Talk:Sam Bankman-Fried

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Isaidnoway (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 5 December 2023 (→‎Discussion: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"could get 110 years" or "115 years" is misleading and shouldn't be in

Sentencing claims like this are from Justice Department press releases and are produced by adding up the maximum possible tariff for each charge. The press then repeats it unexamined because it's striking - even as it's almost always inaccurate.

In the version of this claim I just removed, even the CBS News cite for our wording "could ... up to" said this was not likely to be what happened - the source didn't support our text.

In Bankman-Fried's case, there was so much money involved that his sentences are likely to be very long, so this is a case where something like the Justice Department claim might come true! But we still shouldn't be using speculative claims. If we put speculative sentences in, we're likely being misleading - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculative to look at the convictions and their maximums. So long as it reads correctly as-such, possible maximums. We need to give readers context of the severity of the punishment. -- GreenC 06:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree with David, we dont do speculation Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence reads: The date of his sentencing is March 28, 2024, when he faces up to 115 years in prison if given the maximum sentence.. Can you explain what the speculation is in that sentence? And yes we often this do on Wikipedia, it was part of Elizabeth Holmes's articles for a very long time, prior to her sentencing, not a single person out the millions of viewers and thousands of editors raised a complaint. You might say "other stuff exists", but you are the one saying "we don't do speculation", when it's neither speculation to state the upward maximum, nor is it unprecedented on Wikipedia. --- GreenC 15:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you know,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a trash argument. You're still posting a made-up number that is historically not at all what happens - it's misleading. Surely you understand that's bad - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It would be misleading to say "He faces 115 years in prison". Fortunately it's more nuanced and doesn't say that. As you already noted, "this is a case where something like the Justice Department claim might come true" due to the severity of the crime, so it's not misleading to say "if given the maximum sentence". -- GreenC 22:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing, as the trial nears, every major news outlet will be posting near-daily news stories about what he "faces", you will need to revert one editor after the next who tries to add it. Pressure will build to include it, by other editors, and the sheer volume of sourcing. You can of course keep removing it, but that will probably result in a lot of discussion like this, and then an RfC, and people will ask "what do the sources say" as the arbitrator. Fighting it will take up a lot of time and energy, and it becomes moot after the sentencing anyway. -- GreenC 16:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERBADEDITORSEXIST isn't a link, but seriously arguing that "other people will do the bad thing so I might as well too" sounds like a pretty terrible argument - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only will you be pissing against the wind of overwhelming numbers of sources, you don't have a rule to support your position with. See my comment below about the misapplication of CRYSTAL, and twisting the meaning of the sentence into something it doesn't say. -- GreenC 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need this speculation in the article, per crystal. As a broader note, wikipedia doesnt need to be predicting sentencing on every popular criminal in the news. Lets just wait for the judge to sentence the subject and we then add it after the fact. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to
WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This is a clear case of discussing "whether some development will occur". CRYSTAL was never meant to exclude information like this, it's a misuse of the rule. David Gerard's contention is such maximum sentences rarely occur so it would be misleading, that's a different argument from CRYSTAL. I disagree with Gerard because we are not misleading because the sentence is nuanced, it merely gives a range of possibilities: 0 to 115 years. It doesn't claim anything within that range is more or less likely, only that it will be within that range. This is simple, factual, sourced information that should be in the article. -- GreenC 23:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It should be in the article, but it should likely be rephrased to something closer to "He faces a maximum sentence of 115 years in prison". This is more precise wording. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert popcorn: Special:Diff/1183275899/1183278250, Special:Diff/1183312938/1183349710, Special:Diff/1183454606/1183459129, Special:Diff/1183465253/1183465314, Special:Diff/1183583733/1183600153, Special:Diff/1183842442/1183842483, Special:Diff/1184467262/1184472979. Documenting for future discussion. -- GreenC 21:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing these diffs, please be advised that
WP:BLPREMOVE and re-adding disputed content is a violation of policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sigh. These were added by good faith users who likely didn't read the talk page, nobody being difficult, just a lot of people doing the same thing in good faith. We might have a cultural disconnect between Brits and Americans? Because in America, it's very standard to say "faces a maximum of X years", or, 0 to X years. That's why I said earlier, the sources are going to overwhelm as the trial gets nearer. And CRYSTAL doesn't forbid this, actually allows for it. BTW are you aware of any prior RfCs on this topic? They must exist. It will help to show where the wind blows. -- GreenC 21:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of any RFCs, I think this dispute is pretty new. For adding predictions, normally we would need the person stating to be notable (at least my understanding). 'X said/speculated that SBF was facing this sentence.' I dont think this content is particularly important, and our policy against predictions is more important. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no blanket policy against predictions per se, it's more nuanced. Is it even a prediction? The law code has sentencing guidelines min and max. He will serve anywhere from 0 (?) to 115 years, based on current trial results. This is a mathematical fact, not a prediction. That's all it says. CRYSTAL was meant to address us editors from predicting what will happen, eg. he will likely serve 115 years, or will serve 115 years. David Gerard predicted above he probably won't serve 115 years, is also CRYSTAL, though not really because it's the talk page, same idea. -- GreenC 01:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not something we would want to put in wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 110 years is best consensus:
  • New York Times: "Together the counts carry a maximum sentence of 110 years.. is expected to appeal"
  • Washington Post: "carry potential penalties adding up to 110 years in prison. Bankman-Fried is likely to face far less than the maximum"
  • Forbes: Sam Bankman-Fried Faces 110-Year Max Sentence (note this article speculates the judge may in fact impose the majority of that limit not be lenient)
  • BBC: "That creates a potential maximum sentence of 110 years. Although it is unlikely the judge will actually impose that"
  • The Observer: "faces imprisonment for up to 110 years" (many others in the Guardian)
It goes on like this in newspapers globally. There are two factors: the mathematical calculation that arrives at a maximum of 110 years for 7 counts, which appears to be largely uncontroversial. The opinion of what he will actually get. The former needs no "According to.." because it's according to nearly everyone, and not a prediction. The second absolutely needs to be framed "according to", if we even include it at all. -- GreenC 03:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone that really wants to know can just google hte speculation, it is only one search away. I still dont think we need to add the consensus speculation. It just a few months until this is clear and he is sentenced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll need an RfC to settle it. If you continue to say 0-110 years is the range of his sentencing, is speculation, and not a mathematical legal fact, unfortunately I see no other choice but to bring in the wider community to comment. -- GreenC 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The no-longer-binding but generally observed federal sentencing guidelines suggest about a decade per count for no criminal history and fraud over $550 million, but he made the terrible mistake of a couple attempts at witness tampering, so the big wildcard is the judge has full discretion between imposing consecutive or concurrent terms in any combination. So, why don't we just say he likely faces "decades" in prison, in the voices of the experts who are all saying about the same in e.g. [1] and [2]? Simply regurgitating the theoretical maximum without attributing more nuanced views of recognized sentencing experts to their own voices, as they appear in reliable sources, does not serve the readers. Saying anything about the future decisions over which a judge has full discretion in unprecedented circumstances using Wikipedia's voice goes against

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Sandizer (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I ain't gonna lie, chief. This post didn't age well. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is “fraudster” appropriate wikivoice?

CLOSED
No consensus to include "fraudster" in wikivoice in the article. Discussion can be restarted about whether "is a felon" vs. "was convicted of felony fraud" etc. are appropriate in this BLP, but let's please move on from fraudster, it's taken up an inordinate amount of many editors' time. Valereee (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Concerned that the usage of the word "Fraudster" is not in wikivoice. In terms of other similar articles like Elizabeth Holmes, we use the word "criminal". Should we change the wording to criminal to better comply with policy? Unsure whether usage of the word fraudster is appropriately precise or subject to Wikipedia:But it’s true!. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search the talk pages of Elizabeth Holmes for this word, much ink spilled. Long story short, too controversial with readers. Not worth fighting over. There are other ways to phrase it. Nevertheless, it will probably be a constant annoyance for this article, as it was for Holmes, and may require an RfC ultimately, like we had at Holmes. See Talk:Elizabeth_Holmes/Archive_7#Request_for_Comment:_Is_the_use_of_the_label_"fraudster"_for_Holmes_appropriate?. -- GreenC 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be improved because at the moment it seems a bit awkward: "is an American former entrepreneur convicted of fraud in 2023." The year in which he was convicted of fraud isn't necessary, and adding more details (e.g., about his crypto businesses, for which he is known) would be an improvement. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crypto is stated in the next sentence, repeated information. The year is relevant it didn't happen 20 years ago. Could restate as "is an American former entrepreneur who in 2023 was convicted of fraud". Fraud as the last word places more emphasis. -- GreenC 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good change. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- GreenC 02:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this phrasing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it sounds like you're beating around the bush. Alexysun (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's very awkward. I'm going to change it. I feel like SBJ himself might have paid someone to edit it in this way. Alexysun (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the term "fraudster"? If you commit fraud and are convicted of it, you are a fraudster. Nothing complex about it. Cortador (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fraudster" (or "alleged fraudster" before SBF's confiction) is also the term used by Sky News, CNN, The Guardian, CNBC, Fortune, Reuters, and The Washington Times, which are largely reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can find some examples but most sources don't use fraudster. The tone of the word causes problems. See the previous discussions and RfC at Elizabeth Holmes. It doesn't sound objective, because we often use the word in a slang sense ie. not meaning someone convicted of fraud. "You fraudster", etc.. And because it's usage in sources are limited (relatively) and there are other ways to say it, for all those reasons, the consensus has come out against it in previous RfC. The question then becomes why are people fighting so hard to include it when there are other ways that are non-controversial to say the same thing in a BLP. -- GreenC 15:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "tone of the word" used by reliable sources? What is that based on? Your personal feelings about this term? Cortador (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you to re-add the category, which seems logical. The term "fraudster" in the LEAD is undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Cortador (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the category at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried#Fraud_category_overkill. This section is for the fraudster question. -- GreenC 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about categories. I asked why calling SBF a fraudster in the lead is undue. Cortador (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the Elizabeth Holmes RfC? Lots of people gave reasons there. And jtbobwayssf gave a reason below. If you're looking for reasons. -- GreenC 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Holmes, it's about Bankman-Fried, and whatever outcome that RfC had doesn't apply here. Cortador (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel compelled to label SBF, instead of describing the action taken against him? This is discussed in the
WP:BLPSTYLE. If you were to start an RfC here, the same core issue would come up. You have given no rationale for your position that addresses these issues, so why do you think the outcome will be any different? Before starting another RfC you could discuss why the last one was flawed, based on the rules. There is no difference between Holmes and SBF on this question, they are exactly the same. -- GreenC 23:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
RFCs very often can be applied to more than one article. We can infer the results and compare how this one would turn out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fraudster" is not label, it is what dictionaries - and RS - call someone who has committed fraud.
I'm not commenting on Holmes, and I don't need to justify what people in a RfC on some other article say. I suggest you inform yourself about Wikipedia's policy regarding this. Cortador (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudster can also be used a label. And therein is the problem people have with the tone, per
WP:POINTY. Ultimately it becomes disruptive and a waste of time. Use the term if you want, but if people object, you should back down and not make a big deal over it, there are other non-controversial ways to say the same thing. -- GreenC 06:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll be frank: I don't care what your personal feelings about the term are. It's used by RS, repeatedly. Cortador (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should care, because
WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The sources are in the minority, and anyway the sources are not restricted by tone like we are. There are other ways to word it that are non-controversial. And, he was convicted of more than fraud, it was multiple felonies. And, felony fraud is not the same as normal fraud. We already moved beyond simply saying "fraud". -- GreenC 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
SBF is a convinced fraudster, sorry to tell you that but he is. And the first sentence in the article is long and unwieldy. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hope he is convinced. The first sentence is what makes him notable per
WP:LEAD. It's awkward because we are disclosing the end of the story in the first sentence, whereas the rest of the lead follows chronological order. Ideally there would be no mention of the convictions until they occur in the last paragraph. But editors wouldn't support that, they want it as soon as possible. I simplified it with "entrepreneur and later felon", which also solves the problem of "former entrepreneur", solving two problems at once. The exact nature of his felons are explained later in the lead section which are too complex to get into the first sentence ie. they were felonies which is distinct from normal fraud. And the felonies include conspiracy, not only fraud. As explained in the third paragraph. -- GreenC 20:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
American entrepreneur and convicted fraudster in the first sentence would be fine. there is no need to mention FTX in the first sentence in my opinion, and felon does not specifically identify what crimes he was convicted beyond them being felonies. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sound good to me, and that is what SBF is primarily known for at this point. Cortador (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I totally disagree for reasons stated. Neither of you have responded so those reasons, your both in
WP:ICANTHEARYOU. -- GreenC 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah conspiracy to commit fraud + money laundering. Are you going to claim that we should remove Fraudster from Bernie Madoff's article because he plead guilty to things other than fraud? Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to be absurd. Drop the stick. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you calmly explain to me why a guy convicted of 5 counts of fraud + conspiracy to commit fraud shouldn't be described as a convicted fraudster? Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its already been explained in this section.
WP:ICANTHEARYOU appears to apply here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Out of the 7 changes he was convicted of, only 1 did not have the word 'fraud' in it. Burying your head in the sand trying very hard to pretend that SBF isn't a convicted fraudster is very silly indeed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word "fraud" appears 6 times in the lead section. -- GreenC 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, he's still a convicted fraudster and that should be mentioned in the first sentence. And most sources correctly call him a fraudster, not a felon. So stop it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, most sources don't use "fraudster". If felony is really such a problem, we can use "criminal", which all sources universally call him (directly or indirectly). Both felon and criminal are what he is notable for - fraud, money laundering, conspiracy - in a single summarized word. No need to cherry pick fraud, leaving out the rest. The details are expanded further down in the lead section. This is how
WP:LEAD works. -- GreenC 02:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
when you were presented with a bunch of sources you discounted them as 'being in the minority' which I heavily doubt since you refused to give any sources at all when it comes to SBF being called a felon. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google News search:

  • "Sam Bankman-Fried" fraudster (313)
  • "Sam Bankman-Fried" felon (711)
  • "Sam Bankman-Fried" fraud (1,230)
  • "Sam Bankman-Fried" criminal (2,420)

We can change it to criminal, the most common. Fraudster though is the least common. This is showing how often the word "fraudster" appears in articles about SBF vs other terms, to give a relative sense of how articles describe him. It's not the only way to look at this issue, but since you claimed I could provide no sources, I can obviously provide lots of sources. -- GreenC 05:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the same search (using "News"), I get 300 (fraudster), 42 (felon), 3,600 (fraud), and 2.370 (criminal). That's why a Google search isn't a source. Cortador (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go to www.google.com enter the above search terms exactly as written. Click on the news button. I welcome anyone to try this for themselves and compare the results. I've tried it on multiple computers, IPS, at different data centers, browsers and yet, still, basically, the same numbers keep coming back. In private window as well. -- GreenC 06:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. See for yourself. A Google search isn't a source. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must have something going on in your Google profile or browser. Others can try it for themselves. The sources are the results of the Google search, obviously. I could pull up 100s of article links and post them here, those are the sources. -- GreenC 08:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting similar relative results with Bing, and Baidu. Fraudster is the least, criminal is the most, by a large margin. -- GreenC 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Those are also not sources. Cortador (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are not reading what I wrote: The sources are the results of the Google search, obviously. I could pull up 100s of article links and post them here, those are the sources. Do you want me to spam this page with 100s of sources I found on the internet, using whatever tool? The tool I used to find the links doesn't matter. Your the one who says I don't post any links and so you don't trust me. Then when I find the links, you say they are not sources!? My good faith in you is reaching a limit. -- GreenC 15:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion on Wikipedia is not determined by the quantify of sources. Also, since all of you results got you hundreds of sources (as per your list above), "hundreds of articles" doesn't mean anything because any editor could bring those up for any of the terms you mentioned. Cortador (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fraudster" is used in only a minority number of sources. It's not a consensus description used by most sources. -- GreenC 21:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion isn't based on what higher number supposedly pops up in a Google search. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the
WP:STICK please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm getting 300 results for fraudster, 1900 for felon, 1040 for fraud, and 2140 for criminal. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting thousands and thousands of results for "convicted of fraud" and/or "guilty of fraud". That makes him a fraudster, just like Bernie Madoff, whose article is not afraid to state the obvious. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 15:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was convicted of fraud, lol. Not surprising you find that search result. Talk about stating the obvious. This article subject is nothing like Bernie Madoff, who probably didnt have a wikipedia article prior to the uncovering of the crime. It is about notability here. SBF was a huge star in the crypto/finance space, far beyond basic notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was convicted of fraud, he is a fraudster. Yeah, we should state the obvious. And CNN linked his crime to Bernie Madoff. - one of the biggest white-collar crime cases since Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, so did the Associated Press - The trial attracted intense interest with its focus on a fraud on a scale not seen since the 2009 prosecution of Bernard Madoff, and The New York Times, Reuters, and dozens of other sources. And sure he was a huge star, but now he is notable for being a fraudster. I believe in stating the obvious, your mileage may vary. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues: fraud vs. felon, and fraud vs. fraudster. You are conflating the issues, it's confusing.
Sources that use fraudster are a minority. Look at the New York Times. There are 67 results that use fraudster. That seems like a lot. However, show all results without fraudster it is 14,600 results. Clearly, use of fraudster is a minority. One half of one percent of the NYT articles about SBF chose to use fraudster. It's not a typical way to describe this person. I'm confident other sites like AP, Reuters, etc.. will show similar results. -- GreenC 15:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No conflation, both fraudster and felon are labels. One is preferred, while the other is not. One is more descriptive (fraudster), while the other is vague (felon), a felon could refer to a multitude of felony crimes. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed wording, it should say convicted of fraud and forgo the label. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fraud category overkill

We currently have two fraud categories for this bio:

According to

WP:DUPCAT, "the general rule is that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory". The mail and wire fraud category is a sub-category of the first one. Thus, I removed the parent category per the guideline, but it was re-added Special:Diff/1185106298/1185106659 with the rational "Readers checking out people convicted of fraud in general should find this page as well." The implication here is that all people in the sub-category belong in the parent category. This goes against the "general rule". DUPCAT does say there can be exceptions, but User:Cortador did not say why this article is exceptional. It seems to me like fraud category overkill. Cortador did the same thing at Elizabeth Holmes: Special:Diff/1185096968/1185106585 -- GreenC 16:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Useless comment

Federal criminal court sentencing experts speculated on the potential amount of prison time likely to be meted.[11][10] 70.35.179.133 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"later felon" - lead section

Thought I'd open a section as this tag added to the lead could be interpreted to mean both that it's currently under discussion or that there's some question about whether he was convicted of a felony or not. The tag indicates there's current discussion here. Cortador, did you mean to open this discussion? Valereee (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed the tag to "disputed" as per suggestion below. The discussion is the one you closed. However, you closing it doesn't change that there is a dispute on how to describe SBF. Cortador (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change the fact there was a dispute, but it does change whether the discussion of that dispute is open. The discussion was open for a month without developing consensus to include "fraudster", which means we don't include it. I didn't even have to get into discussing weighing the policy arguments as the lack of consensus was clear, but the policy arguments by those opposing its inclusion were the more compelling.
And closing the discussion does change whether editors can keep arguing "fraudster" here in a new section. If you object to the closure, you can ask for it to be reviewed at
WP:AN
. But starting the discussion up again here on this page would be disruptive.
@
CapnZapp, I'd prefer not to even remove a tag myself, unless it was the subject of an edit war or libelous or something. I've not edited the article and I kind of feel like I'm useful as an admin here. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Accurate non-contentious descriptions include felony, crime, fraud, campaign finance law violation, money laundering. See also

WP:LEAD, on how to move from the general to the specific, and on how to encourage readers to keep reading to learn more. The worst lead sections cram everything into the first few sentences with too much detail. This is a complicated bio of many crimes, and more on the way. Some basic truths: All of them are crimes. All of them are felonies. Not all of them are fraud. Felony fraud is the not the same as fraud. -- GreenC 00:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

It's awkward phrasing to say "later". It should say [...] is an American entrepreneur and felon since November 2023, or in the alternative, leave the month out and say [...] is an American entrepreneur and felon since 2023. If the label felon is notable enough to be included in

MOS:LEADSENTENCE, then we should be precise and say when he became a felon. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The proposal suggests he was an entrepreneur since 2023. It would have to say something like is an American entrepreneur, and since November 2023, incarcerated for felony crimes. I added "incarcerated" since that might be important to note since felons are not always jailed. Also added "crimes" since they are plural, and more on the way. -- GreenC 17:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That partially works as worded, except he wasn't technically incarcerated for felony crimes as he has not been sentenced yet for those convictions. He was incarcerated before he went to trial, he had his bond revoked - Bankman-Fried has been jailed since August after Judge Kaplan revoked his bail, having concluded he likely tampered with witnesses. Maybe instead - is an American entrepreneur, and since November 2023, a convicted felon. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cortador, since you changed it to disputed inline, what exactly are you disputing and what is your proposed solution for the dispute on how to describe SBF. Fraudster is off the table, so what are you thinking? From what I can see, there is no dispute as to him now being a convicted felon. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a RfC regarding that tomorrow, since this apparently can't be settled otherwise. Cortador (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to start an RfC, it's fine, but IMO this likely can be settled with an informal discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ValereeeThe issue here is that you closed the above discussion claiming that there is now consensus to include the term "fraudster" to describe Bankman-Fried. However, "convicted fraudster" was the term used in the article when that discussion was started on November 5. That was also what the initial post of the discussion was asking: "Should we change the wording to criminal to better comply with policy?" OP did not seek consensus to include the term fraudster, but to remove it. Since no such consensus was reached, I ask you to reword your closing comment, and change the wording of the lead back to what it was when the discussion started.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 06:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, sorry, not sure I'm following. Inclusion of anything -- even if it's already in the article -- requires consensus. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above asked to replace the term "convicted fraudster" with something else. However, no consensus was reached to do so, and thus that term should be restored until there is a consensus. Cortador (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to have this close reviewed, you can ask for that at
WP:AN, but I feel the close was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above was closed with no consensus to include fraudster, but Valereee also stated that Discussion can be restarted about whether "is a felon" vs. "was convicted of felony fraud" etc.. We have restarted that discussion here, but you seem unwilling to participate, and instead want to restore "convicted fraudster", and restart that discussion. The way I see it, you have multiple choices: 1) challenge the close at AN; 2) start an RfC; 3) participate in this restarted discussion. Pick a lane, and stop stonewalling. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you disputing he is a convicted felon? You didn't elaborate on exactly what you are disputing, the onus is on you to provide an explanation as to what and why you are disputing the content you placed the inline tag next to. Opening an RfC without a discussion explaining your concerns, per
WP:RFCBEFORE, is discouraged - RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I mentioned that in the edit summary - there's no consensus on what to describe Bankman-Fied as. Few sources describe as a felon specifically (a key argument against other descriptions above), and it's too broad a description. Cortador (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador - would you be okay with changing "felon" to convicted of fraud? I think we could probably find consensus for that change. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

  • Proposal for lead sentence/lead paragraph
Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried
entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud in November 2023. Bankman-Fried founded the FTX cryptocurrency exchange, and was celebrated as "a kind of poster boy for crypto".[3] At the peak of his success, he was ranked the 41st-richest American in the Forbes 400.[4]
  • Proposal for tweaks to third paragraph in lead
On November 2, 2023, in the case of United States v. Bankman-Fried, he was convicted on all seven counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.[5] His sentencing, where experts say he faces decades in prison,[6][7] is scheduled for March 28, 2024.[8] A second trial—for five additional charges, including bank fraud and bribery—is scheduled for early March 2024.[9]
Sources

  1. ^ Sharwood, Simon. "Crypto villain Sam Bankman-Fried arrested in Bahamas". The Register. Archived from the original on January 5, 2023. Retrieved December 14, 2022.
  2. ^ Turner, Matt; Rosen, Phil; Erb, Jordan Parker (December 19, 2021). "Sam Bankman-Fried went from relative obscurity to crypto billionaire in just 4 years. Insiders explain how he did it, and what's next". Business Insider. Archived from the original on November 11, 2022. Retrieved December 27, 2021.
  3. ^ Q. ai (2022-12-13). "What Happened To Crypto Giant FTX? A Detailed Summary Of What We Actually Know So Far". Forbes. Archived from the original on October 20, 2023. Retrieved 2023-10-19.
  4. ^ "Sam Bankman-Fried". Forbes. Archived from the original on December 30, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
  5. ^ Yaffe-Bellany, David; Goldstein, Matthew; Edward Moreno, J. (November 2, 2023). "Fallen Crypto Mogul Convicted in Collapse That Cost Users Billions". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 2, 2023. Retrieved November 2, 2023.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Clifford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Livni was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Sigalos, MacKenzie (November 2, 2023). "Sam Bankman-Fried found guilty on all seven criminal fraud counts". CNBC. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved November 3, 2023.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cohen-20231105 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Discussion

  • Pinging editors who participated in discussion above (
    CapnZapp
    )

In order to resolve the disputed inline tag, I am proposing the above changes. Please discuss and offer suggestions. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't think that is the right wording, but due to the amount of people here hellbent on avoiding the term "fraudster", let's go with that. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I prefer to eliminate labels in this article as well as most other articles. Felon, fraudster, etc are not encyclopedic terms. Just as we AGF with other editors we should do the same with the article subjects. There are some rare cases when the subject is notable for the fraud itself and not their life, think
WP:RGW arguments to put these labels on articles and using clickbait from notable publications to justify it. Wikipedia should rise above this nonsense and no mire though the muck. I agree with the above proposals. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Disruptive comments by a blocked user
Despite the objections of some editors, the only correct word is fraudster, not convicted felon, or later convicted of fraud, just the word fraudster and nothing but fraudster. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is categorically untrue. "Fraudster" may technically be more precise, but more precise isn't the only criterion here and it certainly isn't the only option. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It IS more precise and there is nothing wrong with using it despite the objections of certain editors. SBF is now primarily known for committing fraud and lots of it. And it's just as much of a label as felon or criminal are. So why don't we use it? 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else it doesn't really work tonally. Too colloquial for an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alright, if that's the case go remove the word fraudster from the Bernie Madoff article. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be disruptive. Nobody is on a crusade to remove it. Only when it comes up for discussion naturally. You OTOH have been on a crusade to add it. You got blocked once and if you keep at it you and your accounts are going to be at ANI. You should go back to editing articles about people who have died, you did good work there fixing categories and such, Death Editor 2, put the stick down and stop antagonizing. -- GreenC 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A guy who commits theft is a thief, a guy who commits murder is a murderer, but apparently a guy who commits fraud is NOT a fraudster according to you. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and if you think the word fraudster is that bad, get this list deleted (List of fraudsters) because it commits the ancient sin of calling guys who committed fraud fraudsters. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. We have moved on from the fraudster discussion, and it is disruptive to keep on re-litigating that issue here in this section. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Isaidnoway, thanks for the ping. Can you elaborate on what the disputed inline tag is? Alexysun (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed inline tag is in the lead sentence, pertaining to the description "later felon". The proposal is to change "later felon" to convicted of fraud in November 2023. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposal is not inaccurate, but not encompassing. He has committed multiple types of crimes, and with the March trial, likely even more types. Some consider his political donations influencing to be more important than the fraud. The bribery charge upcoming is also serious. He is getting immediate news coverage about the crypto fraud, but there is more to it and Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. Furthermore, per
    WP:LEAD
    , we should start with the general and move to the specific. It's not possible to list all the types of crimes in the first sentence, I recommend simply state he committed 'financial crimes', and go into the specifics of which crimes later in the lead section, including obviously the various fraud charges which are clarified as being felony fraud which is not the same as normal fraud (felony fraud is more serious). There is precedent for this "financial crimes" approach in other articles, if that matters.
is an American entrepreneur who was convicted of financial crimes in November 2023
-- GreenC 03:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried&oldid=1188410399"