Talk:Leo Housakos

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Leo Housakos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010309222357/http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/001115/4871766.html to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/001115/4871766.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131203213637/http://thesuburban.com/news/articles/?id=article00881 to http://thesuburban.com/news/articles/?id=article00881
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203223616/http://lavalnews.ca/article/Giant-Steps-to-benefit-from%20-roceeds-of-Valentine-Ball-200309 to http://lavalnews.ca/article/Giant-Steps-to-benefit-from%20-roceeds-of-Valentine-Ball-200309
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20131203213651/http://thesuburban.com/news/articles/?id=article00038 to http://thesuburban.com/news/articles/?id=article00038
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511033457/http://lavalnews.ca/articles/TLN1702/sports170209.html to http://lavalnews.ca/articles/TLN1702/sports170209.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Allegations
I have done a bit of investigating, and it appears that the allegations made against Housakos appear in reliable sources. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE such allegations should be included if they are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, even if the subject denies them (although such a denial should be included in the section). I think the ones described in this article meet that criteria. Keeping this in mind, I will attempt to edit the article in a fair way guided by this policy. If you disagree with any edits I make, please bring them up here. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 16:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should any allegations of wrongdoing that are later shown to be false be completely removed from the article or should they be kept with an explanation that they were shown to be false? ―NK1406 talk•contribs 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include but with provisions: In my opinion, if the allegations received significant coverage in reliable sources, the information should be included, but it should be written in a neutral manner. Additionally, the fact that the allegations were proven false must be included. The way the information is currently written doesn't abide by BLP rules and the citations are currently on the page as external links, which isn't appropriate. Quorum816 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include with provisions Notable rejected allegations should be included, but it should be clear they were rejected. Please do not use ALL CAPS in headers. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include with provisions Presumably, those allegations should be included if have sufficient coverage by (reliable) media/news; in the meanwhile, it ought to be definitely mentioned in regards to its being false, i.e. "with an explanation that they were shown to be false". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include with provisions per points mentioned above. However, it should clearly state that they have been falsified. Idealigic (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)