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

He attempted to frame Elizabeth Warren

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/far-right-conspiracy-theorist-tried-smear-elizabeth-warren-her-response-n1062211

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-decline-of-the-jack-burkman-jacob-wohl-news-conference/2019/10/02/57f6539a-e52a-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

https://www.newsweek.com/jacob-wohl-mocked-after-claiming-elizabeth-warren-sex-scandal-says-2020-candidate-had-affair-1462895

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/warren-trolls-conspiracy-theorist-jacob-wohl-after-odd-press-conference

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elizabeth-warren-accuser-not-up-to-caliber-to-work-for-gigolo-agency-894637/

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)

@FusionLord: It's already mentioned in Jacob Wohl#Other false claims. I appreciate these extra sources, though, I'll work them in! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Categorize as criminal

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)

Thivierr, I agree per WP:BLPCRIME we should not suggest that a living person is criminal without being convicted by the court.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I see Thivierr has added the BLP noticeboard template above, but just for anyone finding this discussion, a discussion has been opened at WP:BLPN#Jacob Wohl. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

claim of attempted frame

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)

The claim that Wohl attempted to frame Buttigieg is sufficiently cited to satisfy BLP. The article does not state nor imply that Wohl was charged with any crime for this. I haven't seen any reliable sources genuinely claiming that Kelly was behind anything, whereas the majority of (all?) sources I've seen say Wohl was, so it would be wrong to assert the former but not the latter. That said, if you have sources that I've missed, I'd be happy to see them (or you can add them yourself). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating a hoax isn't necessarily a crime. Clearly we can't say that Wohl is guilty of a crime, but it seems plenty clear from the actual sources that Wohl created this hoax. And we are certainly entitled to discredit Wohl's perspective here because a) his clear and verifiable track record of lying, and b) zero reliable sources give his claims credence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Latest failed attempt

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)

I'm getting a 500 server error when trying to access that article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, looks like it was just a quick blip. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added this attempt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl is after Joe Scarborough

https://hillreporter.com/jacob-wohl-and-jack-burkman-present-fake-witness-against-joe-scarborough-71029

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)

The information sounds like the kind of stuff the this duo engages in, but, so far, the sources reporting it are not particularly mainstream. I think we should hold it until more mainstream sources pick up the story. I'll start a Google alert for it, and let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New article (September 26, 2020)

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)

I've added a brief section at Jacob Wohl#Roger Stone jury. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fraudster?

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":

• Newsweek Questionable reliability. See WP:RSP#Newsweek_(2013-present)
• Snopes
• Snopes
• GQ
• Splinter I'm pretty sure this one is not a reliable source for BLP content. Does WP:RSP#Gawker apply?
• Washington Examiner This also looks like a source to avoid for BLP content. See WP:RSP#Washington Examiner

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)

@MrX: Noting that there has been discussion about this in the past as well: Talk:Jacob Wohl/Archive 1#"fraudster" had to be removed. It also discussed the claim that Special:Contribs/2604:2000:1483:c1e7:65e2:fd9f:c5f8:2d29 made that "You cannot label people as fraudsters or criminals when their criminal case is still pending".

If the existing sources aren't sufficient, there are plenty of sources that describe him similarly:

• The Daily Dot: "Jacob Wohl scarcely goes a month without being implicated in a scam." (WP:RSP#Daily Dot)
• Vox: "more grifter than organizer" (WP:RSP#Vox)
• USA Today: "hoaxer" (WP:RSP#USA Today)
• The Daily Beast: "hapless far-right grifter" (WP:RSP#The Daily Dot)

I think even just the two Snopes sources (WP:RSP#Snopes) would be sufficient for this claim. However if you'd like we could add any/all of the ones I've listed as well. I do think the Washington Examiner source should be retained (despite its note at RSP) since it's noteworthy that a conservative source also describes him as such—certainly it shouldn't be used alone for BLP claims, but I think it'd be okay to include in addition to other more reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The answer is what is a "securities fraud" and if found guilty/paying restitution, does that make you a fraudster? This would be basic summarising of reliable sources. If the word "fraudster" is problematic then just re-summarise the opening paragraph to outline what he actually has already been done for. Koncorde (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

At least the way I see it, the descriptor is meant to summarize that Wohl is known for fraud and scammery of various kinds. The alleged securities fraud is certainly a part of it, but he is most known for the hoaxes around prominent left-wingers. I would be fine with replacing "fraudster" with "hoaxer", though my preference is for "fraudster" since it also covers the securities fraud (which is not a hoax). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it clear that the term fraudster is referring to security fraud and not hoaxes though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think so, then perhaps we should go with is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, hoaxer, accused fraudster, and internet troll? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it might need to be rewritten differently but happy to work with you. :) Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

But he is more than an accused "fraudster" because he actually committed fraud and is (meant to be) paying reparations, yes?.... He also happens to be an accused fraudster which is a seperate issue. Koncorde (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, true, I forgot for a moment about his earlier charges. He is both a fraudster (2017) and an accused fraudster (2019 charges). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, agree based on sources fraudster and hoaxer are both applicable in the lede. Glen (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxer does not seem right to me. I'm OK with fraudster based on the better sources listed (GQ, Snopes, US Today). Vox is a little weak, but supportive. The Daily Beast, Splinter, and Daily Dot are not high quality sources of for BLP content. They all tend to weave quite a bit of of opinion and exaggeration into their articles. Here are a few other sources that would support fraudster:

• Los Angeles magazine
• Forbes <-- This one says references a "court order for investment fraud".
• TheGuardian Not just fraudster but "incompetent fraudster and unhinged conspiracy theorist."
• Law & Crime
• ABC News
• Huffington Post

I think our task is to pick the strongest of all these sources and restore the material that was removed earlier today. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

I've restored "fraudster": [4]. I left in the two Snopes sources and the GQ source, and added in the Guardian, USA Today, and ABC News sources as some of the stronger sources of the ones produced here. Although I initially wanted to retain the Washington Examiner piece, I noticed that it's marked as an opinion column, so I removed it also. Let me know if you think I've left out sources you think should be used, or vice versa. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a big improvement. - MrX 🖋 20:16, 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)

The articles cited are opinions and specifically we have long standing promulgated procedures (going back to the last decade) on when it’s okay to lane people as criminals as an occupation. I would not be opposed in the introduction to saying that Mr. Wohl has been banned from certain financial trading for life for financial securities fraud. This may seem to be a nuance but it doesn’t violate serious BLP rules that we have in a contemporary political article. I personally believe Mr. Wohl is guilty, but I am not a judge nor a source. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:6568:A6B3:85EB:26AC (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, NFA is not a governmental body - it’s a self regulatory organization. 2604:2000:1483:C1E7:6568:A6B3:85EB:26AC (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

These are not opinion articles, nor do I see anywhere in the article where it claims the NFA is a governmental organization. Please don't edit war your preferred revision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

To wit:

• Newsweek says "They also said they have seen little evidence that Wohl, a fraudster who conned investors out of money they put into his failed hedge fund, is responsible for their Twitter ban",
• HuffPo says "Jacob Wohl ― the 21-year-old securities fraudster behind an attempt to smear Robert Mueller last year"
• HuffPo links to USA Today profile that says "USA Today’s piece is particularly egregious because it acknowledges who Wohl is ― a self-described liar made famous in 2017 for having defrauded investors in Arizona as a teenager"
• Daily Beast says (for context of who the NFA are) "Wohl was investigated by the National Futures Association, a government-authorized financial regulator that looks for fraud and responds to investor complaints. NFA started looking into Wohl after they reviewed promotional material for his fledgling hedge fund, NeX Capital Management. A series of NeX videos were “unbalanced in their presentation of profit potential and risk of loss” for investors, the NFA claimed in a 2016 filing before its internal Business Conduct Committee, which rules on disciplinary issues (PDF). The NFA added that Wohl claimed to have acted as a fund manager before he or NeX were registered to do so."
• MarketWatch (unknown reliability) "Jacob Wohl — right-wing conspiracy theorist, Trump enthusiast, securities fraudster — reportedly tried to raise $1 million this spring by pitching investors on an idea for profiting from the manipulation of political betting websites."
• GQ says (links to DB article) "Now, several months removed from that hilarious failure and flush with a fresh infusion of walking-around cash from God knows where, the teenage hedge-fund fraudster turned professional Islamophobe has embarked on a new and exciting grift: making poorly produced Internet pseudo-documentaries about Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar."
• Vox says "Enter a grifter like Wohl, a failed teen hedge fund manager who faced investigation in several states and was eventually banned for life by the National Futures Association for fraud in 2017."
• Yahoo finance breaks down the 2017 case and action taken that pretty much everyone else is referring to.
• Salon just goes for broke with the headline "Notorious right-wing fraudster Jacob Wohl charged with felony" (Earlier article covering it here.
• Insider says "In 2017, The National Futures Association banned Wohl from membership for life. A few months later, the Arizona Corporation Committee ordered him and a business partner, Matthew Johnson, to pay a $5,000 penalty for committing securities fraud "in connection with two hedge funds and a house-flipping venture." The committee also ordered Wohl to pay $32,918 in restitution."

The NFA for more context is legally sanctioned by the CTFC. To quote our own article "Congress passed legislation in 2000 and 2008 requiring firms acting as counterparties to retail forex transactions, as well as forex pool operators, trading advisors and introducing brokers to register with the CFTC and become Members of NFA." In short, while not the government, they are operating for an on behalf of a government commission to regulate Futures trading. In effect, they are the legal regulatory entity. Koncorde (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Silence from our IP now? Koncorde (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing since the page was protected: Special:Contributions/2604:2000:1483:C1E7::/64. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I see plenty of reliable sources establishing Wohl as a fraudster. ♟♙ (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on what I'm seeing I would support both fraudster and hoaxer. Multiple financial/securities frauds including those he has either been sanctioned for or otherwise found guilty of, and hoaxer given the number of hoaxes he has attempted to perpetrate (such as attempting to frame public figures), which were enough to get him kicked off of Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacob Wohl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Prose

Lede

• Your bundled refs in the lede would maybe be better as a note, otherwise the article starts on reference 15! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done I split these into four bundles, and expanded the citations within each bundle. It does mean some of the refs are duplicated, but it prevents people from going to the citation and then having to navigate to a different citation. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Second sentence could probably be split into two, as it's very long. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• If you don't use the acronym again in the lede, no need to define it (so, ACC and FCC). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• The social media section is long enough to reasonably warrant at least a mention in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

General

• Link Twitter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Matthew Cohen" - this isn't a quote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Tel Aviv station chief", - not sure we need to cquote this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• retweeted - do we need to be so jargonny for this, can't we just say that they posted? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• being falsely accused of kidnapping - at this point, has anyone actually suggested that they had kidnapped her? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if anyone publicly accused them of "kidnapping" (using that specific word)—that's a word used in Wohl and Burkman's press release to describe Corrigan's accusations against them. Corrigan's public statement mostly talked about them taking her devices and her "bec[oming] powerless in a situation" (source). Let me know if you think there are clarifications that need to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• intentionally targeted Black - not a proper noun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe this is acceptable per MOS:PEOPLANG. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is the Twitter post box really neccesary? There's a couple of these Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed one and left the "hipster coffee shop" one, since I think an example is useful there. Let me know what you think. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• armored cars to avoid hitmen.[103][19][104][105 - can we bundle these Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Only a couple comments above, realistically a fantastic article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks so much for the review Lee Vilenski! I've implemented most of the changes, just a few questions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Length of lead

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)

🤔 Does it? It seems pretty standard length to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH advises that 3–4 paragraphs is reasonable for 30,000+ character articles (this one is 41,871 characters), and the lead is currently three reasonably-sized paragraphs. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

okey dokey! Just thought I should check, I'm unsure why, it just feels long for some reason ha. Thanks! Nauseous Man (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Fairness

I don’t think this article is fair. 2600:1005:B113:B815:D849:FA1B:4D8F:65CD (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is your concern? This statement is too vague to act on. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think he is “far-right” like the article says. -2600:1005:B113:B815:D849:FA1B:4D8F:65CD (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, the cited sources in this article disagree with you. Wikipedia content is based on sources, not editors' personal opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a source that says that he isn’t far-right. -2600:1005:B113:B815:D849:FA1B:4D8F:65CD (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There are at least five mainstream sources describing him as "far-right" so you would need a significant number of mainstream sources which specifically reject that description to even begin a discussion about changing it. You're welcome to present sources and discuss it here. Remember that not all sources are reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

clpo13, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I just placed a rangeblock to prevent this editor from their repetitive talk page rants. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

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)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 03:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Utter unsourced libel

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)

It's not unsourced -- it's a summary of the body of the article, where there is an impressive range of sources. Is there anything in the body that doesn't seem properly supported? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)