Jump to content

Talk:Everett Stern/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

COI editing

Mr. Stern has now arrived, and speculation is inappropriate (actually it always was). Please feel free to engage politely with Mr. Stern in resolving his - and your - concerns about the article Guy (Help!) 13:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm greatly concerned that this article is possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family (see link here where he directly says so). In my opinion this falls under WP:Conflict, as neither Stern (who stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position) nor his family should be editing in his favor.Ladysif (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a bit of Search engine optimization (SEO) editing for "Tactical Rabbit" too. 220 of Borg 14:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comments against Everett Stern are libelous and false. The article is strongly sourced and was recently upgraded status. Ladysif appears to have a negative agenda against Mr. Stern. Ladysif was cited for attacking this page before and Wikipedia staff were notified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This article recently received a C- status. I'm interested in seeing articles follow Wikipedia proper formatting and policy, and I have never "attacked" this article nor have I been "cited." I actually recommended it for improvement, and then recommended it for deletion based on the opinions of several commendable and long-term Wikipedia editors. I would remind you to be civil in Wikipedia talk pages. See WP:Civil Ladysif (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I am greatly concerned that the editor Ladysif has a political agenda against the subject of this article. The article is sourced correctly and strongly. Furthermore the statement "possibly being written or edited by himself and/or his friends and family" can be said for any article. There is no proof of a WP:Conflict or Search engine optimization. Lasysif making the statement "possibly being written or edited by Stern himself and/or his friends and family" undermines the credibility of the article erroneously when the article is sourced and was recently upgraded status. Lasysif states that the subject "stands to gain from positive standings as he is running for a gov position" indicates that there is a possible political motive by Ladysif. There does not appear to be a conflict or evidence of such and the information contained in the article is properly sourced. The conflict tag should be removed as there are no factual grounds to the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ladysif attacks the subject on her Talk Page "Honestly, apart from the HSBC scandal, he has not made national news or had any media attention, and his campaign has not been given any mainstream attention. He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam, more or less. You can see his attempts to draw his attention to himself here and I have reverted a couple of edits on at least pages where someone had gone in and added his "conclusions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ladysif, on attacks Everett Stern by stating that his company is fraudulent, therefore, he is committing a crime. A conflict? Neutral? "his website is a pay-per-use scam Ladysif" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see our policy on legal threats and consider rewording or striking your comment above. Also please understand that an argumentative attitude will not get you the positive response you are looking for. If there is an edit to the article you wish to discuss here then please do so. You should familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines particularly those on politicians, our policies on reliable sources and most importantly our policies on biographies of living persons. You also might want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. It will help other editors follow the conversation and will improve the chance of others helping out. I know Wikipedia can be arcane and frustrating but even though 'anyone can edit here' everyone must follow our policies and guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. JbhTalk 23:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)100.14.115.38, please refrain from personal attacks, secondly DO NOT blank discussion pages on the article talk page. Ladysif is doing the right thing, and because an article is "C class" does not mean its a bad article. --CyberWarfare (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to edit on Wikipedia, you should learn talk page formatting and guidelines as to how Wikipedia is run. I've fixed your posts for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages An editor's personal Wikipedia page can be used for anything, including, opinions on an article's notability when asked. It's generally Wikipedia policy to assume good faith WP:GF. This space is not to accuse other editors of what you believe to be false or true, and based on WP:Conflict and the accounts of editors which were used to write this article, its content has been deemed questionable. Blanking talk pages is against policy and in this case is in my opinion vandalism - these pages are spaces to resolve issues. If you continue to blank pages and edit war, you will likely be banned. WP:VAN Ladysif (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement. Around the same time of this demand Ladysif placed the article for deletion. We do not know if Ladysif was part of the demand nor are we making the allegation. It is most likely coincidence and a timing issue. When we saw this COI post we automatically assumed it was the fraudulent party especially when we saw Ladysif. Again, Ladysif probably has nothing to do with it, but after reviewing Ladysif talk page we became very concerned. The staff does not know how to use Wikipedia or make edits appropriately and for that we apologize. As you can all imagine, Mr. Stern was extremely upset and concerned with the posts. We are not interested in legal action nor do we have anything personal against Ladysif. We just want to get this resolved. Please understand that we do not know the process or what is happening right now. On a personal note, Mr. Stern did not thank his friends and family for creating the wikipedia page. His statement is being taken out of context. He was thanking his friends and family because the wikipedia page represents the suffering and pain that he had to go through and what he resulted in accomplishing. The wikipedia page is very important not because of the campaign or the company. The page is important because it makes the sacrifice that he made worth while. We ask that the editors really read his story and what he has gone through. Please tell us what we can do to help your investigation. All of the statements are correct and sourced and the page is accurate. We have nothing to hide. Please understand by posting a COI it seriously undermines the article even though the information contained is true. Again, we are not familiar with this process but the entire staff of Tactical Rabbit and the Senate campaign are here to help alleviate any and all concerns. We understand that the editors are conducting their due diligence to make Wikipedia a better educational environment. Please advise us on how we can contribute. Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Everett Stern and the Tactical Rabbit team sincerely apologize to Ladysif. We did not mean to personally attack you. The concern was that you were part of the extortion attempt. It has become apparent that you are simply trying to do the right thing. Please understand if the extortion piece was not a factor we would not have reacted in this fashion. Please accept Mr. Stern's apology. We seriously doubt you are involved in any kind of scheme against Mr. Stern. We just wanted to make you aware the reason why this escalated so fast. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 September 2015‎
IP, you really need to start sounding a. like an individual b. like a human being. You cannot speak in the plural here--not only is it royally rude, but it also suggests you are not a person but rather an entity of sorts, and that cannot be, since Wikipedia is supposed to be edited by individuals (I know, corporations are people too...). Now, if complaints have been filed with law enforcement and Wikipedia (sounds a bit...inflated, honestly), it would be interesting to know what "Wikipedia" this has been filed with. I suggest the best "Wikipedia" to report such an incident to is Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team. If there really was such an incident, of course. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to the IP and to the Everett Stern "team": Wikipedia is not a personal website. Do not use Wikipedia to make whatever Stern "went through" "worthwhile". Do that on your own time, and your own dime, on your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is to be edited by neutral editors, in a neutral way, with neutral noteworthy facts cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Also, in terms of the tag on the article, it could possibly or probably be removed once the COI group of editors stops editing the article directly, and the article is declared clean and neutral. Editors may request edits on this talk page rather than editing directly. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I want the Wikipedia article to be upgraded in class, 100 percent neutral, and in full Wikipedia compliance. I appreciate the Wikipedia process to ensure all articles are created on a sound foundation of integrity. I am more than happy to help in the process and I encourage official editors to reach out to me directly with questions. I ask that unrelated and unproductive posts are removed from this talk page. I am more than happy to answer any and all questions. Everettstern (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Even though this is closed, per the COIN investigation I am posting this list of SPAs, because frankly in my opinion none of them should be editing the article further, at least not directly, and the list has been removed from the Talk page itself:

-- Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request edit on 9 September 2015

My concern is that the situation of a previous extortion attempt is being ignored. Moreover, other users are not following the rules by making malicious comments on my talk page. I want a full peer review of my Wikipedia page because I want it as accurate as possible. I take pride in the integrity of the article. It is very frustrating that the previous reported incident is being ignored and the editor that proposed the page for deletion and the conflict is making very concerning allegations about me and my business. I do not think Wikipedia should be a forum for personal attacks or agendas.Everettstern (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you email the OTRS agents the evidence of extortion attempts? This needs to be handled rather carefully for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I have emailed all of the evidence. Everettstern (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to opinions on Wikipedia. How is recommending a page for deletion after this article was posted on WP:TAFI and received an opposition from several other editors on the grounds of WP:GNG classify as "extortion," exactly? Ladysif (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This article was blatantly not neutral and it has already been admitted that "Mr. Stern" has been paying his colleagues to edit the article, so I have done the right thing in reporting and drawing attention to it. Accusing someone who literally does not live in the United States of 'extortion' just because your article was deemed unsatisfactory is beyond ridiculous. If someone was trying to blackmail you through Wikipedia, it certainly wasn't me. Ladysif (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ladysif I understand you have an issue with my politics and past actions in defending the United States. Wikipedia is a place for neutrality not for the pushing of agendas. This is not the forum to express your personal feelings about matters. You are making very serious allegations that are unfounded. Everettstern (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Everettstern, accusing someone of paying someone else to edit a Wikipedia article isn't exactly a heinous crime. The more civil we all are, the easier this process will be. Constant bickering will only lead to nothing getting done. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Please review Ladysif previous comments and you will see numerous accusations. Furthermore, it has been determined twice now that Ladysif has a bad faith agenda. I ask that all of the revision comments are archived as the talk on this page is not conductive to making Wikipedia a better article. Everettstern (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Please close and archive the comments on this page.Everettstern (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Everettstern, you're very quickly digging yourself a hole and are definitely not making your case any better. Having read through every thread involving this article and Ladysif, I can state with confidence that the only thing she has done is (a) claim that you are editing your own Wikipedia page (or paying people to do so), and (b) question the notability and neutrality of the article. There is nothing slanderous about these actions, as they are a legitimate concern in line with Wikipedia's COI and Paid Editing policies. I have also removed part of your earlier comment as a form of OUTING. Again, I ask that you remain civil in these discussions instead of giving aggression. Primefac (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
My "allegations" were hardly unfounded as it was found indeed to be true that you yourself were responsible for and behind some of the extremely biased aspects of this article, which is a breech of COI. It's also generally against WP codes of civility to accuse anyone of WP:ABF. Ladysif (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not think you are understanding the situation. I am being threatened with extortion relating to my Wikipedia page. It has been determined that there is a major political and threatening agenda against me and my staff. I am concerned. My staff is concerned. You have not read what was brought to my attention. Numerous false allegation are being made by this person. We believe there is a very real risk and this matter has been escalated. You are entitled to your opinion but my team has gone through her statements and we are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Mm, yes, someone questioning the content of Wikipedia articles is extremely threatening. Ladysif (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There is more to this story that you either are or not aware of. I kindly ask that you close and archive this pending a further investigation. Everettstern (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC) I have no problem with anyone questioning anything about the Wikipedia article. This is a free country and anyone can say what they want. The problem comes in when I am told that xyz is going to happen if I don't pay them and then someone acts upon it. This is a matter that is being escalated and I am not comfortable expounding upon this in a public forum. I am more than happy to comment on a latter date once this is resolved. I ask again that the comments on this talk page are closed and removed from this page. Everettstern (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To quote Primefac, "talk pages are a record of discussions that have happened and should not be modified unless flagrant vandalism occurs." I am very close to reporting you for WP:HARASS as your accusations are unwarranted. Ladysif (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Everettstern, vandalism is taken seriously, and if you're being told that your article will be vandalised if you do not pay someone I can guarantee that will not happen. Even if something malicious is added to the page, there are enough people watching it to immediately revert the vandalism. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can understand your frustration, however as has been mentioned below, the talk page exists to document everything that has been discussed in relation to the article. This includes accustations of bad faith and other things. This allows other editors to judge for themselves what they think is/has been going on and to be able to compare past activities/accusations should something similar happen in the future.

What you must understand is while we try to be sensitive to the concerns of the article subject, Wikipedia has its own policies, procedures and guidelines that all editors are subject to. We are willing to listen to your concerns but you need to understand that being the subject of an article does not give a person control over the content of the article or its talk page. In some situations, where there is a violation of our policy on the biographies of living people a specifc edit of group of edits may be removed from the current version of the page. In the case of egregious violations further action may be taken by an administrator or by one of our Oversight Team.

On a more immediate note making accusations about other editors without providing strong evidence to back it up may be considered a personal attack which if repeated can lead to a temporary or permenant loss of editing priviages. Also, doing anything on-wiki that makes any reference to an editors real life identity or accounts on other non-Wikimedia sites is prohibited and will likely lead to loss of editing privlages. Please see our Outing policy for more information. You may also want to take a look at our Policy on legal threats.

Thank you for your understanding and compliance with our policies. If I can be any help with normal editing or content issues please feel free to contact using either {{ping|Jbhunley}} or leave a message on my talk page. If you have other concerns that go beyond normal Wikipedia editing you should continue to contact out Volunteer Response Team. JbhTalk 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what OTRS can do here - we don't have the authority to block (at least those of us who are not admins) nor do we arbitrate article content, unless it's clear and obvious vandalism that anyone can revert. If there are behavioral issues here and they cannot be resolved by discussion, maybe WP:ANI is the next stop...--ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I have posted on the WP:ANI regarding Stern's behavior. Ladysif (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ukexpat: Everettstern currently has an OTRS ticket open on the extortion allegation. I just did not want to give them the impression I would or could help them with that type of issue and they should continue with that resolution process instead of making on-wiki accusations about editors. JbhTalk 19:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 September 2015

Please remove the closed talk section of this page as the comments are not appropriate or constructive to the proper due diligence process. Everettstern (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Talk pages are a record of discussions that have happened, and should not be modified unless flagrant vandalism occurs. Auto-archiving of this page is currently on, so eventually it will be archived. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I have archived it. The discussion is moot, since the real Everett Stern is user:Everettstern and not one of the users discussed (thoguh it is likely that staff members may be editing; if so, Mr. Stern would be well advised to let staff know that they should adopt the same cautious approach as he has now been advised to use. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate

There is no source given for Stern's supposed birthdate. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. Merely saying "It's okay because nobody challenged it yet" is not enough. I'm aware that Mr Stern knows of this article - and had a hand in editing it, both directly and indirectly - but even information provided by the subject himself would still need a published reference. Stern's own website does not confirm his birthdate. I believe there's an emerging consensus that information supplied via OTRS is not sufficient as a reference for an article. Huon (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Information on the birth place and date directly provided by the subject themselves does not need a published source any more than birth date information provided by the subject to an external publication and then repeated in Wikipedia needs a birth-certificate or driver's-license source. Unlike in the UK, birth certificates and birth data in the U.S. are not public, and generally speaking would not have been provided for any source that we could have obtained this from; the source of the birth date (even in a Who's Who) for any living American would generally always have come initially from the subject and not from a birth certificate or driver's license. Unless there is some genuine reason to suspect the accuracy of a person's statement of their own birth date (that's occasionally the case with women such as older actresses, but not with men), we go with what they say in the absence of other information. I'd like to ping JzG, DGG, Jytdog, Primefac, Jbhunley, Brianhe, and Nagle, who are all largely aware of the ANI thread and the two COIN cases [1], [2]. The birthdate was added on 2 August 2015 by Gshm50, an Everett Stern SPA and apparent hiree. Given all the attention and scrutiny from Stern himself and from the various SPAs, in my opinion there is absolutely no reason to doubt the accuracy of the birth date, and no reason to remove useful neutral basic information. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't give a damn. If there's no source and people want it removed, then remove it. If they put it on their website we can cite that as a valid primary source for uncontentious information. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Considering the prior attention paid to this article by the subject I have no strong feelings about it and figure it is probably correct. That said, since it has been challenged, we should have a published date or a confirmation sent to OTRS by Stern or his representative. JbhTalk 17:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
My birthday is 8/29/1984. Please see the first paragraph of the Rolling Stone article where it says I was 25 in 2010. Everettstern (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: There is consensus, both within OTRS and on the last RfC on the issue, that we cannot use OTRS confirmation for information in articles. Mdann52 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Thanks, I was unaware of that. Could you post a link to those discussions for my reference? I recently saw a ticket where we used OTRS information to assert that someone had not done something so I just assumed that trivial personal information would not be an issue. JbhTalk 12:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Everettstern: That doesn't confirm the date nor the year - it gives 2 possibilities for the year, and lots of possibilities for date/month combinations. Mdann52 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


To expand on what Mdann52 said, the RStone figure is not a discrepancy, and could easily be explained by that source's use of the customary way of giving ages. If a person is born on Aug 29, 1984, then they become 25 years old on Aug 29, 2009, and do not become 26 years old until Aug 29 2010. In the year 2010, from Jan. 1 to Aug. 28, if asked to give the person's age in years, the answer would 25 years old. On Aug 28, 2010, the person might informally say they are almost 26, but if there were a requirement that they be 26 before they could do something (say, receive a legacy), they could not yet do it. By contrast, for very young children, the age is usually given in months; and we might say 2 years and 3 months, but we do not normally say or write 25 and 3 months for adults. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
My birthday is listed in the About section of the Everett Stern Facebook Fan Page https://www.facebook.com/EverettSternFan/Everettstern (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

A user with a potential conflict of interested reverted [edit] and suggested it be discussed in the talk page instead, so here it is.

Stern made a series of tweets and Facebook posts praising an ISIL terrorist attack in Lebanon ~36 hours ago. They involved saying that it was "good news" and received significant condemnation for it. He made the same commentary on his Facebook page.[1] Instead of backpedaling, he continued to dig his hole deeper and, in his words, said will "double down" on them.[2] Certain news cites caught onto it as well - most specifically Middle East Eye - and chastised him for such a statement. This isn't the first time he's made such a statement, tweeting his support for a bomb blast in Beirut in 2013 and calling it "great news." The victims of this bomb blast were exclusively civilians, and no other group was the direct target of the attack (it took place in a crowded market).

This is extremely relevant to his page as it emphasizes what his personal beliefs are, especially considering he's a US senate candidate. The revert was inappropriate considering that his tweets have received media attention[3] and the person who reverted the article likely has a conflict of interest as a government employee. Both Stern's Twitter and Facebook are linked to by Stern's official website[4] (linked to from the Wikipedia page) and his work website.[5]. Stern himself has a verified Wikipedia account[6] and, while he has challenged certain content on his page, has not challenged the link to everettstern.com or his affiliation with Tactical Rabbit Inc, so there is little question of the validity of either. He has also made minor edits to the Wikipedia page, suggesting there is nothing factually incorrect with the rest of the content, or more specifically the link to his official website. Given both the Facebook and the Twitter are linked to from his official campaign websites, we can accept his Twitter and Facebook pages as primary sources.

I'll wait to see if there is any reason to keep the edit reverted over the next couple of days. If not, I will revert the revert and any further objections can be discussed in the talk page before again reverting. 110.21.152.111 (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/EverettSternFan/posts/1220700874610545
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/EverettSternFan/photos/a.861788557168447.1073741827.861779650502671/1220800981267201/?type=3
  3. ^ www.middleeasteye.net/columns/hezbollah-stronghold-version-five-million-and-two-132502269
  4. ^ http://www.everettstern.com/
  5. ^ https://tacticalrabbit.com
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Everettstern
The edit I reverted violated several policies, most notably verifiability and the biographies of living persons policies. While the sentiment expressed is reprehensible, the proposed edit contains no reliable sources. Self-published statements may be used if they can be verified, but reliable secondary sources are required for any claims about those statements, particularly negative claims about the biographical subject. A Separate State of Mind is a personal blog which is described by its author as a "space where I vent." It is not an acceptable reliable source for any purpose, much less negative claims or statements about a living person. If there are substantive reliable secondary sources which discuss this person's tweets, then the matter would be suitable for discussion here. We might then move on to questions of whether the material is properly weighted or presented in context. But until we have reliable secondary sources, it's a non-starter.
I further note that contentious negative material will remain out of a living person's biography until there is an expressed editorial consensus that the material is suitable for publication in their biography. The burden of inclusion lies on the user preferring its inclusion.
I have no conflict of interest in this matter in any way, shape or form, and I suggest that that comment be retracted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is a reliable source given that it meets the criteria for a primary source. Everett Stern's official website, as specified in the Wikipedia page, links directly back to his Twitter and Facebook accounts. By extension, an article by Middle East Eye was also cited that discussed the tweets that Stern had made. The Wikipedia page on Biographies of living persons specifically makes it clear that we are allowed to use Stern's Twitter as a self-published source, provided there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity, which we can establish on the reliable source examples page cited above. Your criteria for 'reliable sources' seems to be contrary to Wikipedia's own guidelines.
Reading through the page on no original research, it emphasizes that the concern with primary sources is to do with interpretation, but I did not interpret what Stern wrote and merely quoted parts verbatim. The only interpretation took place by Middle East Eye, the secondary source, and that was also without interpretation and taken verbatim. If we need another secondary source, then this is a candidate but I'm not sure if that would be considered reliable.
Also, I mentioned the conflict of interest as a potential issue and did not mean it to attack you -- I apologize if it came across that way. 110.21.152.111 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you may be confused. The edit I reverted contains no secondary sources which might be described as even putatively reliable. Its sole external links are to two Twitter accounts and a personal blog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are right. My edit was reverted and someone else came back with a much worse variation of it. How do you feel about my take on it? I've found that fair.org has since mentioned the incident, although I'm not sure how reliable Wikipedia would consider FAIR to be. The Real News has also covered it 110.21.152.111 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Step one find reliable sources that discuss the tweets/Facebook posts. Then bring it here and discus what you think the article should say. When we are editing about a living person and the edits are controversial we start with leaving the information out until there is consensus to put it in. -- GB fan 01:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The posts are being taken out of context. Please see the following BBC article http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/11/151125_economia_grupos_extremistas_freno_financiamiento_ms Translated page https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fmundo%2Fnoticias%2F2015%2F11%2F151125_economia_grupos_extremistas_freno_financiamiento_ms&edit-text&act=url I am against terrorist organizations i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and have never supported the killing innocent civilians. Please read all of my posts in their entirety to understand their true meaning. Everettstern (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Am I correct in believing that Stern's attempts to 'clarify' here are inappropriate to the neutrality of this article? Ladysif (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Ladysif, in my opinion you really need to take this article off your watch list, and stop commenting on it, as you were requested to do in this ANI thread [3]. In my opinion it is your own lack of neutrality, for whatever reason, regarding Everett Stern, which are causing problems, not Stern's. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Birthday

Everett Stern's birthday is 8/29/1984 https://www.facebook.com/EverettSternFan/ Category Public Figure Born on August 29, 1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.116.82 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence that this is a verified page, which means it could have been created (in theory) by just about anyone. I think the best source for this information would be Stern's official website. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal of content

I recently re-added some content that was removed by an editor. The website itself may not be considered a reliable source, but the fact that it is primary (oddly enough) lends itself to verifying the facts; it is Stern himself saying that his company investigated the group. I'm open to starting a discussion on this, but at the moment I think it's worth keeping (even if he is completely wrong in his assessment). Primefac (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I recently re-added some content that was removed by an editor. Durring the "Cartel Bank". Dirty Money. 26 February 2018. Netflix. I cited the exact moment in which he was being interviewed and stated he was a CIA Canidate. I beleive the documentry would be considered a reliable source. Also I fixed the timeline which was stated in multiple articles that he finished his MBA before being rejected for a CIA Position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Spiffy. I removed it again. I have found multiple sources (including a couple of interviews) where he says he applied and was rejected. We don't need to list every job someone didn't hold. I've also removed anything that I couldn't find a source for, as well as extra information about HSBC that was already listed in the HSBC section. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I get what you are saying. BUT it would seem that this one job he didn't have, shaped his live. Concider that after not getting accepted to the CIA, he ended up working with them as a whistleblower and then started an intelligence company. I was just trying to correct the timeline that had him going for his masters because he got rejected, which isn't what happened according to the Dirty Money documentary and multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Government Submission Report

I added details to his education based on finding in Everett Stern (March 11, 2013). Submission Regarding Continuing Violations By HSBC Bank USA, N.A. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc., and HSBC Holdings plc of The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 The Trading with the Enemy Act, and The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (PDF) (Report). p. 4.. The document was found on Fernandez de Castro, Rafa (September 9, 2014). "A drug cartel guide to laundering millions". Splinter News. Open Publishing. and provides sworn statements about the HSBC case. I do not know how to cite that the pdf was located at this article if someone could help me out with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherjohn (talk • contribs)

I reverted it. The document was written by the subject and a degree is not awarded in "studies in Finance, Risk Management, Statistical Data Analysis and Applied Research" it was an MBA. Unless an independent third party finds the specific components of his studies listing them are merely puffery ie non-neutral self aggrandizement. Jbh Talk 19:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
On the validity of the document, wouldn't the document be written by both lawfirms and him and concidered sworn statements?Otherjohn (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No. It would be considered a primary, self-published, source. Beyond that, the fact he has an MBA may be biographically important but, unless and until a third party comments on the specific types of courses they are not. Jbh Talk 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping into a debate about my page, but I feel it is necessary at this point. All I care about is that the Wikipedia page is accurate and I appreicate the moderators keeping it that way. Moreover, I want to make clear I am personally absolutly against this Government Submission going into the Wikipedia page or even being referenced. This Government Document was NEVER supposed to be released by the news media outlet and by them releasing the pdf to the public is reckless. This document contains specific names of companies and people that are still under investigation and the release of this document causes severe harm to the United States. I gathered intelligence and passed information to the CIA while working at HSBC bank to protect Americans hence the information contained in this document. This media outlet did NOT have my permission to release this document and I do not beleive any part of it should be included in the Wikipedia page except the parts openly discussed in the media already. Again, I apologize for commenting on my own article but I am very against the release of this document and I believe Fusion Media is leaking this information without having the interests of the United States in mind. Everettstern (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need every mention

I've recently come into a bit of a disagreement with Pangolin876 regarding what should be included in this article. I do not think that showing up on a TV show about whistleblowers and an appearance in Rolling Stone to be encyclopedic content - whistleblowing is what he does, so it would make sense that he's featured in these places. We should use the content of the reference to increase the content of the article, not just say "he was featured in it".

On the other hand, they think that it is not necessary to include two not-even-filed senate runs, despite him being pretty much the only opposition at the time (and especially when they're on the corresponding Wikipedia pages).

So there are really two issues; one is how much to include when it's just "they were mentioned" and the other is whether to include actual political information even if it's just "they announced their candidacy but didn't file". For what it's worth I'm mostly on the fence about the latter; I think that we should really only include it if we can provide a reference saying he eventually dropped and/or didn't actually file. Primefac (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Rolling Stone - Excellent insight. I'd like to add, the Rolling Stone article clearly discussed the bank's illegal practices and the magnitude of Stern's actions by alerting the FBI and CIA. These details contribute greatly to the article. His actions don't appear to be just those of a whistle blower. As Rolling Stone's piece described, he obtained evidence of crimes from HSBC and passed it directly to the CIA (and FBI) on multiple occasions during a year or more. This is also documented by Netflix. Details in the Rolling Stone piece afford readers a critical snapshot of Stern's actions; beyond just "he was featured." It seems important. Panapublish (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Just as a note, I re-formatted the above comment with no content change because it's clearly a reply to my original post I have no issue with using Rolling Stone as a reference, but there is zero point in saying "he was featured in it" without giving any other details. If you want to add the ref's content the article, feel free. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for the reformat. I added additional content for the Rolling Stone article. I also have two other sourced pieces of information to help other parts of the article, however, I'm still working out how to correctly code/add the sources. I may need some assistance in that area. Thank you again for your guidance.Panapublish (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of the CIA Clandestine Service Mention

The fact that Everett Stern was in the candidate program, is established in the RT interview, and again in the Netflix program. Netflix original programming could not air the facts without vetting them, and he makes the factual statements very clearly during that segment. Netflix would have required documented evidence such as the CIA's Clandestine Service Rejection letter to allow Stern's comments on camera. Netflix had to legally verify every statement that he made. I agree with you, just because Stern said it himself does not make it valid or untrue. It is Netflix that gives credibility to his statement by including it after verifying the CIA information.

One last point, the CIA is not known for casually passing out confidential documents on their program candidates. Consequently, there is no OS research that might confirm the statement; to be found with a Google search. Asking for a third party confirmation from the CIA on this question, beyond what the Netflix lawyers verified, is a ridiculous request. The line and statement are truthful and accurate. The information should stand as I wrote it. Panapublish (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC) "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Stern's statement is verifiable. Panapublish (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Interviews, being PRIMARY sources, are not considered reliable for contentious issues. I could say I was briefly considered for the head of the CIA but if I'm the only one saying it then there's no independent verification. If as you say (probably correctly) there is no independent verification of this fact, then it should not be included in this article. Just because he's truthful about other things doesn't mean he's truthful about everything. There are many sitcoms and movies whose entire plots revolve around "I told the truth except when I stretched it juuuuust a little." As a whistleblower and investigaor, saying "I was considering joining the CIA" sounds great on a resume. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Primefac on this. I do not see the sources as reliable enough for the information to be included as fact. ~ GB fan 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac:@GB fan:I apologize for jumping in on my own article, but I just got back from traveling and have all these alerts. I am reading these peoples comments who are trying to improve the page (which I appreciate) and the moderators (who are also trying to improve the page.) I am going to address a couple of points as I am not good with Wikipedia and I do not know how to separate out contents into proper sections. I first want to clarify my 2016 U.S. Senate run which was brought up for some reason. I was not just a mere candidate in that race but I went all the way spending my own money. I ran in the primary and then when I lost the primary I ran as an Independent. There are tons of news articles to support this. In 2014 yes I filed to run for Congress but two weeks later withdrew because my dad was battling cancer and I needed to be there for my family. I am not sure how me filing and then immediatly withdrawing is relevant or noteable to this article. I will leave that to the moderators and the readers. I do however agree with the person who added Rolling Stone. That was a major turning point not just in my life but in the HSBC case. Without the Rolling Stone Article the Anti-money laundering legislation I worked on with Maxine Waters never would have happened. It is very signifcant that I was featured in that magizine. Also the Netflix movie was in collaboration with Rolling Stone and was based off me being featured. Rolling Stone in my mind holds the same weight as Netflix maybe more. Please keep it in the article as I believe it is valid, but again I will leave it to the moderators. Now lets talk about the Clandestine Service. I was a little offended about what I read a moderator was saying about me as I dont say I was a candidate for the CIA as a resume boost. It is a fact in my life. I do agree with what the person who is saying about Netflix as I did have to provide a mountain of evidence including my rejection letter and other non classified CIA materials to show that yes I was a candidate. My fist interview with the CIA was actually Feb 14th 2006 and I was formally rejected in May of 2010. It was a long process. I was not a candidate for a week. The reason why Netflix found this so important was that I was not just a Whistleblower at HSBC. I was passing information to the CIA for over a year and Netflix legal counsel had to have evidence to allow me to say this on camera. I am not however going to prove myself and if Wikipedia does not feel Netflix is not a credible source with Alex Gibney an award winning director running this show. What I will comment on is that the Netflix movie shows a truth that the Wikipedia does not and I think this is why the moderators are running into people who are seeing the movie and trying to make these changes. Me being a clandestine service candidate is important part of the story as it gives people a better understanding of how I was able to pass information to the CIA 3 weeks in on the job and then continue that relationsip, and then start a Private Intelligence Agency with former CIA officers. Tactical Rabbit is not a private investigations firm. There is a big difference between Tactical Rabbit a PIA (Private Intelligence Agency) and a PI firm. Numerous articles have explained what Tactical Rabbit is. Going back to the CIA information... People are just trying to make the article more factual and to me a major Netflix documentary is a very credible source as yes I did have to prove everything I said. The Wikipedia article states I went to the FBI and CIA. This is not true. I went to the CIA 3 weeks in and was passing information. Then after I left the bank I went to the FBI with an intelligence report I typed called "HSBC Sponsoring Terrorism." The FBI came into play much much later. I agree with the moderators in that we have to be careful with the CIA affiliations as my official response is "I Everett Stern, was a candidate for the Clandestine Service, but was rejected before joining HSBC. I did pass information to the CIA for over a year while working at HSBC bank completly self directed (Key word). I was not as asset or working for the CIA at any point in time. I have never worked for the Central Intelligence Agency." This is my official response that I have given to every media organization or anyone that has asked me about the matter. Would I prefer that the moderators state I was a Candidate for the Clasdestine Service - NO. I appreciate what the reader is trying to do with the article and in debating the modertors, but it is not a good idea. Is it accurate and from a reliable source? Yes. The problem is people may get confused and think I was planted at HSBC by the CIA. They may think I was an operative and I have been asked this before. I even had the FBI ask me this. We cannot cause confusion. My official response above is what has to stand. Do I disagree with some of the reasons the moderations do not want the statement in the article? Yes. But I agree with the action. People cannot think I was a plant because I was not. I passed information to the CIA self directed defending the United States against the terrorist finacing I was witnessing and the criminal matipulation of the wire filter I figured out. I figured out HOW HSBC bank was getting money to terrorists and drug cartels - I had to do something. I had to take action because it was the right thing to do. I went back to my recruiter from the CIA and wrote him an email on November 12th 2010 which led to the largest fine against a bank in U.S. History. I apologize again for commenting on my page but I want to give more insite into while I appreciate what fans of Netflix are doing as they start researching me, but we have to be careful that the public does not draw the wrong conclusions. I am not interesed in people thinking I am a CIA agent when I am not. My actions may heavily indicate that I worked or worked for the CIA, but I am just a normal person trying to make a significant positive difference and do the right thing. Everettstern (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References Removal

Hello everyone. I'm trying to find and re-input the collective references used for this page. I'm not sure when they were removed, whether intentional or not. But I believe there should be about 40 now. I have re-entered the old references and one new one, i just need to go and re-hyperlink them all. If anyone is faster at this or can restore the previous list please do! Thanks Wiki team!@AcademyPrep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academyprep (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Academyprep, please see WP:REFB for how to input references and format them; the method you're attempting to use is acceptable, but it's about as far down the list of "acceptable" ways to do it as possible, especially when there are already existing references. For consistency's sake the existing reference style should be used, and only modified if and when necessary - if you have additional references feel free to add them, but the existing references should not be removed unless they are somehow incorrect or out-of-date. Primefac (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Political Career

Hey Everyone, 

Submitting for consensus that we remove the following:

"In February 2014, Stern, a Republican, announced he was running for Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district in the 2014 elections.[39][40] He withdrew from the race before the April 2014 filing deadline"

The submission filing to run was so short (less than 2 months) that is in insignificant in the subject's life and story and therefore should be omitted. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.29.11 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request (Dec 2019)

Please remove "Stern founded Tactical Rabbit with the intention of "exposing wrongdoing" in financial and corporate institutions.[27]" This will harm my business with financial institutions and corporations. I formed Tactical Rabbit to promote Justice not to go after financial institutions and corporations. The aforementioned comment is also based on a weak source. Everettstern (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source that more accurately describes your company? One with the founding date might also be helpful. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, thank you for your help. I do not know how wikipedia works. I am not trying to insert PR into the article, but facts. Below is a description of Tactical Rabbit from a couple of sources but there are many more and the definition of a Private Intelligence Agency from Wikipedia. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Everett Stern, intelligence director of private intelligence company Tactical Rabbit. Readers Digest https://www.rd.com/home/signs-burglar-watching-house/2/
Everett Stern is the founder and intelligence director of Tactical Rabbit, a private intelligence agency composed of former government agents and intelligence community members. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/community/the-villager/fl-wf-pbso-deputy-fired-social-media-posts-20180601-story.htmlEverettstern (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
www.TacticalRabbit.com and numerous articles and sources that were deleted a couple of days ago that say I am the intelligence director of Tactical Rabbit. Tactical Rabbit is a leading Private Intelligence Agency (PIA). As a PIA, we are devoted to the collection, analysis, and exploitation of information that serves the goals of the private and public sectors. / The aforementioned is the definition of a Private Intelligence Agency on Wikipedia.Everettstern (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, please reconsider adding Amazon back into the company intelligence operations. Tactical Rabbit spent months on the Amazon intelligence operation and submitted it to the Governement which in-turn immediately put Amazon on a watch list. Everettstern (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Please also reconsider adding back in Students for Justice in Palestine because the argument was made that SJP outcome was that there was no FBI investigation. The following website is a Students for Justice in Palestine website where members of the group are saying they were interviewed by the FBI. https://theintercept.com/2018/06/24/students-for-justice-in-palestine-fbi-sjp/Everettstern (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
That article says nothing about any outcome (nobody so much as arrested) nor does it make any mention of your organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Everettstern, you requested a change to the opening sentence of the Tactical Rabbit section. I asked for some references that I could use to put in place of the current reference. None of the references you provided discuss the founding of TR, nor its purpose. Instead, you've now jumped back to your insistence that the phrase "intelligence director" be added back into the lead. I am happy to discuss one or both requests, but if you ask for Thing A please don't try to shoehorn in Thing B. For now, let's stick to the TR section, and I'll ask again; are there any sources (at this point I'll even consider poor ones) that talk about the founding of Tactical Rabbit and/or what its purpose is? I used the language currently in the article because it's about all I could come up with based on the limited amount of information out there. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Primefac I appreciate the question but I am going to bow out of my article going forward. I know you are acting in good faith. I will leave the editing suggestions to the Wikipedia community. In another article I was told you have edited over 140,000 articles and one of the biggest volunteers for Wikipedia. I know the page is in good hands with you and the community at large. Thank you for you taking the time to moderate and protect my page from bad faith actors for all of these years. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Primefac May you please close this discussion and all of the discussion boards surround the Everett Stern page. I do not have any disputes about anything related to the page. If you can please archive these discussions. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Everettstern (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Tactical Rabbit section

I did some formatting and other cleanup in Everett Stern#Tactical Rabbit but I think the recent WP:BOLD addition to this section (as well as some other content added to the article) by this edit might need a closer look. While I believe the content was added in good faith and can see that something about TR should be mentioned in the article, it has a bit of a promotional feel to it. Some of the examples given, for example, only say Stern set letters, predicted mergers not succeeding, launched company investigations, created phony Amazon accounts, etc. but don't list anything about what happened after all of those things were done. If something Stern or TR does ultimately leads to some kind of action being taken (e.g. a firing, a new law, an official investigation being conducted), then it seems like it could be mentioned; otherwise, it reads sort of like a CV for the company. Regardless, care always needs to be taken when naming specific individuals even if they're mentioned by name in the sources cited because Wikipedia isn't the news and there should be some encyclopedic value in mentioning such people to the reader, even when supported by sources, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAMES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I concur; for example a removal of mine was reverted, but it's just a paragraph about how TR "looked into" a case, with no indication that them "looking into it" had anything to do with the final outcome. If there's no source saying "beacuse of Stern" or "because of Tactical Rabbit's investigation" there's no reason to include it in this article. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Student for justice in Palestine was in the news https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/everett-stern-student-group-hamas/2014/08/12/id/588385/ and an FBI investigation was triggered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Is there a source for the FBI investigation and its outcome? Or is all we have your claims in an interview with a right-wing house organ? We ought to have far more than that before republishing unsubstantiated claims of involvement with a terrorist group. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Newsmax is not a valid source? It is right wing? Millions of Americans do not believe it is right wing. Please do not put your own personal politics inserted on my page. Newsmax is a valid source just how readers digest is also, but that was removed as well. Just because I am a republican does not mean my page should be attack by people with a liberal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    So basically you're demanding that we report unsubstantiated claims of ties to a terrorist group based on nothing more than your say-so? No, I think not. That would be wildly undue weight and highly prejudicial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    To me, the direction the paper leans is immaterial; the salient point is that all we know is that you say TR's involvement led to the FBI opening a case; we have no follow-up or third-party corroboration that the FBI even opened a case, or how the information was used, etc. It's not that you're not trustworthy, but potentially-controversial facts should be supported by independent sources. In other words, it's not necessarily the reliability of the source/publication that is in question, but the type of source (see point 2 of this list). Primefac (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthAre one of you going to do any research or just keep reverting the page in line with your Liberal views? I will change the page AGAIN. Please disband the liberal politically charged group and request insight from an UNbiased third party. Thank you for keeping true to Wiki's values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsplex03 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Founding date and other concerns

Tactical Rabbit was formed in 2012 not 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you pointing that out. The 2014 start date seems to be supported by a citation, but it’s one that seems a bit iffy in my opinion. Can you provide a another reliable source (preferably one that’s WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT) which can be used to verify the 2012 date? Please don’t be offended because Wikipedia is unable to take you at your word, but it’s not really set up to work that way. If the reliability of the source cited is questionable, then maybe 2014 should be removed; however, adding a new year means another source is needed.
Some other general things. Please try to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. Please also take a look at H:TALK to get a better idea on how to use talk pages. It might seem trivial, but doing little things like signing and properly formatting your posts will make it that much easier for others to try and help you. —- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies but I do not know how to use Wikipedia. All I know is that this wikipedia page does not reflect MY life. The entire first section that was 100 percent cited by credible sources is now a paragraph of no sources at all. It does not make sense what happened to my page today. I have been fighting for years to make a significant positive difference and this page does not reflect what I have been trying to do. I am not a former politician or an investigator.. I do not have a PI license. I do not investigate anything. I direct intelligence operations which is very different hence why I own a Private Intelligence Agency and not a PI firm. I also do not own many hedge funds... I own one. Again the first paragraph citations were completely removed and the description of my life was changed to someones opinion not based on facts and citations. I keep seeing on this talk page that citations need to be used but I keep seeing on my page the opposite. There is a double standard. This Everett Stern Wikipedia page does not reflect my life, who I am, what I do for a living, what I am trying to accomplish, and the things my Private Intelligence Agency has accomplished. I feel what is happening is malicious because my own words are not even being counted. A user even said Netflix was not a source when everything I said in the Netflix movie had to be vetted to the nth degree in order for anything to be said on tape. The actual show Dirty Money even has its own Wikipedia page but Netflix cannot be used as a source on my page? I am frustrated that my life is being defined by people who are just writing paragraphs for example the first one just on a whim. I take serious offense that it is being stated I am a former politician. I am going to be running again in the 2023 U.S Senate run again. I have never stopped fighting for what is right and I never will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Everettstern (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"Stern founded Tactical Rabbit with the intention of "exposing wrongdoing" in financial and corporate institutions." Is also a press release which has been used as an excuse multiple times in removing many of Tactical Rabbit's accomplishments. Why is someone stating the purpose of my Private Intelligence Agency? This could hurt Tactical Rabbit and cause the loss of clients that are financial institutions and corporations. The above mentioned comment will cause serious harm to my Private Intelligence Agency. Moreover, I am not just a Whistleblower.. as stated in Readers Digest and many other articles (all citations were removed for some reason) I am an Intelligence Director out to promote Justice.I was passing information to the CIA for over a year while I was working at HSBC. I did not just blow the Whistle and walk away. I stayed at the bank and fought to defend the National Security of the United States which has been reported over and over especially in the Netflix movie where my statements were heavily vetted and I had to provide proof of everything I said. I am not out to fight against all financial institutions and corporations. I believe in the promotion of Justice which did not happen in the HSBC terrorist financing scandal as portrayed in the Netflix movie Dirty Money episode "Cartel Bank." Again, there is a major double standard being applied to MY life. I believe ALL of the citations should be added back to the article as good citations is what Wikipedia from my understanding wants. My Wikipedia had tons of citations showing I was an intelligence director and former U.S. Senate Candidate. The citations even showed I was the hedge fund manager of Rabbit Alpha. Why were all of these citations removed? Why my own vetted words and why solid citations from credible newspapers, and credible magazines were removed? One user commented that Tactical Rabbits actions should only be mentioned when there is an outcome... who defines what an outcome is? How does a user know that Tactical Rabbits intelligence report on Life Lock did not cause the additional fines by the SEC, or that my comments on Sprint and T-Mobile did not fuel stock traders actions, and if you google Students for Justice in Palestine with FBI investigation you will see actual SJP members talking in articles about how they were interviewed by FBI agents? What about Amazon? Right after Tactical Rabbit released our intelligence report then the U.S. Government put Amazon on a watch list. Outcome? Who defines the definition of an outcome? It is the action I take as the Intelligence Director of Tactical Rabbit comprised of Former CIA operatives that are trying to make a significant positive difference. How is an outcome measured? It is the action that matters. Nobody can find a direct link to a specific outcome... anyone can always debate a link between an action and the direct causation of an outcome. The actions I took as the Intelligence Director were not promotional. They were facts and had some impact. Again... what does impact mean? How can it be defined? This is why what appears to be promotional is the action. And it is the action that matters. People are not defined by undefined outcomes but by their very real ACTIONS. All of the actions in MY life and that of Tactical Rabbit have been in good faith by promoting justice and doing the right thing. Everettstern (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Everettstern (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's a bit of a learning curve when it comes to Wikipedia and using Wikipedia talk pages, but it would be helpful if you could try to do these two things: (1) always try to sign your posts as explained in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts and (2) always try to log in to your account when you post. Signing your posts makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when. It's possible to find this information by digging through a page's history, but when lots of people are posting on the same page or the page has lots of threads and comments, it does make things easier. Since signatures should always come at the ends of posts, it also makes it easier to see where one post ends and another begins; otherwise, it looks like this one long wall of text where everything runs together. It's also recommended that editors try use proper Wikipedia:Indentation as well because this also makes it easier to follow discussions and see who's posting what. As you might've noticed, Wikipedia talk pages are set up to work slightly differently than some other online forums your might be used to using; so, Wikipedia talk pages can be confusing at first, but it's not too hard to get the hang of using them. It's also very important to you to try and use only one account to post comments. This is because Wikipedia policy is one account per user per Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts every time you post something with Everettstern other editors will at least be able to assume that they are dealing with the same account. If you log in using an IP address, there's no way for any other to know you're "Everettstern" even if tell them that's who you are (people have been known to claim lots of things about themselves on Wikipedia or claim they are someone else). As you also might of noticed, the IP address is revealed for any edits made using an IP account; so, while it might seem to be more anonymous than a registered account, it actually isn't because only a Wikipedia administrator can see the IP address of a registered account, whereas anyone looking at the page can see the IP address of an IP account. I'm not pointing out things like this to try and discourage you from editing/posting comments, but the faster you try to get up to speed, particularly if you're going to seek assistance on other Wikipedia pages (see next paragraph), the easier it will be for others to help you.
As for the rest of your comments, Wikipedia tries to be as accurate as possible, but being the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that anyone can essentially edit any page at any time. Wikipedia hopes that most of these editors will do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but there are some you don't, either unintentionally or intentionally. Since all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and there are over six million articles, keeping track of who's editing what where is a constant struggle. The main policy covering this article is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is one of Wikipedia's most important policies and there are lots of experienced editors who simply patrol articles about living persons to make sure everything is in order. If you feel that some of the information is harmful to you or your interests in someway, then you may (as explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia seek assistance in addressing these problems. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unanticipated consequences. Wikipedia articles try to be balanced in the way it presents content, and only reflect what reliable sources say about a subject in a neutrally worded way; the purpose of an article is neither to promote the subject nor denigrate the subject, and only content (positive or negative) which can be verified through citations to reliable sources (ideally WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT or the subject) is going to be considered for inclusion.{ Wikipedia does all WP:PRIMARY sources to be used under some condition, but their use is fairly restrictive, particularly when it comes to content which is about living persons or may be deemed to be likely contentious. You can find out a little more about how primary sources may be used to support content in this article in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid misuse of primary sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source {pb}} If you do decide to seek assistance elsewhere, e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, you might want to considered have your identity confirmed per Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names so that editors can be sure that it's really you they are trying to help. I've got no reason to believe that you're not Evertt Stern, but I've also got no way to verify that you are. (Please don't post any person contact info or whatever here or on any other public pages to try and provide such proof). You can, if you want, send an email to Wikimedia OTRS and a WP:OTRS volunteer will check the email and add Template:Verified account to your user page after verifying its contents. Correspondence between OTRS and users is not made public and OTRS volunteers are required to sign agreements stating that they will not disclose or discuss the details of such exchanges anywhere on Wikipedia or with any individual editors off-Wikipedia; emails are only kept on record and accessed as needed whenever verification is requested. You don't have to do this if you don't want to, but it's probably the best way for any Wikipedia editor to see that you are the subject of this article. If you're using Twitter or Facebook, you've probably seen that those sites also offer a similar type of verification to their users. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly I have learned a great deal about how to navigate Wikipedia in these last couple of days. I appreciate you showing me the ropes. I am going to exit out of the discussion as I want the Wiki community to handle this, but thank you for volunteering to make my page a better encyclopedia article. Everettstern (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed content

I've just gone ahead and removed a bunch of stuff from this section of the article. I'll give my rationale below just to avoid multiple edits and/or a super-long edit summary:

  • JPMorgan - ref is primary (direct from TR), no indication that there was any followup/action taken.
  • LifeLock - ref is quoting TR's stuff and interviewing Stern (i.e. all primary)
  • Amazon Marketplace - both refs are just pulling from the PRNewswire PR piece by TR, and as above there's no indication of followup. If there was an article about TR itself, it might be reasonable to include, but not about Stern himself.

Haven't had a chance to check the others but these three were really obvious (and only had 1-2 refs). Primefac (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac I apologize for fighting to keep these sections in the article, but please understand I have worked very hard on those intelligence operations / cases. I understand your rational and I appreciate you volunteering to moderate my page. Everettstern (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Article Version

RfC: Which version of this article better serves the public, the subject and Wikipedia?

There have been major revisions to this entire article in the past week. The current version is completely different than everything before it. There were multiple arguments in the talk page, the editors are too close to the product. It may be helpful to have the community weigh in to decide which product is better serving.

There are three major versions:

Everettstern (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the links to PermaLinks and done some formatting tweaks. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 3rd Version It is organized well, has more relevant information than the others, yet doesn't have all of the superfluous information in the Tactical Rabbit section. HAL333 18:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Primefac I am not sure how to close this discussion. The way the wikipedia page is now I believe is accurate and is to the community consensus. You will know better then me, but if it is ok with you may you please close this section. Everettstern (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC withdrawn/closed per the above as there is no "opposition" to the current version. Primefac (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request (Feb 2020)

The following article recently came out and I am not sure if any of this can be added to the Everett Stern page. Maybe not, but I want to bring this to the attention of the moderators before a third party makes a change. I will try and do this going forward as fast as possible to prevent the edit wars we have seen in the past. Primefac I am not sure if I am doing this correctly. I added the code you recommended but I am not sure if I used it correctly. https://www.bankingdive.com/news/iran-sanctions-anti-money-laundering-hsbc-whistleblower/570522/Everettstern (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why that should be included in this article; it sounds like it would serve as a reference for an article like United States sanctions against Iran. Primefac (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about these revelations. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

As an interview with seemingly no corroborating sources or content, I don't think this is appropriate. It would basically say "Stern says he was asked to spy on people" which not (at this point) verifiable. Primefac (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Primefac These two articles are critical and come from very credible sources. They contain essential actions taken that should be considered as part of the article as it shapes my political career and has significance not only to myself but the overall U.S. Election. For example, testifying to January 6 and the FBI goes beyond someone asking me to do something. The New York Times article found someone else like me who was also asked to similar actions. The New York Times article is also credible and a verifiable source that shows my vetted actions and a pattern of criminality being conducted by Flynn. The Guardian and the New York Times pieces on my actions regarding Flynn in defense of the United States are significant to not only my article but others. The Guardian and the New York Times have an extensive vetting process. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/magazine/michael-flynn-2020-election.html , https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits . --Everettstern (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Significant Article Changes

  • What I think should be changed (include citations): Hi Primefac (talk) May you and the other editors please correct the page so it is in accordance with Wikipedia community standards. I am running for U.S. Senate and will be in the race to the end. My photo keeps being deleted and there is a statement that is not true about my policy beliefs. I believe in more regulation not less as I saw what happened with HSBC and losing regulatory standards. My mission in this race is to fight ring wing extremism and that is why I broke off from the Republican party. Please consider the following articles as both the New York Times and the Guardian state I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn. I am a moderate pro-democracy anti-trump politician. I took on the Republican party and suffered tremendous consequences as a result. I worked with the FBI to report domestic terrorism. I know you are very busy but please read the Guardian and New York Times articles. You will see that there was another person who was asked to extort politicians as well by the Patriot Caucus and Flynn. I say all of this because Americans are all invested in the PA U.S Senate race not just people who live in PA as whoever wins can change U.S. Senate red or blue for a long time. Whistleblowing on General Flynn and his Extortion plot was serious and had major implications that I believe the page should reflect. Most people i know rely on Wikipedia for the truth. People are looking me up and they need to see a Wikipedia page just like the other candidates and one that accurately reflects me as a living person. I am sincerely trying to fight for what is right and putting it on the line. in my humble opinion, I believe my page should be written so it is encyclopedic. Right now it has a banner on top saying the article is not written appropriately. I have done a tremendous amount since HSBC and the other wars I have launched as the intelligence director of Tactical Rabbit. It is not a matter of self-promotion, but facts. There have been a number of credible news stories I am featured in since the last major revision of the page. Again, this is not about showcasing achievements but making sure the American voter knows what I stand and fight for. I will go with whatever the Wikipedia community agrees upon as this is not my Wikipedia page. It is the communities. I just sincerely ask you and the other top editors to research and make the proper adjustments so the page accurately reflects my actions. There may not be a conviction yet against Flynn, but my actions of testifying to the FBI and the January 6th committee are significantly credible and verifiable actions. Please also note that my campaign managers were in control in the beginning of the race. My real views on things are on Twitter and clearly evident by my actions against Trump and right-wing extremism. I know you are very busy and I sincerely thank you for your help. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits / https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/magazine/michael-flynn-2020-election.html / https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/candidate-michael-flynn-trying-to-run-extortion-scheme-on-us-officials-to-reinstall/ https://www.salon.com/2021/10/31/candidate-michael-flynn-trying-to-run-extortion-scheme-on-us-officials-to-reinstall/ Everettstern (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


Everettstern (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Re the photo: It was deleted for lack of permission. We would need a free picture in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The photos were taken by professional photographers hired by my campaign staff. I own the rights to the photos. Please let me know what you need. I have other photos I could provide. How do I get them to you. I do not want to make any changes or additions to the page. Thank you for your help. Everettstern (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Everettstern: Please provide a direct link to a photo on your website and state here that you agree to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. I believe your identity has been confirmed on Wikipedia already (someone correct me if I'm wrong), so permission from you here should be enough. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for providing me the correct information. The photo that was up before which is the one on the American Flag on the U.S. Senate website. It is the first photo of me on www.everettstern.com. https:///url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Feverettstern.com%2F&psig=AOvVaw3pNzHAWdnFGeJVez_Z-cZa&ust=1652539341242000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCNi4kvba3PcCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD This photo is from www.TacticalRabbit.com https://tacticalrabbit.com/intelligence-director/ https://www..com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftacticalrabbit.com%2Fintelligence-director%2F&psig=AOvVaw3pNzHAWdnFGeJVez_Z-cZa&ust=1652539341242000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCNi4kvba3PcCFQAAAAAdAAAAABBi The last photo is from the Campaign website www.EverettStern.com https://everettstern.com/contact/ I am not sure how to get this last photo into a link. I provided 3 photos that I agree to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. I provided 3 photos so the Wikipedia community can decide what photo goes up and not me for neutrality. Thank you for your help. Everettstern (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk) I apologize but it said google was blacklisted and I could not reply unless I deleted the word. You will see a hole in two links where google should be. I was not sure how to navigate this problem. Everettstern (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Everettstern: Tactial Rabbit would need to release the image: they're claiming the copyright over the image on their site. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
As the owner of Tactical Rabbit I give permission to use the image of me from the Tactical Rabbit website therefore I agree to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Everettstern (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done, thank you. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Please help as the page is under attack. I have NEVER been convicted of a crime in my entire life therefore it should not say I was arraigned for impersonating a Federal Officer as I never committed such a crime. This causes me serious harm. Everettstern (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The article is no longer written like a résumé, so I've removed the {{like resume}} tag. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the rest, I don't see a clear suggestion, but I'm leaving the section open for now. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Please read the Guardian article. It is free and very comprehensive. I know you are very busy but the Guardian is a credible source and this piece took months in the reporters and editors writing, approving, and fact checking. The New York Times story followed. Everettstern (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
There is also this article which shows more of my political views. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/michael-flynn-kathy-barnette-everett-stern-b2020977.html Everettstern (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Primefac I hope your move went well. I also recently wrote a book that is on Amazon and Barnes & Noble called "Dark Money & Private Spies." The link is following https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-Private-Spies-Everett/dp/1647045789/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= Everettstern (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Everettstern: Editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, and it is quicker to get changes if the request is presented in a "Change X to Y" format and citations for each statement are included. I am closing this request because it is difficult to ascertain how you would like the article to be changed. Interested editors can evaluate the article based on the references you provided, or you can open a new request below. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Z1720 Primefac My apologies. I know everyone are volunteers and I appreciate people taking the time to work on my article. I am not sure of the exact statements but I provided the Guardian and New York Times stories I was in that are significant to my page. I want to leave it up to the Wikipedia Community as to what goes in my article and what does not, but I sincerely ask that the Guardian story and New York Times is read. I will provide links again. These stories contain critical facts that should be included in my biography. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits
and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/magazine/michael-flynn-2020-election.html
Both articles are credible and had serious implications on my life and others for the greater good. Thank you for your help. I also wrote a book called Dark Money and Private Spies. Everettstern (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Primefac (talk) I understand you and the other editors are volunteers and I am sorry to take up your time, but the On the Issues link on my page does not accurately reflect the issues I believe in. My campaign is responsible for that. Ballotpedia accurately represents my views. I am very much a moderate not the right-wing extremism being shown on that On the Issues page. I have emailed On the Issues a number of times and I am trying to resolve the issue. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is something specific that needs changing, please be specific - is it a word? A sentence? A paragraph? The more specific you are with your requests for change, the more likely we can be to help you. "This page is out of date and needs fixing" is too vague, and multiple editors have now indicated that you need to be more specific in your requests. In other words, "change XYZ to ABC" and a supporting reference is the best way to do this. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I will gather a list and submit for review. Please note my requests are not demands as I understand the wikipedia page is not mine but the community. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make the page more accurate. I will have everything submitted by the end of the day, but please no rush on your part. I hope you are doing well. Everettstern (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Please remove * Everett Stern at On the Issues It does not accurately reflect my views. Please replace it with https://ballotpedia.org/Everett_Stern.
Please add that worked with the FBI and then testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn. The source is The Guardian and the New York Times. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/magazine/michael-flynn-2020-election.html. Please consider adding a Tactical Rabbit success in which a Nazi Group was taken down by the FBI due to Tactical Rabbit. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-white-supremacists-ss-prem-20210120-55z7iiaribet3lei4h6372ftb4-story.html Please add that i was featured in the award winning and most listen to podcast "True Spies" with my episode being the Avenger. https://spyscape.com/podcast/the-avenger https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-avenger/id1508522747?i=1000523764807 Please also add that I recently came out with a book called "Dark Money & Private Spies" https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-Private-Spies-Everett-ebook/dp/B0B39LJYJY Thank you for your time and consideration with this matter. I hope this was more specific in what you were asking for. Everettstern (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Stern/Archive_1&oldid=1164850563"