Talk:Jacob Wohl

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)

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)

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)

"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)

you think mainstream media is reliable though you fucking retard 198.48.142.98 (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)