Talk:Sam Bankman-Fried

"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)

Valereee, if someone adds the {{under discussion inline}} tag without actually discussing it on talk, you can just remove the tag. Moreover, {{under discussion}} templates are meant for project space (as when discussing policies). Please be sure to remove the tag as soon as editors have found this discussion; it's not really meant for article space: we're having discussions on how to phrase articles all the time with no need to tell our readers that. If the article says something an editor thinks is wrong, the tag to use is {{disputed}}. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll start a RfC regarding that tomorrow, since this apparently can't be settled otherwise. Cortador (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposals

• Proposal for lead sentence/lead paragraph

Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried (born March 5, 1992), or SBF, is an American 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". At the peak of his success, he was ranked the 41st-richest American in the Forbes 400.

• 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. His sentencing, where experts say he faces decades in prison, is scheduled for March 28, 2024. A second trial—for five additional charges, including bank fraud and bribery—is scheduled for early March 2024.

Sources

Discussion

• Pinging editors who participated in discussion above (InvadingInvader—GreenC—Nythar—Alexysun—Cortador—Jtbobwaysf—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)

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)

 Comment: Thanks for the ping, but I was only involved in the discussion of the tag. Bowing out of the phrasing discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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 Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff, but this does not generally apply to people who were notable in their running of companies who were later convicted of fraud, for example Jeffrey Skilling, Bernard Ebbers, nor Elizabeth Holmes. Editors are mostly making 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)

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) 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) 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) If nothing else it doesn't really work tonally. Too colloquial for an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

Hi Isaidnoway, thanks for the ping. Can you elaborate on what the disputed inline tag is? Alexysun (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Support the phrasing convicted of financial crimes and the third paragraph phrasing proposal further above. Agreed that "later felon" is terrible. I'd also accept is an American entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud and related crimes in November 2023, but I don't have a preference on which of the two options is better. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify, by supporting this phrasing, is it "convicted of fraud" or "convicted of financial crimes"? Also I think your version, "fraud and related crimes", is a succinct solution since most people are aware of the fraud aspect, but it also correctly includes other crimes. I would support that. -- GreenC 19:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I tweaked my previous reply to clarify. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bold Edit I will remove the "later felonies" right now, since there is no support for it, and replace with "fraud and related crimes", since that covers both the fraud camp, and the other crimes camp. This is not the final version, we can still reach consensus on different wording, it's at least a step towards a better direction until consensus changes. -- GreenC 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Life in prison"

I suggest that this section heading be changed to "Prison time", "Time in prison", or something else, as readers may connect it with a life sentencing. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 17:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done good call. He's also in jail awaiting sentencing, not prison. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sequence of events: He was out on bail. He engaged in multiple instances of witness tampering, prior to the trial. For this reason the judge revoked his bail and this automatically meant he went to jail, prior to the trial. He remained in jail, post trial. This is all related material I placed it into the same sub-section. I'm not sure what to call that section because the current name "pre-trial incarceration" doesn't capture why he was incarcerated, or that he is still in jail prior to sentencing. -- GreenC 20:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: I'm unconvinced it's necessary to explain why he is in jail prior to sentencing, in the section header (though that content can indeed be in that section). VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok do what you want. Seems to me, witness intimidation on multiple occasions is the real headline, it speaks loudly to his criminal character and/or reckless behavior, during this time in his life. The incarceration for a few months prior to the inevitable longer term sentence will eventually look like a trivial footnote. -- GreenC 02:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP reminder, these particular items are just allegations and the criminal character and/or reckless behavior bit seems WP:SYNTH-y. Also, we're not a crystal ball. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're saying witness tempering is an allegation? SYNTH applies to mainspace not talk pages. The purpose of a talk page is to explain the rationale for doing something. Much of what we do on Wikipedia is choose this but not that, it's all "original research" at that level. You are saying it's "crystal" he will go to prison? In any case, I'm not saying he will go to prison, rather assuming he does, which is a pretty good assumption don't you think, we should focus on the crimes and allegations, not the jails. -- GreenC 04:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're saying witness tempering is an allegation? Yes. SYNTH applies to mainspace not talk pages. Yes, but we're discussing changes to the article. If that's your sole rationale for doing something in-article, then we shouldn't do it per SYNTH. You are saying it's "crystal" he will go to prison? Yes. We should focus on the crimes and allegations, not the jails. Those should and do have more overall weight in the article, but they aren't the focus of this specific discussion about one subsection. Rather assuming he does... changes to the article will be required once he is sentenced regardless of the outcome of the sentencing. There is no benefit to musing about the likelihood of any given outcome now. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Let's please stop the WP:CRYSTAL discussion of the possible sentence duration (life or whatever). This is not ok to put in the lead, we are not going to synth a possible sentence into the lead of a BLP. Drop the stick please, they horse has been dead a month at least already. Let the judge do his job and provide the sentence, we at wikipedia dont sentence people, nor do we try to guess what it might be. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

POV content

@GreenC: you restored disputed content back to BLP, maybe in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE in this diff. I subsequently tagged it. The source that you added simply contains a quote from the justice department, in which they insert the typical "in the interest of the victims" copy paste text into their press release. As I stated initially this is probably grossly undue for the lead. If you want to keep it (as you have already done), then find some sources where the RS actually states this and not a quote from the US Justice Department. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. You make it sound like there is more to the story, or they are not telling the truth. What is you have a problem with? The victims have billions of dollars in restitution coming to them held in escrow. The prosecution will gain nothing by having a second trial, even if they win, it won't change the outcome. This is what the RS says. Do you doubt this? Do you disbelieve them? Do you think the prosecution has some other motive than justice for the victims? What would that motive be? Seriously you make it sound the prosecution is not representing victims - who are legitimately victims now - or that Bankman-Fried is not guilty of being a criminal. -- GreenC 05:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing justification for the tag; a better source is not needed. The Justice Department is a reliable source for the reasons the Justice Department did or did not do something. FYI the reversion was explicitly not a BLPRESTORE issue since BLP concerns weren't cited in the initial removal. It probably is indeed overdetailed for the lead, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's odd on the one hand to say they decided not to prosecute a second trial, but then not disclose why. It's like, huh? Why not? The two things go together. -- GreenC 06:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any need to mention a trial that did not occur in the lead at all. Completely fails the ten-year test. VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That might be true. I'd be OK with removal entire from the lead. -- GreenC 20:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The LEAD summarizes the article, that's first. What is the reason that the US Justices Department's press release needs to be in the lead? The approach here is not to challenge my removal, you need to justify inclusion. I already pointed out that your approach was in violation of policy and it continues to be. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: little less battleground and a little more communication would be nice. I've said why I don't think this reliably sourced info needs to be in the lead, but no policy violation was or is present. This information is already in the article as well so "the lead is supposed to summarize the article" isn't a great argument. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I also dont see the need to mention a DOJ press release in wikivoice in the lead of this article. Prosecutors often refer to saving the victims when they drop charges. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What do both of you think of removing mention of a 2nd trial from the lead altogether? VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it probably shouldnt be there. They are just allegations at this point and it is undue weight since the allegations were dropped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Very recent change to opening paragraph -- questionable?

Should "Jewish American" be included in the first sentence? I saw that someone made this change very recently and thought it might deserve discussion first. Thanks! 205.178.63.9 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That edit has been removed a few times. MOS:ETHNICITY suggests that it's not appropriate here: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I made this edit -- As mentioned before, it goes against the guidelines, but additionally Sam has mentioned that he is a non-practicing Jew. Adding that is in bad taste, and not remotely relevant to what made him notable. External-cover (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that @TarkusAB was the editor associated with this change, adding it back after several edits to remove it. External-cover (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. All I did was remove an in-line external link. "Jewish" was added in by an IP. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Problem continues. Requested page protection. -- GreenC 00:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

change of photo image

I would like to request changing the main image of sam bankman fried. i work with esports organization TSM and he is wearing a TSM jersey in this pic, showing half of our logo on his chest. this is the image im reffering too https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sam_Bankman-Fried#/media/File:Sam_Bankman-Fried.png

i would like to suggest to please use this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sam_Bankman-Fried#/media/File:MIT_Bitcoin_Expo_2022_-_Sam_Bankman.png

or please crop the existing image to not show top half of our logo on his chest. for reference you can see our logo on www.tsm.gg 209.232.4.17 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the crop on the principle that it is a trademark and doesn't add anything to the photo. However, know that there's nothing wrong with the uncropped image. the TSM logo is public domain, and TSM and FTX were business partners, so there's no trademark infringement going on here. The uncropped image will remain on Commons. I won't fight a revert if someone disagrees with my assessment. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the crop action, logo was a distraction anyway.. I suppose one could request the original image be deleted from commons, but I'm not sure on what grounds other than not liking the association. Imagine how many criminals have been photographed wearing Adidas sportswear: "During the 1990s-2000s, adidas also became an aspirational symbol within the world of crime". IOW 'If you don't like the feds, don't make the threads.' -- GreenC 00:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"At the peak of his success"???

What success? Scamming people? This reads like it was written by Bankman-Fried himself. He is a fraudster, he was never a success. Please remove this from the summary. I had done this already and replaced it with the neutral, objective - "At one point, ..." Do not attempt to glamourize this individual with misinformation. He made big bucks through fraud and fraud alone. 2604:3D09:4184:5100:6D85:C839:DA7A:7E2E (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed, have removed this wording that is actually PR + POV, it's offensive to people who lost money because of him. --Devokewater 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2604:3D09:4184:5100:28C2:E9F:77AE:1D7F (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OM: Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. And Wikipedia is not censored. Note that if enough sources qualify B-F as, for example, "one of the most successful fraudsters ever," or some such, then there could not be a strong objection to include the use of that word, "success" or its derivatives, in the article. No "promotion" or "editors' opinions" there. But, either way, please check out my suggestion below, no matter what the language in sources is. -The Gnome (talk)

• The lead section is a chronological narrative of his life story, which for SBF is one of rise and fall. The way we do things [ideally] is telling life stories chronologically as they occurred. You have to read the entire thing, not cherry pick words and sentences and ignore everything else. He was not always considered a bad guy. If his former public image of being successful is now offensive to his victims, that's understandable, but his former public image of being successful is a major part of his notability, and part of why his downfall is such a big deal - we all got fooled. But, if people want to suppress how publicly successful he was considered before it was known he was a scammer, the impact of his downfall will be harder to understand, particularly for future generations who didn't live through it, or are not familiar with who SBF is. The phrase "At one time" is vague and misses the point. If the word "success" is a problem we can try something else, since the sentence concerns his net worth, more precise would be "net worth". -- GreenC 23:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• To denote the zenith of B-F's criminal enterprise, we could use the expression "at the peak of Bankman'Fried's fraudulent schemes", etc. -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's overkill and out of chronological order. If the lead section is unable to convey how widely respected, admired, etc.. he was, then it is not accurately portraying the history of what occurred. He betrayed many people, who trusted him, and didn't know it was a fraudulent scheme. This needs to be conveyed, and it's easily done if you just give a little space to demonstrating it. It's very simple, tell the story in chronological order giving the basic facts as we knew them as they were revealed over time (except the first sentence which is special). -- GreenC 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)