Talk:Martin Shkreli/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018
 | This edit request to Martin Shkreli has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a spelling mistake in this paragraph -> "Criminal prosecution and conviction" (in the second last line) change "Shkreloi's" to "Shkreli's" 132.208.105.184 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Fixed General Ization Talk 20:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This article suffers from the "On the 23rd day of the month of September" syndrome
Meaning, half the paragraphs are one sentence stating "On October 22, 2015 ..." (or whatever date) over and over again. Understandable, as when people add stuff, they often don't take the time to integrate it properly into the existing narrative. Could a person who watches this article please consider doing that? —Prhartcom♥ 19:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Mental health
The article currently has nothing on Shkreli's mental health status. I'm very far from being an expert on Shkreli (I'm not even American) but he appears to display clear psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic traits. Presumably this has been discussed in reliable sources somewhere. It would be illuminating if the article covered the consensus on this. --Ef80 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- that is because there are no RS about his mental health. this is gossip. People can file all kinds of things in court. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- This wasn't a motion filed in court, this was an order by the judge and covered in multiple RS's - the edit was still in progress when you reverted it. Given the overall context of the subject, it might be one of the most relevant sections that can be added. I propose the following text (as a start) which is properly sourced and notable and addresses the legitimate point raised by Ef80 above:
References
- ^ Mangan, Dan (2017-09-20). "Psychiatric exam sought for jailed 'pharma bro' Martin Shkreli". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-05-20.
- ^ ANNESE, JOHN. "Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli must go through psychiatric exam - NY Daily News". nydailynews.com. Retrieved 2018-05-20.
- Cypresscross (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- A judge can and will routinely order a mental health evaluation any time there are questions about whether someone's criminal behavior might be related to a mental health issue (or drug use, or any number of other causes). We already know that Shkreli is eccentric and has acted in ways the average person would find bizarre. Since the order is sealed, we don't know the judge's reason for ordering it, who requested it, or its findings. The bottom line is that this says absolutely nothing conclusive about Shkreli's health, and describing it as a "mental health profile" improperly suggests otherwise. General Ization Talk 01:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The title as you'll notice was changed to "Questions regarding mental health", the order of a psych exam points to, as the question above by Ef80 does, questions beyond just eccentricities. The section says much more than "nothing", it says the judge questioned his mental health, which is notable. Cypresscross (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone has questions about Shkreli's mental health (most likely, even his attorneys, who may have been the ones to file the motion); there is nothing notable about a judge ordering a routine psychiatric evaluation. It happens every day. Until there is something conclusive to say about professional determinations concerning his mental health, we should say nothing at all. General Ization Talk 01:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a conclusive professional determination of the exam here, which would have been added to the section next. I look forward to additional comments and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Dr. Salsberg's stated findings, restated carefully and briefly, are appropriate to add in a paragraph appearing prior to his sentencing (because that's when the examination occurred). It most likely does not require its own section. General Ization Talk 02:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The brief part might be hard, because Salsberg's findings seem to explain what lead to the criminal conviction. The following is an initial proposal for the text (which I still think warrants a sub-section):
- Dr. Salsberg's stated findings, restated carefully and briefly, are appropriate to add in a paragraph appearing prior to his sentencing (because that's when the examination occurred). It most likely does not require its own section. General Ization Talk 02:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a conclusive professional determination of the exam here, which would have been added to the section next. I look forward to additional comments and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone has questions about Shkreli's mental health (most likely, even his attorneys, who may have been the ones to file the motion); there is nothing notable about a judge ordering a routine psychiatric evaluation. It happens every day. Until there is something conclusive to say about professional determinations concerning his mental health, we should say nothing at all. General Ization Talk 01:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The title as you'll notice was changed to "Questions regarding mental health", the order of a psych exam points to, as the question above by Ef80 does, questions beyond just eccentricities. The section says much more than "nothing", it says the judge questioned his mental health, which is notable. Cypresscross (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- A judge can and will routinely order a mental health evaluation any time there are questions about whether someone's criminal behavior might be related to a mental health issue (or drug use, or any number of other causes). We already know that Shkreli is eccentric and has acted in ways the average person would find bizarre. Since the order is sealed, we don't know the judge's reason for ordering it, who requested it, or its findings. The bottom line is that this says absolutely nothing conclusive about Shkreli's health, and describing it as a "mental health profile" improperly suggests otherwise. General Ization Talk 01:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cypresscross (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Following a court ordered evaluation, Dr. David Salsberg found that Shkreli suffers from "generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and unspecified personality disorder," and that his actions were "consistent with a narcissistic outlook," "faulty judgment," "a sense of entitlement," and "denial, and rationalization in order to preserve his self-image." I look forward to your thoughts and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do we know which of Shkreli's "actions" Salsberg is attributing to those personality characteristics? Note also that the linkage to those (currently unspecified) actions pertains only to the psychologists's observations about his personality, not diagnoses (the diagnoses being in the first part of the sentence). General Ization Talk 02:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think the "actions" are not those for which he was being prosecuted (i.e. the context of the article and the only actions relevant to the court)? Further the later part of the proposed text is not merely "observations" (a word not used anywhere in the source) the source states specifically that they were the finding of the "exam". Cypresscross (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- When you ask "Is there any reason to think", alarm bells should be going off in your head. We simply don't know what actions Salsberg was referring to when he described "actions consistent with" the characteristics he mentioned. He could have been talking about the actions, generally, for which Shkreli was being tried, or he could have been talking about a specific action or actions. Unless we know the context (which we likely will not know, because only parts of the evaluation were unredacted, and it is not explained in your source), we should not assume we know what actions the psychologist was talking about. He could very easily have been talking about actions in Shkreli's past other than the ones for which he is being prosecuted, or even actions he has taken in jail while he was being held for trial. General Ization Talk 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam seem clear from the source. Why not propose a version of the text that you think fits the article and comports with the source? Cypresscross (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the source specifically describes reasons (raised by the prosecution) to question the "subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam". Conversely, the only parts of the exam we know anything about are those unredacted by the prosecution in their court filing, which means we may not have a clear picture of anything. I'm leaning toward none of this being in the article (at least not based on this one source) until better information is available. There is no deadline. General Ization Talk 02:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Probably best to have multiple sources anyway, especially on such an important aspect of the article. Cypresscross (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you were to insist on saying something, and wanted me to propose it, this is what I would say:
- Following a court ordered evaluation, Dr. David Salsberg found that Shkreli suffers from "generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and unspecified personality disorder."
- This is the only uncomplicated fact we can extract from that source. General Ization Talk 03:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- My initial sense was to add precisely that, but the rest of his findings also seemed relevant (if long), particularly since the most significant part of the diagnosis is unspecified. Its good to have more than one source, which probably is out there. It would also be good if other editors chimed in to help build a consensus. Cypresscross (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The rest of his "findings" (and the context of them) are only incompletely available to us, and in light of that we should not relate them. General Ization Talk 03:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- My initial sense was to add precisely that, but the rest of his findings also seemed relevant (if long), particularly since the most significant part of the diagnosis is unspecified. Its good to have more than one source, which probably is out there. It would also be good if other editors chimed in to help build a consensus. Cypresscross (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- And I would add " requested by Shkreli's defense team" after "evaluation", assuming that is actually evident from the source (I think it is). It may be relevant to mention who made the motion, as the prosecution is clearly questioning the motivation for and methods used to conduct the evaluation. General Ization Talk 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. Cypresscross (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the source specifically describes reasons (raised by the prosecution) to question the "subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam". Conversely, the only parts of the exam we know anything about are those unredacted by the prosecution in their court filing, which means we may not have a clear picture of anything. I'm leaning toward none of this being in the article (at least not based on this one source) until better information is available. There is no deadline. General Ization Talk 02:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam seem clear from the source. Why not propose a version of the text that you think fits the article and comports with the source? Cypresscross (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- As for the distinction between observations and diagnoses, "narcissistic outlook," "faulty judgment," "a sense of entitlement," and "denial, and rationalization in order to preserve his self-image" are characteristics, individually and/or collectively, of a large proportion of the non-criminal population having no obvious mental illness. None of those four observations describe mental illnesses; they are simply observations of his personality, which may or may not be related to a diagnosis of mental illness. A psychologist will not diagnose someone as having faulty judgment; they will simply make the observation. General Ization Talk 02:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- When you ask "Is there any reason to think", alarm bells should be going off in your head. We simply don't know what actions Salsberg was referring to when he described "actions consistent with" the characteristics he mentioned. He could have been talking about the actions, generally, for which Shkreli was being tried, or he could have been talking about a specific action or actions. Unless we know the context (which we likely will not know, because only parts of the evaluation were unredacted, and it is not explained in your source), we should not assume we know what actions the psychologist was talking about. He could very easily have been talking about actions in Shkreli's past other than the ones for which he is being prosecuted, or even actions he has taken in jail while he was being held for trial. General Ization Talk 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to think the "actions" are not those for which he was being prosecuted (i.e. the context of the article and the only actions relevant to the court)? Further the later part of the proposed text is not merely "observations" (a word not used anywhere in the source) the source states specifically that they were the finding of the "exam". Cypresscross (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Do we know which of Shkreli's "actions" Salsberg is attributing to those personality characteristics? Note also that the linkage to those (currently unspecified) actions pertains only to the psychologists's observations about his personality, not diagnoses (the diagnoses being in the first part of the sentence). General Ization Talk 02:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Following a court ordered evaluation, Dr. David Salsberg found that Shkreli suffers from "generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and unspecified personality disorder," and that his actions were "consistent with a narcissistic outlook," "faulty judgment," "a sense of entitlement," and "denial, and rationalization in order to preserve his self-image." I look forward to your thoughts and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep in mind, please, that even though Shkreli is a criminal, this is a BLP and all the usual rules apply concerning speculation, conjecture or implication about the subject's mental health status. General Ization Talk 02:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree fully with the sensitivity around a BLP, the proposed edits have nothing to do with his criminal conviction, the reference provided above is not speculation, conjecture or implication about the subject's mental health status. Cypresscross (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing to say that is enduring, encyclopedic, information. That he had a mental examination is meaningless. Should we "report" that he has had colonoscopies and dental cleanings too? It is just scandalmoongering crap at this point. The two sources you have there are a cable news source, which needs to strain at things to fill the 24 hour news cycle, and a tabloid. If at any point there is something to say about his mental health, outside of findings made in the context of a criminal trial, then we can say that. It will need to be very well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note that I'm not suggesting the article say 'Some people think Shkreli is nuts' or whatever. However, if there have been interviews with psychiatric professionals in WP:RS who have expressed an opinion that Shkreli has a personality disorder then it is legitimate to include that info. I have no idea if such sources exist, but it seems likely that they would given his high profile and notoriety. --Ef80 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest that we deal with any reliable sources that may turn up discussing the subject's mental health on a case-by-case basis. As the discussion above illustrates, any statements added to the article based on these sources must be carefully considered – before being added – to avoid problems with context, if not with being potentially defamatory. As for whether we need to go looking for such sources, I personally don't think we do. The average reader will very likely already have some opinions about the subject's mental health, and those opinions are unlikely to change (nor necessarily should they) based on a court-ordered evaluation. There is no reason to expect that any reliable source will publish any other qualified psychiatric opinions concerning Shkreli (see Goldwater rule). General Ization Talk 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) WP:V is the minimum requirement for something to be in WP. On top of that are WP:WEIGHT and for a living person, WP:BLP. "It is in a source" is not enough. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note that I'm not suggesting the article say 'Some people think Shkreli is nuts' or whatever. However, if there have been interviews with psychiatric professionals in WP:RS who have expressed an opinion that Shkreli has a personality disorder then it is legitimate to include that info. I have no idea if such sources exist, but it seems likely that they would given his high profile and notoriety. --Ef80 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing to say that is enduring, encyclopedic, information. That he had a mental examination is meaningless. Should we "report" that he has had colonoscopies and dental cleanings too? It is just scandalmoongering crap at this point. The two sources you have there are a cable news source, which needs to strain at things to fill the 24 hour news cycle, and a tabloid. If at any point there is something to say about his mental health, outside of findings made in the context of a criminal trial, then we can say that. It will need to be very well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree fully with the sensitivity around a BLP, the proposed edits have nothing to do with his criminal conviction, the reference provided above is not speculation, conjecture or implication about the subject's mental health status. Cypresscross (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Use of tense
Is it correct to describe someone's previous profession as being in the current tense, when they are currently in prison? I'm assuming there's a wikipedia editorial precedent for this.
Paolo999~enwiki (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Paul
- Agreed. Martin Shkreli is not a businessman at the current time. He is a former businessman, and convicted felon. Kim.mason (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Adjusted the wording of the first sentence. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019
| This edit request to Martin Shkreli has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please apply the changes in this diff: [6]
Thanks! 77.150.97.186 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Done – Þjarkur (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! 77.150.97.186 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request 11 May 2019
I don't know how diffs work. Please update the sentence "In early September 2017, he sold the album on eBay for $1,025,100." to "In early September 2017, he sold the album on eBay for $1,025,100, but the sale was not completed, as Shkreli was jailed in the midsts of the auction." The citation is https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/business/media/martin-shkreli-wu-tang-clan.html. 86.161.117.107 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Add
At the end of the last sentence of the incarceration paragraph, please add "by the Bureau of Prisons. --2604:2000:E010:1100:D44A:D77A:CBD6:81F2 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this.
==Litigation with Retrophin==
Shkreli and Retrophin entered into litigation against each other.[1] The litigation began in 2016 when Retrophin sued Shkreli for $65 million, alleging that he was the paradigm "faithless servant" and had breached his fiduciary responsibility while he was CEO.[2][3][4] In June 2019 they reached a settlement on all claims against each other.[5]
--2604:2000:E010:1100:D44A:D77A:CBD6:81F2 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to "correct" the capitalization of titles and direct quotes
I think it is a mistake to "correct" the capitalization of titles and direct quotes. In an otherwise okay bout of copyediting an IP contributor did correct a bunch of titles, and a direct quote, which I reverted.
I also reverted this edit, which didn't do what the edit summary said it did, and didn't otherwise seem useful. Geo Swan (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Concerning my edit, it did 2 things: 1) Removed the duplicate "date=" parm, which caused an error (visible with "Show preview"), and 2) combined the paragraph beginning "In his request" with the previous paragraph, since they both dealt with Shkreli's request. I contend both things are "useful". To find the duplicate parm error, I used Frietjes' excellent script findargdups, which, as a side effect, generates the edit summary. I usually leave the summary as a hint to editors who might wonder how to find such errors in an article.
- I reverted your revert of my useful edit, providing a more comprehensive edit summary. Davemck (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- see this section to change the default edit summary. Frietjes (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Mention Turing's Name Change in Lede?
Does anyone else think that it should be noted that Turing Pharmaceuticals changed its name to Vyera Pharmaceuticals after the name is given in the lede? I propose that we make it something like "Turing Pharmaceuticals, now Vyera Pharmaceuticals, ...". Right now the new name is only mentioned once, deep in the article. DiscoStu42 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change, an nobody seems to object, so I guess we Gucci DiscoStu42 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit request: Incomplete Sentence in 4.1 (Sept 2, 2021)
Under section 4.1 Forfeitures, the 2nd sentence is incomplete. Beginning, "The court ordered that if," the sentence never resolves the if. 64.57.225.21 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The difference on “Price gouging”
I don’t understand why that the president can control price gouging on other things but not a life saving drug ? I know I may not understand everything how it all works and if this case of different but I’m just curious and wanted to understand what is the difference on why that is?? Thank you! 2603:6010:E000:9387:ECDF:FD47:6D14:40C (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Pharma Bro in lede/infobox?
I propose that we add something in either the lede or infobox, if not both, about him being referred to as “Pharma bro.” Quite literally every recent single news source I’ve been able to find and read about him refers to him as that at some point. Also, “Pharma bro” redirects here.
He is also, currently in Jan 2022 as well as in 2017, been referred to as “the most hated man in America” almost as frequently as Pharma bro. His wiki comes up when you Google that. I’m more cautious about adding that one, but I do think it should be in here somewhere, as he is consistently being referred to by those monikers.
2017: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34331761.amp https://indianexpress.com/article/who-is/who-is-martin-shkreli-the-most-hated-man-in-america-5092698/lite/
2022: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/01/14/pharma-bro-martin-shkreli-banned-for-life-from-drug-industry-ordered-to-pay-64point6-million.html https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60001147 https://apnews.com/article/martin-shkreli-daraprim-profits-fb77aee9ed155f9a74204cfb13fc1130 https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2022/01/martin-shkreli-still-most-hated-man-must-fork-over-almost-65-million/amp Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
"Phoenixus"
This section says that "Turing changed its name to Vyera in 2017 to avoid negative publicity, and is presently named Phoenixus". This conflicts with the lede's statement that Vyera is the current name. Also, according to this article (already cited in the Wiki article), Phoenixus AG is the name of Vyera's parent company. RapturousRatling (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Prison term?
He first went to prison in late 2017. He is sentenced to 7 years. He is scheduled for release in late 2023. That is 6 years. -- GreenC 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- No idea. Also if you look him up on the federal inmate database, the release date listed there is 11/7/2022. Cannolis (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless the article is inconsistent - the lede says 2022 (actually misquoting the AP News reference given, which says Sept 2023) and elsewhere it says 2023. I'm new, can someone fix it? RapturousRatling (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- By "elsewhere it says 2023" I mean the Wiki article, not the lede RapturousRatling (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, I've corrected the date of release as mentioned, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ indeed states September 2022. Sadly I can't figure out how to cite https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ as it doesn't seem to offer the ability to directly link to an inmate. Sylonin (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- By "elsewhere it says 2023" I mean the Wiki article, not the lede RapturousRatling (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless the article is inconsistent - the lede says 2022 (actually misquoting the AP News reference given, which says Sept 2023) and elsewhere it says 2023. I'm new, can someone fix it? RapturousRatling (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Legal state
He was released from Prison, his legal state should change? 201.175.235.11 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Criminal prosecution and conviction
I think the below sentence needs to be revised without the examples. These were the most extreme juror responses and the Wu-Tang Clan reference is out of place without any context.
"Due to Shkreli's notoriety and overwhelmingly negative public opinion, it was difficult to select an unbiased jury, with potential jurors stating "I'm aware of the defendant and I hate him", "he kind of looks like a dick", and "he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan"." DCD331 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Druglike and Martin Shkreli Inu coin
My new section under this heading requires attention from more committed editors. It is a significant and notable development regarding the subject of this article and has BLP implications. I have sourced it reasonably as to the facts currently available given the information I could gather within the time I was willing to spend, but this story will be developing further and the reference, in particular, could be formatted more informatively by anyone willing to spend more time negotiating this platform's last-century interface. Lordrosemount (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Shkr 106.205.153.216 (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Introduction / Convicted Felon
This individual is primarily notable for his criminal conviction. Introducing him in the first sentence of this entry as “an American former hedge fund manager,” rather than including a reference to his felony conviction, leads to a false impression. 75.28.165.237 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the ongoing discussion Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#"Convicted_Felon"_in_the_lead which talks about why it's bad form to do this. It is sensational and provides less information than saying he's a former hedge fund manager. It's also unnecessary as half the lead is devoted to his conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- An even more extensive discussion of this is ongoing at the talk page of David Duke. There is a strong, one could even say overwhelming, consensus that including this phrase in the opening sentence is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Philomathes2357 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- The difference is that, unlike Duke, (as said above) this individual is primarily notable for his criminal conviction. Unless we have a policy that says we should NEVER, NO EXCEPTIONS, include such information in the first sentence or first paragraph, we can consider doing it here. Maybe the discussion at BLP will result in such a decision, which, in my opinion, would be a detrimental decision. Some people really are most notable because of their crimes. See Bonnie and Clyde. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- He became notable when he bought that anti-malarial drug and jacked up the price, which is in poor taste, but not illegal. The criminal conviction came later. He's no Bonnie, nor Clyde. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Correct - he's not primarily notable for his criminal conviction, which came quite a bit later than his rise to prominence as a price-gouging "pharma bro" and was unrelated to his purchase of the anti-malarial drug. When he was convicted of unrelated crimes, the general mood was "oh wow, remember that price-gouging pharma bro? He ended up getting in legal trouble for something unrelated!"
- In terms of the community potentially crafting a policy around this issue, I do think you're on the right track, Valjean - the only time a phrase like "convicted felon" should be included in the first sentence is when a person's notability is almost exclusively because of their felonious activity. Think Jeffrey Dahmer. Or Jeffrey Epstein, who wasn't really a financier and is only famous for his sex crimes (and his potential ties to intelligence, which is directly related to the sex crimes). I don't think Fred Hampton, Shkreli, or David Duke come anywhere close to meeting that threshold. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good points. I had forgotten the sequence of events. He was first known for being a greedy and heartless bastard. Not a crime, at least in the USA. It's a virtue here. No wonder so much is wrong with this vulture capitalist society! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree 100% Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not use "convicted felon" (or equivalent) as a main descriptor. His conviction is well covered in the lead, but it's not a defining characteristic of his notability. Meters (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Also the man has done is time. I don;t think it should be lead in his bio. we need to give people second chances...GatosCiencia (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not use "convicted felon" (or equivalent) as a main descriptor. His conviction is well covered in the lead, but it's not a defining characteristic of his notability. Meters (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree 100% Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good points. I had forgotten the sequence of events. He was first known for being a greedy and heartless bastard. Not a crime, at least in the USA. It's a virtue here. No wonder so much is wrong with this vulture capitalist society! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- He became notable when he bought that anti-malarial drug and jacked up the price, which is in poor taste, but not illegal. The criminal conviction came later. He's no Bonnie, nor Clyde. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- The difference is that, unlike Duke, (as said above) this individual is primarily notable for his criminal conviction. Unless we have a policy that says we should NEVER, NO EXCEPTIONS, include such information in the first sentence or first paragraph, we can consider doing it here. Maybe the discussion at BLP will result in such a decision, which, in my opinion, would be a detrimental decision. Some people really are most notable because of their crimes. See Bonnie and Clyde. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- An even more extensive discussion of this is ongoing at the talk page of David Duke. There is a strong, one could even say overwhelming, consensus that including this phrase in the opening sentence is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Philomathes2357 (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)