Talk:Sam Bankman-Fried/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What a horrible article

Did Sam Bankman-Fried write this himself? This reads like satire. Selected quotes from this masterpiece:

"When he was about 14 years old, his mother noticed that he had spontaneously developed an interest in utilitarianism.[3] "

"Bankman-Fried is a vegan.[19][20][21] He often sleeps on a bean bag chair in his office next to his computer.[22][20][23] He ensures that every room in his office has bean bag chairs to sleep on.[21] He shares an apartment with roommates.[21] He lives in the Bahamas. He almost never drinks or goes on vacation.[21]" (That is one of the most difficult paragraphs to read that I've ever seen)

This article needs to be flagged until it's fixed, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.75.205 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Update as a result of FTX situation?

A lot in the news recently that might warrant an update here:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news-today-11-09-2022/card/what-is-sam-bankman-fried-s-net-worth-sbf-drops-off-bloomberg-billionaires-index-7vPW3P5SMVQ0V0wjU7Iu Bradqwood (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Network of companies built around Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX/Alameda)

Bankman-Fried's involvement in companies is much broader than currently represented in the article. Here is a graphical view of the network of companies built around Sam Bankman-Fried. It is much broader than the two visible companies associated with the person: FTX/Alameda. image, 4096 pixels, source. It might take an army of accountants and lawyers to unwind and litigate all of this, and will be challenging to understand so that the article can be improved. Sam Bankman-Fried steps down as FTX CEO as his crypto exchange files for bankruptcy In the 23-page bankruptcy filing obtained by CNBC, FTX indicates it has more than 100,000 creditors, assets in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion, as well as liabilities in the range of $10 billion to $50 billion. Bankman-Fried also indicated he wishes to appoint Stephen Neal as the firm’s new chairman of the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

On November 12, 2022 Tom Brady, Steph Curry and Kevin O’Leary set to lose big from FTX bankruptcy filing https://finance.yahoo.com/m/ae6fd772-d704-3164-bca0-a81aa92e9c0a/tom-brady-steph-curry-and.html

Elon Musk: Sam Bankman-Fried 'Set Off My BS Detector' When He Approached About Twitter Investment. Elon did not believe Sam Bankman-Fried even had 3 billion dollars, when Sam Bankman-Fried suggested a personal investment of $5 billion into Elon's twitter. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-sam-bankman-fried-043720906.html

SBF Implemented a secret Bookkeeping "Backdoor". Moving customers' money into his personal hidden offshore accounts without triggering company compliance systems. $1 billion of customers' money has been missing and unaccounted for at Ftx. https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/exclusive-least-1-billion-client-funds-missing-failed-crypto-firm-ftx-sources-2022-11-12/

On November 12, 2022 Sam Bankman-Fried reportedly denies fleeing to Argentina claims he is in Bahamas currently. FlightRadar24 tweeted early Saturday morning that the one-time crypto billionaire was flying from Nassau to Argentina. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/12/sam-bankman-fried-reportedly-denies-fleeing-to-argentina-says-hes-still-in-the-bahamas.html 67.68.8.177 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Requesting an edit while providing only sources, especially on an article subject to rapid change due to current events, is not helpful. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

SEC: Don't look at me!

https://nypost.com/2022/11/12/ftxs-sam-bankman-fried-in-bahamas-after-collapse/

"FTX underwent a $16 billion implosion amid reports that co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried had been funneling money to a sister trading company run by his girlfriend.'

Rick Perry said it best: "Oops". Sorry for losing sixteen (16) billion of YOUR dollars. Can we kiss and make up?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Former billionare status

I've put 'reported' on front of 'billionare'. The idea of someone worth $32B being suddenly worth nothing raises a question of whether reports of his value were credible. It seems now that the reported value may have been based upon all sorts of jiggery pokery and were not actually true or fair. The legitimate sources reporting his value may now re-appraise their methodology. In the meantime, it seems sensible and right that Wikipedia qualify the billionaire idea with a 'reported'. I won't argue if a consensus disagrees here, but it's more than worth a thought, IMHO. Emmentalist (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you want my two cents -- from one semi-anonymous Wikipedia editor to another -- this whole hullabaloo is a meme (100 to zero real quick) and Sam Bankman-Fried deserves his comeuppance. Part of that comeuppance is honest and accurate reporting on his Wikipedia page as a disgraced former billionaire. Some of that comeuppance will come by virtue of the SEC and the FBI taking a very close look at his shitcoin "business". How bitcoin actually works is too recondite for me (guess I have a smol brain) to understand but I'm sure there's at least one honest camper in the government's camp to mete out punishment. In a sense, one hand washes the other. Sam could have been a physics teacher at a reputable high school but instead he chose to lose many billions of dollars. A bad day at the office?

"Families are always rising and falling in America." -- The Departed

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Billionaire is a status attained when your assets hit $1 billion. If the next day those assets are worthless, it doesn't mean you weren't a billionaire. It just means you no longer are... Nswix (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If I create a cryptocurrency called, say, "FraudCoin" and mint the first 1,000,000,000 for myself and then sell coin number 1,000,000,001 to you for $1.00, that doesn't make me a USD billionaire. Startups and especially cryptocurrencies have this problem with lofty valuations based on small funding rounds extrapolated linearly to the whole entity. Sometimes it's legitimate; more often in the crypto space, it's total BS. 2600:1012:B003:CE5D:E4C4:91E2:423A:24E1 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's true. One could have a metaphysical debate about the meaning of the word "billionaire" and whether the standard way of calculating net worth makes sense. But it's pretty unambiguous and uncontroversial in RSs that Bankman-Fried was a billionaire, the way the term is normally used. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all! There's a consensus right there. From my point of view, saying he was a billionaire is just like saying Elizabeth Holmes was one. She wasn't (and her Wiki page reflects this) because the media's 'billions' valuation of her personal worth was based upon fraudulent reporting and activities by her and her company. In other words, it wasn't real. I have no doubt at all that the same is true of SBF. Anyhoo, I'll toddle off.....;-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes is looking at 30 years in prison for her fraud, can't we let her be? Her sentencing is next month, but she is asking the judge for 18 months house arrest instead with no prison time. Michael Avenatti got 4 years in prison for $300,000 fraud and martin shkreli got around the same prison sentence length for a few million dollar fraud. 67.68.8.177 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It worthy of note the Forbes' annual Billionaires List (the cut-off date is March 11th) relies à la Chernobyl on "They gave us the numbers they had"; Forbes admittedly doesn't always necessarily have complete information. The forensic accounting, litigation, and trials shall undoubtedly give me a fuller, more accurate picture sometimes after March 11, 2023. kencf0618 (talk)

November 2 Coinbase Article

While Binance selling off their FTX shares may have been the trigger that pushed FTX over the 'manageable' crisis limit, there have been prior hints/clues that led to this financial insolvency. For example, the recent relevation of FTX and Alameda funding being used to back each other...

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/11/09/8-days-in-november-what-led-to-ftxs-sudden-collapse/

Binance didn't pull out of FTX for no reason. The Coinbase article from November 2 raised serious issues.

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/02/divisions-in-sam-bankman-frieds-crypto-empire-blur-on-his-trading-titan-alamedas-balance-sheet/

This article, of course, was based on leaked internal documents...

but ultimately the liquidity crisis was created by improper transfer of FTX funds to Alameda Research.

This article needs to clarify that. The goal of Wikipedia is to present the information NPOV and in a manner which sufficiently informs the reader. The above articles should be added as citations along with a few sentences.Ryoung122 23:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a policy against using CoinDesk as a reliable source. You can see older discussion about using CoinDesk as a reliable source in the RS Noticeboard archives. --Molochmeditates (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"1) What" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 1) What and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#1) What until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of the Term "Left-Wing" in the Introduction

I am seeking to start a discussion to reach consensus about removing "left-wing" from the introduction to SBF's page. If there are no objections I will proceed with a formal request. After reading both of the sources to which it is attributed, there seems to be nothing "left-wing" about his donations. Instead they are standard democrat (with some republican) donations, largely recently centered around his own crypto issues as of late. I will present the evidence below. This is my first time doing this, so please forgive any faux-pas. I have tried to focus exclusively on the content of the citations for the inclusion of "left-wing" and stay objective, citing numerous other sources.

To start, I would like to examine the LA Times article to which this is attributed (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-08-12/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-political-donations). This article primarily focuses on SBF's crypto-related spending, highlighting that he donated to the Republican chair of the committee he was lobbying for supervision of crypto by CFTC rather than the SEC. The other politicians/organizations mentioned by the article to which he has donated are: Tina Smith, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Future Forward, Protect Our Future, Guarding Against Pandemics PAC, Rodney Davis, Joe Manchin III, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Aguilar, Kirsten Gillibrand, and the Alabama Conservatives Fund. Using the Wikipedia pages of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez as a template, we can see clear references both in Wikipedia links and in quotes from within the American left that these are both leaders of and associated with the American left. By contrast, none of the politicians or organizations listed in the cited LATimes article have any reference to either the left (or something like socialism) within their wikipedia articles and many have points in the opposite direction. For example, Stabenow lobbied the EPA to remove emmission oversight, which is not left wing if support for something like the Green New Deal is a standard hallmark of "left wing". Further, neither house member listed is a member of the Medicare for All Caucus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_for_All_Caucus), which is probably something of a litmus test. This analysis seems to comport with Wikipedia's own article on left wing politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics), which has references to both the literal hallmarks of left-wing politics (like socialism and anarchism) as well as more generally movement of the overton window.

Next, there is the fox news article which is cited (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/troubled-crypto-boss-sam-bankman-fried-lost-15b-week-funneled-millions-dems-far-left-causes). This would appear to be the genesis of the phrase "left-wing" in the Wikipedia article, likely owing to the headline. As a starting point, the article itself does not mention anything like "left" "socialist" or the like within its body aside from a restatement of the headline. The article first cites three organizations: The Good Food Institute, Giving Green, and Carbon Plan. Judging by the FTX Foundation website, SBF's motivation here comes from his Effective Altruism (EA) beliefs, not left-wing beliefs. As an example, the Good Food Institute appears to only have reference to EA on its wikipedia and no mention of anything related to left wing politics (the same would appear true for EA's wikipedia page). Again, we can also do a counter factual analysis, looking at the wikipedia page of Sunrise Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_Movement) where there is a clear reference to moving the overton window to the left as well as praise from influential figures on the American left such as Noam Chomsky. This article also references the same pandemic prevention PAC, Protect Our Future, which the above LATimes article mentions. I am not aware of pandemic prevention as a specifically left-wing cause. The other two organizations that the article mentions are Justice Unites Us PAC and GMI PAC. The former is an astro-turfed "AAPI turnout" Super PAC that spent money on one race to try to elect someone with crypto-friendly views (see https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/04-18-2022/super-pac-mystery/ and https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097691538/bitter-feuds-and-crypto-ties-inside-one-of-the-most-expensive-democratic-primari). The later is an outright crypto-friendly advocacy group.

In closing, I think we should remove "left-wing" from SBF's page introduction. Bassedgold (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't even need to be debated, I have removed it. The Wikipedia page for the Democratic Party doesn't call it a left-wing party, and the Fox headline that calls his donations "far-left" is clearly biased and as you say they cite no examples of it. Him supporting left-wing causes is not supported by any source currently cited, so there's no need for a debate about it. Liam987 (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There are enough sources citing his left-wing donations. We don't need to use Fox News for this. For example, here is a Bloomberg article - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-01/sam-bankman-fried-crypto-industry-push-to-avoid-sec-rule --Molochmeditates (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to respond to this article in depth, starting with the headline. While some members of the left have suggested stronger regulations for crypto, none have suggested SBF's or anyone else from the crypto community's involvement in such a process, certainly not as the driver of the process. In fact Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez have suggested the exact opposite, that the government should be drawing a clearer boundary between the industry and the regulators (see https://decrypt.co/112848/elizabeth-warren-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-target-cryptos-revolving-door and https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/10/25/warren-ocasio-cortez-ask-regulators-to-clarify-stance-on-crypto-hires/).

The next thing about this article is its informal tone - while Bloomberg is in general a reputable source, the opening paragraph of this article reads more like an opinion piece, complete with semi-sarcastic exclamation points. The rest of the article is no better with non-journalistic sentences such as "He’s also, because it’s hard to be super-rich without having a lot of pull, a major political donor." In the second paragraph, though, we do see the author mention "Bankman-Fried has donated mostly to left-wing politicians." Again, like the Fox News article, this sentence is given completely without citation. As I detailed meticulously before, none of the politicians or organizations cited in other articles are left wing by any metric Wikipedia uses to adjudicate this sort of thing. If you disagreed with my assessment, I would be happy to hear your case - that was the point of my starting a debate.

The next paragraph simply restates something the aforementioned LATimes article detailed, namely that SBF would like to skirt tougher industry regulations by having oversight conducted by the CFTC rather than the SEC. The following paragraph simply elucidates this fact - if SBF and the crypto community at large accept that regulation is coming, they would like it to be on their terms. The next 5 paragraphs simply give an example of a different quasi-financial company steamrolling CFTC regulations because they (1) are a smaller agency and (2) have politically appointed decision makers. Presumably, SBF would also like to have influence on these appointments judging by the accumulated evidence of his widespread self-interested campaign contributions.

The rest of the article simply concludes that SBF's plan might work and to some degree is already working. I'm not sure where it states he supports left-wing causes except, again, in one spot in the article with no citation or supporting evidence. In fact the article is completely devoid of any mention of specific contributions. Bassedgold (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Goal of "giving all of his money away"

Can we note that by all measures he has likely achieved this noble goal, or is that original research? It may not be obvious to some readers that in lieu of what appears to be the crossing ethical boundaries in his day job, on the "effective altruism" front, he was extremely successful. 2600:1012:B019:8D6A:6D4F:56BA:7D20:2943 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Haha! Very much seconded! :-) Emmentalist (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is mean. We do not need to say this in the page on him. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This frase is inaccurate, I recommend removing it: Bankman-Fried has stated he is a supporter of effective altruism and says that he is pursuing earning to give as an altruistic career.

Bankman at this point is financially broke, having a negative net worth (most likely something anywhere from -5b to -30b). Why we should talk in alturism terms when this former entrepreneur is in massive debt? he's not in a position to give anything, makes zero sense. If editors insists on keep it, we could argue something like: "During his time at FTX he was a supporter of effective altruism and pursued (past tense, something that is unlikely to come back) earn to give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.242.205.35 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Until secondary sources describe him as a former (or successful) philanthropist, we shouldn't ourselves - doing so would be original research. -M.nelson (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Please Update with wsj news' facts below.

Alameda Research, was quietly amassing stakes in various cryptos ahead of announcements that FTX would be listing them for trade, a practice that is patently illegal. Alameda Research made huge risk free profits be doing this. Bankman-Fried lied by telling the financial paper back in February, 2022 that Alameda "had the same access to information as all other market makers on the platform and that its traders didn’t have special access to any client information". https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-news-today-11-14-2022/card/alameda-amassed-crypto-tokens-ahead-of-ftx-listings-public-data-shows-z6KFN051ToEpFohTXA89?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1 67.68.8.177 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is news content, Wikipedia does not seek to stay absolutely up to date. The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source, but it is unclear how long this information will stay accurate for, nor if it would be important enough to make it into the article after the event in question has fully developed. Additionally, please be aware that edit requests need to be specific. "Add this to the article: [...]" is not specific. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022 (2)

• An anonymous IP address which a history for vandalizing Wikipedia introduced an unsourced claim that Sam Bankman-Fried is Jewish
• Other vandals attempted to slander Jews on this page
• There is no reliable basis for stating that Sam Bankman-Fried is Jewish. Articles returned by Google that imply as much were all written *after* the Wikipedia edit. It is quite possible that they relied upon Wikipedia's unsourced claim as basis for that assertion.

I propose the following edits:

• Remove "Born and raised to a upper middle class Jewish family in California" introduced by the vandalizing author.
• Remove "American Jews" category introduced by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&diff=1121535120&oldid=1121529690
• Respect Wikipedia editing guidelines that state: "Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability." Cowwoc (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. For now. If this material can be properly sourced, then it can be revisited as to whether it warrants inclusion.--Malerooster (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not enough. A lot of trolls (and maybe semi-trolls) are trying to highlight donations to the Democratic Party (which is of course true, but definitely doesn't belong in the article lead, given that it is nothing compared to other donations he made). Also they keep insisting on ethnicity without new sources... Cartago3468 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Political donations 2021-2022

This section leads off stating that Sam Bankman-Fried contributed to both parties and then lists the republicans. That is fine, but the truth does not come out until the last sentence of this section about how much was donated to each party. He gave 99.7% to Democrats. Why not lead off with the numbers starting with the majority of donations instead of the smaller of the two. Isn't that the real story for Political Donations? Showing a pie chart of donation contributions might reflect to people who may not know numbers would show the pie would be completely filled by contributions to democrats. Why mislead the reader to believe he was balanced in his donations only for those readers who actually finish reading the entire section to find out the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.213.188 (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess you are new to Wikipedia to even need to ask why. —140.32.183.249 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

SoFixIt. After all, Anyone can edit Wikipedia. — N2e (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Political donations

None of the linked articles actually state that he was the second largest donor to Biden or to Democrats. 2600:6C52:7D7F:5A63:596B:B0B3:DF0F:2134 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This 2022 source, cited in the article, says "Last year, the second-largest individual donor to Joe Biden’s presidential election efforts was Sam Bankman-Fried". And this 2022 source, also cited in the article, says "The 30-year-old Bankman-Fried has been a major force in Democratic politics, ranking as the party’s second-biggest individual donor in the 2021–2022 election cycle, according to Open Secrets, with donations totaling $39.8 million." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Early life

Why did you remove jewish from early life? 188.148.240.52 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Should add Jewish businessman to the categories of his page.--37.8.27.11 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Good sirs, there are more than two professors at Stanford law school.

Change: "He is the son of Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman, both professors at Stanford Law School."

To: "He is the son of Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman. Both of them are professors at Stanford Law School." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes ma'am, thank you, but that statement doesn't prevent Stanford from having more professors. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  How can there be more than two professors if Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman are both of the professors at Stanford Law School? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe you shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia if your grasp of English is so poor. Saying "both are professors at Stanford..." does not mean they are the only ones. It is not the same as saying they are "both of the professors at Stanford..." Lard Almighty (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Good sir, please do not insult my English; insults are not civilized. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not an insult, just a statement for you to consider. The phrase you are challenging is a simple, standard English phrase to indicate that two people or things are the same, have the same job etc. It does not mean that they, exclusively, have that job. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not my primary language, so I will stick to easier edits if it means that I can help make Wikipedia better. But I do ask that you look at my requests below. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (2)

Friends:

According to Open Secrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/top_donors), Mr. Bankman-Fried donated $155,000 to conservatives and #35,872,000 to liberals.

Change: "Contributions for the year 2022, through August 15, 2022, also went to members of both parties, with $105,000 donated to conservatives (0.3%) and $35,872,000 to liberals (99.7%)."

To: "Contributions for the year 2022 went to members of both parties, with $35,872,000 donated to liberals (99.6%) and $155,000 to conservatives (0.4%)." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done TimSmit (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (3)

Friends:

Change: "In 2014, he graduated with a degree in physics and a minor in mathematics."

To: "In 2014, he graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics and a minor in mathematics." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Looks like MIT only offers one type of undergraduate degree: the bachelor of science. TimSmit (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (7)

Friends:

Change: "Bankman-Fried was the second-largest individual donor to Democratic causes in the 2021–2022 election cycle"

To: "Bankman-Fried was the second-largest individual donor to Democratic causes in the 2021–2022 election cycle."

I want to add link, but I do not have the power. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made the change, thanks --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent Vox Article

This recent Vox article - https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy contains a lot of information about Sam's thinking during the crisis, and puts a lot of his earlier actions into context. However, given the nature of the interview via Twitter DMs, I am not sure if this qualifies as a good source for a BLP. Would love to hear thoughts from other editors. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I like using interviews, but it this case we must be hesitant as there’s lots of smoke and mirrors going on right now. Thriley (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I generally tend to agree, but this article and its contents are now being picked up by other outlets, and part of it has also found its way into the court document filed by the liquidator and current management team. Do you think it could be used along with these 'secondary' sources? Molochmeditates (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good! Backing up an interview with secondary sourcing is the way to go with this. Thriley (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Jewishness

This article's ridiculous whitewashing of his Jewishness is, well, ridiculous: any ethnicity has its problematic cases and its heroes, and the attempt to censor this one out here will only feed antisemitic tropes. Wikipedia doesnt mention his ethnicity at all, while Jerusalem Post called him the Jewish king of crypto. Get a grip, people. Dahn (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The body of that article says that he comes from a Jewish family. We do not use headlines for content. That article does not say that he practices Judaism himself. He could be an atheist or a Buddhist for all we know. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The part about Jewish family has been removed. I would include it, provide we have a reliable source for it. --Malerooster (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any other religions that show ip on DNA tests. 176.46.27.167 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• This seems remarkably contrived: we have Category:Jewish atheists, precisely because Jews can be ethnically Jewish, without being religiously so, but for this case we have to go to the extreme of having to prove that he practices Judaism to include him in a category where he is matter-of-fact included by the Jerusalem Post (presumably an antisemitic publication?). But even so, we have at least a direct mention to him being Jewish, in the body of text here ("Discourse about the downfall of a cryptocurrency exchange founded by a Jewish man is already turning antisemitic") and here ("Bankman-Fried, who is Jewish"); regarding his family, see Times of Israel: "the son of two Jewish professors at Stanford Law School". This seems like one of the most ridiculous ways to tackle the antisemitic side of the scandal -- by creating special criteria for Bankman's Jewishness, blindly ignoring the plethora of references to him as Jewish from within the Jewish community. Seriously, what is this? Dahn (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dahn, this was recently removed by an editor, along with the references that I had previously added. You can find the diff here. The part relating to donations to the democratic party was restored but not the rest.

@ToBeFree is an admin and has warned me on my Talk Page that this veers into WP:ONUS which I think is not warranted. However, in the interest of keeping my focus on the content of the article, I will not be re-adding that content. Molochmeditates (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Astounding. Dahn (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Dahn, well-referenced content about his Jewish ancestry can be included but we cannot call him a Jew unless we have reliable sourcing that he self identifies as a Jew. He is not a rabbi. He is not a scholar of Judaism. He is not a novelist writing on Jewish themes. He is not known for Jewish philanthropy. Our standards are higher than those of headline writers for newspapers, Jewish or not. This is an encyclopedia and the content must comply with WP:BLP policy. Please read that policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

      As we stand, any reference to his family being Jewish was removed, so to argue that the article has simply not nominated him as Jewish (for the very contrived reason that "we don't know if he identifies as such") is misleading by this point. Also, I was asked for references to back his being defined as a Jew, and I have provided them, including one from within the community (they were literally a click away, incidentally); now you're moving the goalposts, and we hear that he has to be a rabbi in order to be a Jew.

      I sort of get what is being attempted here, the de-emphasizing in a loaded context, but this is the most peculiar way to go about it, and it makes us look like we are censoring information in the most hamfisted way. There is abolutely nothing in the BLP policy that would warrant what you're doing here. Dahn (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

      Incidentally, have you considered the Streisand effect? Dahn (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

    • Cullen328 Will you at least restore info about the well-attested fact of both his parents being Jewish, sourced to the Times of Israel? Does that count as "well-referenced content about his Jewish ancestry"? Dahn (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
      • There is no "de-emphasizing" going on. There is only the insistence on high quality sources that say he considers himself Jewish rather than an inference drawn from his parents. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, please feel free to discuss the matter at WP:BLPN. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
        • I am here as an administrstor enforcing policy, not to write content on this article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
          • @Cullen328: Well can someone else write it, based on the quality source cited above? Will you stand by that version if they do? Dahn (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
          • @Cullen328: And when you do answer (you will, presumably, at some point), make sure to at least quote that part of the BLP policy which you interpret, so that I would know what it is we are discussing, and what BLPN needs to go over. Dahn (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
            • As long as it is neutral, well-referenced and in the proper section, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
              • There, I added it. Dahn (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, three sentences is excessive, and the third in particular is speculation. As for the Daily Dot, the current consensus at WP:RSP is There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. As for the Times of Israel source, it says that he is the son of two Jewish professors at Stanford Law School. It does not say that their families are Jewish. Please address these issues, Dahn. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Three sentences are there to meet your demand that we should cite sources for what they say; they are in no way excessive compared to the rest of the article (which will also increase exponentially, one assumes); there is nothing speculative about the third source in mentioning his ethnicity -- I added the speculation made by the source regarding his politics to clarify the context in which this statement is made (a rather blunt context, but an informative one). I don't see why the Daily Dot cannot be cited for backing an information verified in the other sources, which also includes a mention of the antisemitic controversy, plainly a relevant cultural fact surrounding SBF (it would, of course, be absolutely irrational to discuss the controversy without mentioning what sparked it). I have however rephrased the ToI reference, which was only phrased this way for what struck me as stylistic reasons. Dahn (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah great, there was a radical sweep -- the very notion that he is defined as Jewish by Jewish community publications cannot be covered. Fine. I've reduced it to a mention about his parents. Will this do? Will you stand by this version, or will you come up with other reasons? Dahn (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • In the meantime his Jewishness was also mentioned by Newsweek, which cites as a source the Jerusalem Post article I was told above we shouldn't cite. This is frankly funny in the weirdest way. Dahn (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Since you appear to be aware of the recurrence of anti-Semitic tropes, then you should understand why this conversation appears strange to you. The practice of gratuitously mentioning someone's ethnoreligious identity, whether it is central to their life or not, and specifically of Jew-tagging, has been a persistent issue every time anyone of such heritage gets into trouble, or sometimes simply exists. Since people of less-interesting-to-the-malicious heritage like Taylor Swift get off with "identifies as Christian" in accordance with the MoS, strenuous efforts to elaborate on a nominal ethnoreligious identity when it is not substantiated as central to the person's life tend to be scrutinized, so that good-faith efforts don't feed those tropes. We already see drive-bys like this [1] and this [2] and this [3]. That is why your edits are being discussed like this. Your choice of "whitewashing" to initially describe this is a very unfortunate choice of wording. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
      • There is absolutely nothing central or gratuitous here, it is mentioned in its proper place, on par with thousand of biographical articles on people from all walks of life. A Romanian con artist or serial killer or award-winning scientist is still a Romanian, and we would mention that fact; a Catholic con artist or serial killer or award-winning scientist is still a Catholic, and we would mention that fact; the same would go, and does go, for a Jewish con artist, a Jewish serial killer, or a Jewish award-winning scientist. It is precisely because it is and should be regarded a neutral fact that we would mention it -- as plenty of Jewish sources do (whether neutrally, as the ones we cited, or polemically, as for instance in this unusual piece, that I do not suggest we should cite). Also worth considering the Streisand effect and our article on special pleading. Dahn (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
        • I am unaware that we have a practice of mentioning religion for con artists or scientists when they're Christians, and making the effort to highlight it here seems to me a prime example of special pleading to do something that doesn't happen under other circumstances. I also am seeing a conflation of nationality with ethnicity or religion, which is expressly deprecated. Romanian and Jewish are not the same things. Acroterion (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

To keep this short:

• We seem to be getting very special pleading in this one case, where we have to pretend that "Jewish" is specifically and only a religious affiliation, rather than a religious and ethnic affiliation. We pretend so even though precedent indicates that some Jews are Jews only by ethnicity (I'm not including the even larger "non-observant Jews", which presumably form the majority of Jews alive today) and some Jews are Jews only by religion. As per the Jewish sources quoted above, and as per Newsweek etc., SBF is any case regarded as ethnically Jewish, regardless of what religion he may practice.
• I am unaware that we have a practice of mentioning religion for con artists or scientists when they're Christians -- Instead of asking me to disprove your hypothetical, you can always check to see if this is or isn't the case. There are presumably many cases where we would not cover the specific religious denomination of a particular con artist, but this would be owed to various specific factors, such as Christianity being very diverse and the specific affiliation not being known. While we have no idea what church Elizabeth Holmes belonged to, we cover her ethnic affiliation in detail that is not even remotely available here -- to where we mention her close relatives being Danish and her distant relatives being French Canadian.
• Antisemitism is not contained in the observation that someone accused of fraud is Jewish; antisemitism would be a claim that "all Jews are fraudsters"/"all fraudsters are Jews". That sort of logic is prejudiced, and therefore indifferent to facts -- so it will not be dissuaded by wikipedians trying to downplay a fact (quite the contrary, it would be stoked by that sort of well-meaning incompetence). As you can plainly see, the fact is causally mentioned from within the community, which also mentions in various contexts, as we do, that all sorts of eminently respectable people not accused of fraud are also Jews.
• Lastly: you claim that we are making the effort to highlight (his Jewishness) here. This strikes me as misleading. We would be "making an effort to highlight it" if we would advocate for including such info in the lead (and that would be moronic!); what we are calling for is not censoring such info from one of the sections where such info usually goes (either Early life or Personal life). The special pleading is that we should not include it here at all, because SBF is under a special regimen for a novel reason that is not actually grounded in any policy. (The policy that was vaguely invoked here is WP:BLP, but that would make sense only if the info is controversial and poorly sourced. There is nothing controversial about him being Jewish -- because, again, that is basic biographical info; antisemites will draw the same conclusions, regardless of whether we include it or not. The info is also quite reasonably referenced by this point, and covered in national/international media.) Dahn (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: The current version of the article seems to bend over backwards to emphasize his Jewishness – two full sentences complete with scare quotes and in-text attribution: As reported by the Times of Israel, both Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman are Jewish. Matthew Kassel of JewishInsider noted that Bankman-Fried himself "is Jewish". This is an unusual way to cover the subject's ethnicity and frankly looks weird. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Weird as compared to what? Elizabeth Holmes mentions her distant origins by pointing out exactly what ancestry she has, beyond her parents. I was asked to reference that both his parents are Jewish, and I did; I also included and attributed a mention that he himself is considered as Jewish by at least one Jewish journalist. The sources are indicated as clear as possible precisely because this is not an antisemitic obsession, but a matter-of-fact statement in Jewish community sources. All of this was covered in the conversation above. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I also note that, at the very least, we seem to be moving toward where we finally stop pretending that being Jewish is a religious-only identifier, and we seem to accept the notion that this is a discussion of one's ethnic affiliation. That considered, do make sure to compare this article to how ethnicity is covered in, for instance, Elizabeth Holmes (non-Jewish) and Bernie Madoff (Jewish), to note that this is exactly the standard we have followed there, with more attribution being used there precisely because the claim was made by the mere mention of SBF's ethnicity would be antisemitic, and precisely because I was informed by an admin of the novel fact that having two Jewish parents does not make SBF Jewish (I thought it best to reinforce the citation for both his parents, and then to also note that a Jewish source causally describes him as Jewish). Now I'm told that's not the way -- what is the way, then? not to mention it at all, right? nothing but nothing else will do, everything else would be antisemitic. Dahn (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

This information could be covered in one word ("Jewish") in one of the other sentences. Instead it is being covered in two full sentences, with unnecessary in-text attribution and scare quotes. Since you mentioned the Elizabeth Holmes article, I think that's a useful comparison. It says Christian is of part Danish ancestry. Not As reported by Knopf, Christian had Danish ancestors. John Carreyrou in his book Bad Blood noted that Holmes herself "is part Danish". The sentence that's in the Elizabeth Holmes article treats her ethnicity matter-of-factly as part of her background biographical information. The alternative would read like an insinuation that there's something scandalous or controversial about being Danish. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: If you follow the conversation above, and actually read the very reply I gave just above, you will note why it is phrased the way it is phrased. I will repeat it as succinctly as possible: (1) reference to his ancestry is introduced there after administrators agreed this is the info we can add from that source; (2) after being told there is no way to ascertain from his ancestry that he is Jewish (only that both his parents are), I added and attributed a source indicating that he himself is regarded as Jewish by at least one Jewish journalist -- i.e. precisely that there is nothing scandalous about this. You could of course shorten this to say "he is Jewish" or the like, but then your quarrel will not be with me, but with the admins who repeatedly claimed this violates BLP, and have persistently removed the info to where the article says nothing about his ancestry (which, I hope you agree, is a deeply absurd situation). Tl;dr: cut me some slack, and actually read what I'm actually replying to you. Dahn (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Also make a note of how many sentences it takes to cover Holmes' ancestry: it isn't just the part you cropped, but this whole paragraph -- Christian is of part Danish ancestry. Her paternal great-great-great-grandfather was Charles Louis Fleischmann, a Hungarian immigrant who founded the Fleischmann's Yeast company.[15] The Holmes family "was very proud of its yeast empire" history, according to a family friend Joseph Fuisz, "I think the parents very much yearned for the days of yore when the family was one of the richest in America. And I think Elizabeth channeled that, and at a young age."[16] Her mother was born in Georgia and has French Canadian ancestry on her father's side Dahn (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, based on the discussion above, here's a proposal that I hope will satisfy everyone. The current version of the paragraph is:

Bankman-Fried was born in 1992 on the campus of Stanford University into a family of academics. He is the son of Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman, both professors at Stanford Law School. His aunt Linda P. Fried is the current dean of Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. His brother, Gabriel Bankman-Fried, is a former Wall Street trader and the director of the non-profit Guarding Against Pandemics. As reported by the Times of Israel, both Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman are Jewish. Matthew Kassel of JewishInsider noted that Bankman-Fried himself "is Jewish".

I suggest we change it to:

Bankman-Fried was born in 1992 on the campus of Stanford University into a Jewish family. He is the son of Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman, both professors at Stanford Law School. His aunt Linda P. Fried is the current dean of Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. His brother, Gabriel Bankman-Fried, is a former Wall Street trader and the director of the non-profit Guarding Against Pandemics.

Mentioned, but without excessive emphasis and without scare quotes. (The phrase "family of academics" strikes me as redundant, because the next sentence explains that his parents are professors.) @Dahn, Cullen328, Malerooster, 176.46.27.167, Molochmeditates, and Acroterion: Thoughts? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: No objection from me, though please note that versions with similar phrasing have been repeatedly removed, based on the whimsical rational I summarized above. (Also note that Yahoo Finance does not note the family ancestry, so you may actually want to move the notes around to where it is clear which reference verifies which part of the phrase.) Dahn (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As stated above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_15_November_2022_(2) ) some editors were trying to make him a Jew way before the sources you bring up were published. To settle this properly you should look for sources previous to these edits (this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&diff=prev&oldid=1060138266), because, as already said, "it is quite possible that they relied upon Wikipedia's unsourced claim as basis for that assertion". Sorry to say this, but your 2021 source is wrong (it should be 2022). The Yahoo one doesn't say anything on the topic. The truth is that nobody really knows if he is a Jew, and still there are some people trying to spread this idea: the reader should ask himself why. Cartago3468 (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

His belonging to a Jewish family, which is what Molochmeditates proposes, is a fact confirmed by the Times of Israel. Beyond that: his personal Jewishness (that is, other than both his parents being Jewish -- which is already a proof of his ethnic Jewishness, regardless of special pleading, and is clearly stated by ToI) is highlighted by several sources, now including JewishInsider, but also Daily Dot, Jerusalem Post, and Newsweek. The claim that all these publications only say he is Jewish because they copy wikipedia is absurd -- they most likely do because of the sheer fact that both his parents are Jewish, which is Jewish by most definitions -- definitions which would still call him Jewish even if he were (also) an atheist or a Buddhist. Dahn (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would be absurd if these sources drew from Wikipedia? Are you trying to say that Wikipedia is not reliable enough for them? If they drew that fact from other known sources, fine, but then it should be possible to point at them. Cartago3468 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's not play that game at all, shall we? Dahn (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Cartago3468, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source in ANY way, actually the opposite. --Malerooster (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Malerooster Cartago3468 is inferring, without any grounding whatsoever, that, for instance, the Jerusalem Post calls SBF the "Jewish king of crypto" because they read it on wikipedia. At the same time, he admits that the Times of Israel has researched SBF's origin on its own, and that, per the ToI, both his parents are Jewish, and that this fact can be mentioned in our article; however, he also proposes the novel interpretation that SBF isn't Jewish because, though his parents are Jewish, he may have converted to another religion -- when in fact the vast majority of definitions, from Jewish to antisemitic, would simply note that a man with Jewish parents is himself Jewish. The latter is not just factual on itself, it also makes it absurd (not just technically improbable, but absurd) to assume that any secondary source may have picked up the info of his Jewishness from wikipedia: much more likely, they have operated with facts such as him having Jewish parents. Something which holds true for anyone but SBF, who, for special reasons "is not Jewish unless we find out he practices Judaism". Dahn (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Not even close. But I will spare my explanation since this issue is now settled thanks to @Mx. Granger. Regards. Cartago3468 (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with that, no need to over emphasize. --Malerooster (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks great to me. The current wording is quite odd. Jmill1806 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I support the straightforward wording proposed by Mx. Granger. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this proposal - I support it and don't have any objections. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording by Mx. Granger is the way to do it. Thriley (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Stating it even clearer: no objection to the wording proposed by Mx. Granger. Dahn (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's clear consensus for the proposal, so I'll implement the change (with the date fixed and with the citation adjustment suggested by Dahn). That said, Cartago3468, I understand the concern about citogenesis. If it helps, I did a bit of searching and found an interview with Joseph Bankman from 2017 in which he mentions that he's Jewish. I also found a JewishInsider article about Bankman-Fried from 2021. Of course neither of these sources support the claim in the article (we have the Times of Israel source for that), but they do help to convince me that this isn't a case of citogenesis. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  If it helps? You just settled the issue. Well done. This is the way we should legitimate controversial edits. Cartago3468 (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Investor

He is listed as an investor, but lost all his money. Doesn't that make him a former investor? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Subject's ethnic identity listed in first sentence

Currently, the article subject's ethnic identity is listed in the first sentence ("Samuel Bankman-Fried...is a Jewish businessman and effective altruist"). As a consequence, his ethnic identity is one of the few items shown about him on page preview pop-ups for this page elsewhere on Wikipedia. Is this appropriate? It appears to violate Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."). Instead, "is an American businessman and effective altruist" seems more in keeping with Wikipedia standards. Tensorsum (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly fine. 2601:602:680:7000:7D7D:2CAA:2135:87C1 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is SBF's ethnicity relevant to his notoriety? 97.120.100.178 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to remove the part highlighting his Jewish background until all this blows over. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to hide the truth during the time the whole world is looking at the page? P966a (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Almost all BLP articles mention ethnicity or religion. If we can find it mentioned in a reliable source, it's worth keeping. Nswix (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at other articles with similar business magnates, all mention religion in the Early Life section. Both controversial figures in similar positions, such as Kenneth Lay, and standard celebrities, like Stephen Colbert, have their religious identity listed. Removing religion after a major event delegitimizes the mission of Wikipedia -- it eliminates the NPOV that is expected from contributors. I also noticed that those who are trying to remove this information appear to have a political/ideological motive. A reliable source can be found here: https://jewishinsider.com/2022/11/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-alameda/ ADistantEditor (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The JewishInsider article you referenced was written *after* Wikipedia was vandalized to imply that the subject was Jewish.

• An anonymous IP address which a history for vandalizing Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:8.242.205.35) introduced an unsourced claim that Sam Bankman-Fried is Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&diff=1121025019&oldid=1121022838
• There is no reliable basis for stating that Sam Bankman-Fried is Jewish. Articles returned by Google that imply as much were all written *after* the Wikipedia edit. It is quite possible that they relied upon Wikipedia's unsourced claim as basis for that assertion.
• There were further attempts to vandalize the page to slander Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&diff=1121150730&oldid=1121145595

There is reasonable basis for removing discussion of the subject's ethnic identity. Cowwoc (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

But, all you have to do is click on the pages for his relations to see his identity (both parents are in the "Amerikan Jews" section). Also, for those who have the eyes to see, it is quite obvious. Just saying - if you're gonna try to gloss over things you'll need to do more sanitizing than just this page. 2601:8C0:880:2BA0:2F01:6560:2D74:DC96 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

His ethnic identity is irrelevant to what happened. As noted above, those atop the financial fraud power rankings (Skilling, Lay) were WASP-y oil/energy dudes. Well, they may share that coveted top spot with Madoff, but nonetheless, never doubt the nefariousness that is possible from human beings of any ethnic group. So there's no harm in listing it, and if it makes the reader think antisemitic thoughts, that's on the reader. 2600:1012:B019:8D6A:6D4F:56BA:7D20:2943 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am conflicted. While we of course want to mention his Jewishness when discussing his accomplishments, we don't want to mention it when people are looking at him in a negative light. I think we should remove it for now. Once he's off the hook and his name is cleared I think it would be fine to mention it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.223.53 (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ETHNICITY: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. Schazjmd (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

COI regarding sources etc.

This is an extremely interesting and complicated case (FTX, SBF, Alameda, etc.), but I would just like to ask about conflict of interest in terms of coverage on SBF since it has been revealed that much of his donations were not just to Democratic Party and progressive political donations, but also millions were given in support of positive media coverage to the following (that we know of right now) and does that mean that those sources are 'compromised' and potentially no good for any material on SBF, FTX, Alameda or related figures? The media outlets that received money from SBF that we know now are:

• ProPublica
• Vox
• The Intercept
• Semafor
• The Law and Justice Journalism Project

... and likely many more. See here for more.

Truly a pretty unique situation here, it makes me wonder if the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list needs to be updated also for those particular sources when it comes to the subject matter involved as mentioned above, or possibly farther reaching subject matter as well in light of the latest on this. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Category living people

I removed this as not needed. What is the "standard" for inclusion of this category other than being alive? Is this added to every bio? Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This category is standard across all Wikipedia bios of living people. Thriley (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Ps, I thought the other category was autism, lol, my bad. Is living people category really added to ALL bios? Is there a policy page for that? --Malerooster (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You can read about its purpose at Category:Living people. Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

All bios of living people should have that category. I’m not sure if there is a policy page about it, but it seems standard. Thriley (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Really born in Stanford, CA?

The only source I could find on his place of birth is in an NYMag article , which states that SBF was "born into this world literally at the Stanford hospital". Contrary to what the name suggests, Stanford Hospital is located almost entirely in the city of Palo Alto (it bears this name because the university bought it in 1968). Labor and deliveries at Stanford are done at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital , located at 25 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304 according to its website . SBF was born in 1992, while Lucile Packard started operating in June 1991 . So, it seem very unlikely SBF was actually born at Stanford. Unless anyone has a reliable source he was born at Stanford, I suggest we change "Stanford, CA" to "Palo Alto, CA".2601:602:8D80:743B:7C77:3FEE:2AC0:F195 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Sam Bankman-Fried was a major donor to both the Democratic and Republican parties. 2601:901:202:7070:69CF:842E:3154:A3BD (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

A grossly inaccurate and partisan claim. Dahn (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Here: (https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/29/sam-bankman-fried-political-donations-democrats-republicans-dark-money/) Here: (https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bankman-fried-says-hes-the-republicans-third-biggest-donor-2022-11). Even Fox for God's sake: "FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was also prolific donor to Republicans: 'I have a duty'" (https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried-prolific-donor-republicans). Change the article lead as well. Thanks. Cartago3468 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (5)

Friends:

Remove: "An article by the Financial Times characterized Bankman-Fried's "win ratios" in League of Legends as "average-to-bad"."

It is true, but it is mean. Why do we require to say that he is average-to-bad at a video game when there is so much else to say? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Already done I think it makes sense because he was widely reported to have been playing the game while on a call with Sequoia Capital to raise funds, which might make his skill at the game notable as well. Regardless, it looks like Drmies recently removed the entire paragraph. TimSmit (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

American expat to the Bahamas?

In categories, it says that he is an American expat to the Bahamas. I saw nothing online to back this up anywhere... Wikicali00    36:0 23:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Resolved - the article no longer uses the word 'Expat' -M.nelson (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (6)

Hello friends:

Change: "Prior to 2020, Bankman-Fried was not involved with campaign finance, except a $1,000 contribution in 2010 to Michael Bennet when Bankman-Fried was eighteen years old."

To: "Before 2020, Bankman-Fried only donated to a political campaign once: in 2010, when he was 18, Bankman-Fried gave $1,000 to Democratic candidate Michael Bennet's Senate campaign." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Hey there @Ghost of Kiev: could you please explain why you believe that your requested change is an improvement over the current revision? Colonestarrice (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: no reply, marking request as answered. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022 (4)

Friends:

Change: "second to only Michael Bloomberg."

To: "behind only Michael Bloomberg." Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Question: They both sound about the same to me. How would you feel about "surpassed only by Michael Bloomberg"? TimSmit (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Subject Topic's [SBF's] Downfall and Potential Ponzi Scheme.

Sam is now alleged to have prompted a Ponzi scheme using FTX, and $1 billion in customers' funds disappeared two days prior to FTX filing for bankruptcy. Please, mention this as the consumers and clients of FTX deserve to be informed of how they've been robbed of their hard earned money. Coming from a business professional and a member of the International Honors Society of Business Professors, Graduates, Scholars and Professionals. Businesses should aid society, not pose financial threats or harm in general toward their customers, regardless of the associated risk. Missing funds are no comical manner, if it were your money, you'd want to be informed through some medium or form of information. Wikipedia is one of the internet as well as one of the world's largest online sources of knowledge and information. -Abba Maximus, M.B.A., Delta Mu Delta (Int'l Honors Society of Business). 2600:1012:B181:7F5F:F994:AAFE:507A:355A (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to a reliable source for the content you want to add? Your opinions are valid but do not belong in an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Donations to democrats in article lead

Sam Bankman-Fried has donated many millions to many causes. We don't list these in the article lead. For the same reason, the specific donations to democrats shouldn't be listed in the lead (unless one would like to stress that he donated to democrats, which would be correct in an "Encyclopedia of Political Donations" but not in a general encyclopedia). Cartago3468 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Bankman-Fried was a major donor to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle, as well as being second to Michael Bloomberg in donations to Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election. His donations were the subject of numerous articles before the November FTX crisis, are the subject of numerous articles now, and will likely continue to be over the next weeks and months. Thriley (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Any other major donations should be mentioned as well, but it is clear the primary recipient of his donations were Democratic candidates. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

All donations should be mentioned, but not in the lead. There are plenty of donations made by him. Why are you so interested in highlighting those to Democrats? Cartago3468 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not denying it. But many things he has done had been the subject of many more articles, and we don't list them in the lead. And besides, Richard Uihlein and George Soros have donated even more money, but that information is not in the lead of their articles... Why is that? Well, it is not that relevant to be there. Cartago3468 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The article for Soros has a considerable amount about his donations in the lead. I am surprised that Uihlein’s doesn’t say much, as he is a major GOP donor- would be good to expand in case anyone has the time or interest. Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say. They overwhelmingly say Bankman-Fried is a Democratic donor. Thriley (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article for Soros does not say he's a Democratic donor in the lead. Cartago3468 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say". The article doesn't exclude that information. This discussion is about cherrypicking information in the lead. Cartago3468 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Same goes for Timothy Mellon Cartago3468 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Soros has been a major donor for decades with his money going to hundreds, probably thousands of groups. Bankman-Fried donated tens of millions of dollars to Democrats in two election cycles, with a promise to donate a billion dollars to them which he later rescinded. Like I said, I can see his other donations mentioned in the lead, but there is such a considerable amount published about his donations to Democrats that I don’t see it not covered in the lead. Thriley (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a considerable amount published about many things that are not in the lead. Cartago3468 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Yass has donated 46 million to Republicans, and you don't see it in the lead. Cartago3468 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Fred Eychaner, 35 m. to dems, not in the lead, etc. Cartago3468 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead is a reflection of the body of the article. There is an eight paragraph section titled “political donations” which states that he has largely given to Democrats. These eight paragraphs should be summarized in the lead. Thriley (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If the article is incomplete, there's no reason to sketch an imperfect lead. But obviously you just want to stress that fact no matter what. I'm sorry, but you should reach consensus before making a controverted edit. The onus is on you. Cartago3468 (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As is said in one of my edits, the mention of his donations in the lead belongs per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: “the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole”. There are now 10 paragraphs in the “Political donations” section. Coverage in the lead is warranted. Thriley (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cartago3468: While Bankman-Fried has spent considerable money on Democrats, perhaps you would like to expand the details of his spending on GOP candidates or his Super PAC. Perhaps on his attempts to lobby Congress. Here is a good article from the Financial Times which would be helpful in expansion: [4] Thriley (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I now realize you created this article. Let me quote it in full, so others can see what's your point: "Sam Bankman-Fried is an American CEO. He is the Founder and CEO of FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange. He was one of the largest CEO donors to Joe Biden in the 2020 election cycle, second to only Michael Bloomberg." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&diff=1018411751&oldid=1018411475)

". I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but it looks like you do have an axe to grind. Cartago3468 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. At the time when I created this article as a stub, there were major sources discussing Bankman-Fried’s political donations. There are now even more sources discussing those donations. Don’t accuse me or other editors of being biased by following Wikipedia policy. There are other editors who agree that the donations should be mentioned in the lead. Feel free to expand on the article if you are actually interested in that. Thriley (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems like a fair summary of the politics section which expands more on his political donations. The information also seems highly relevant in the context of the rest of the article. The goal of the article is to inform, and this section seems to do that well for a summary. --Molochmeditates (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Except the article is also inaccurate. The article states that he personally donated $5.2 million to Joe Biden, but individual contributions to candidate campaigns are limited by law to just a few thousand. Sam donated to political action committees, not to Biden. 208.73.102.148 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am Springnuts, a formerly uninvolved editor. I have not, AFAIK, previously interacted with any other editor involved. 3O requests should involve only two editors, and this was the case when the 3O request was made. The dispute is about whether or not the lede should include a paragraph summarising his donations to Democratic causes and politicians. I would like to congratulate both editors involved in the dispute for their courtesy to each other. A bit of WP:WIKILOVE goes a long way – if I can say this without sounding patronising: Well done! @Cartago3468, when asking for a 3O it is recommended that the filing editor notifies the second editor, and that they consider providing a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to. As to the matter in dispute: I can do no better than support the excellent summary by Molochmeditates above: It seems like a fair summary of the politics section which expands more on his political donations. The information also seems highly relevant in the context of the rest of the article. The goal of the article is to inform, and this section seems to do that well for a summary. It may be that this article is inconsistent with other articles (eg “And besides, Richard Uihlein and George Soros have donated even more money, but that information is not in the lead of their articles…”) but this is an argument generally to avoid. In short, imo the material restored here [[5]] is appropriately left in the article. Disclaimer: This is only my opinion, and editors are entirely free to ignore it :) Springnuts (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair summary. Donating 5 million and being the second highest donator to the 2020 Joe Biden are notable and covered significantly in the media. Therefore it holds WP:WEIGHT and should be included in the lead. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

I would like to add an extra word to the description of Sam Bankman-Fried. Just after 'former billionaire', I would like to add 'convicted fraudster' into his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenT17 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

OwenT17 Please offer a source describing where he has been convicted of a crime in a court of law. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph in "Donations" Section Repeated

Due to not having sufficient privileges I cannot remove it myself, but please note that an entire paragraph is repeated twice in the "Donations" section of the article. 2601:701:8201:7890:A1BB:292:B746:9FC0 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any duplicate paragraphs in the Donations section, so it seems like this has been Fixed. -M.nelson (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sam Bankman-Fried's Arrest.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Claim of donating to Republicans in lead

Has there been any independent confirmation that SBF has made major dark money donations to Republicans? I think it should not be mentioned in the lead if we are just relying on his own statement. Thriley (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the whole reason he did it this way that it would be hard to independently verify? Prinsgezinde (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's not appropriate in the lede. We're giving unverified (and quite frankly dubious) information from an interview (a primary source, not secondary) far too much weight by having it in the lede, which should be summarizing the article. Also, aside from a few articles immediately after he made the claim, I don't see reliable sources giving the claim much weight. -M.nelson (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in reliable sources that he made this claim or that he clandestinely supported Republican causes. These sourced treat it as notable. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: in the lede though? Per WP:LEDE, the lede is supposed to summarize the article; this claim isn't mentioned at all in the body. -M.nelson (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, why did you add the citation A young crypto billionaire’s political agenda goes well beyond pandemic preparedness back to that sentence? It doesn't seem to discuss the Republican/Dark Money claim at all. -M.nelson (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I don't much care about it being in the lead but I thought removing it without discussion was premature since it was apparently heavily discussed before. If a consensus emerges I'm all for it. I understand the argument to be that detailing only the Democratic contributions paints only a partial picture that would be misleading without including his stated and discovered contributions to Republican causes. The LA Times article concludes that there is a practical reason behind this that goes beyond partisanship. Anyhow, I included that source because I found one source to be a bit light for such a claim. The source doesn't use the term "dark money" but as far as I understood it it was essentially the same concept, clandestine contributions not directly linked to him. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde Here is the diff of the article when I first edited it on December 2021. The "Personal Life" section (before I removed it) read as Bankman-Fried is a vegan. He sleeps four hours per night, when he has no meetings, on a bean bag chair in his office next to his computer; in fact, he ensures that every room in his office has bean bag chairs to sleep on. He shares an apartment with roommates. He almost never drinks or goes on vacation. He often uses the Latin verb quaere (meaning "ask yourself") in conversations.Bankman-Fried describes himself morally as a "Benthamite" and a "a total, act, hedonistic/one level (as opposed to high and low pleasure), classical (as opposed to negative) utilitarian". Compare this to what the section reads now.

There is a very good reason why we shouldn't give stock to what he says, and why we should just focus on what the reliable sources say about him in their own voice. — hako9 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What is that reason? Typically we would write that someone asserts something without attaching a true or false value to it ourselves, unless of course said statement is either proven or disproven elsewhere. It's no longer in the lead, but you're proposing deleting it altogether. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk." Per wikipedia. Say, the next sentence reads: "But flat earthers deny this claim". You seem to be okay with this false balance perhaps. I already made my point clear below. If you don't get why we shouldn't give weight to what SBF says about himself, versus what RS say about him in their own voice, I guess no explanation will suffice for you. — hako9 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I already agreed with M.nelson's arguments that it currently does not appear to have enough credit to be in the lead after all, so there are a few differences between this and your analogy:

• It's not given equal weight. It's mentioned far less prominently than the Democratic donations and concerns only a single sentence, certainly abiding with WP:DUE.
• SBF is the subject of the article, so statements by him fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB and relevance is quite self-explanatory. Not so with conspiracy theorists.
• Flat earth conspiracy theorists are actually mentioned in that article's lead and have an entire section, likely because of their notoriety.

I don't quite see your point. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I read the LA Times article again and I don't see anything at all that suggests clandestine contributions, or contributions by SBF to Republicans. Can you quote the relevant part?
In terms of BRD, WP:BRD says BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. Please don't revert just for the sake of forcing discussion if there's actually no good reason to oppose the change (which itself had policy rationale in the edit summary and discussion on talk). If you have a good reason to oppose the change, please tell us. -M.nelson (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

BRD was employed to force a discussion on what appeared to be a contentious edit without consensus, which is quite according to policy. A few editors had previously disagreed with only mentioning Republican donations in the lead and I recognized their argument. However, I'm quite busy today and self-reverted because I don't want to single-handedly stonewall a change to a highly active article purely on procedural grounds. I'm alright with keeping it out of the lead. Regarding the LA Time source, I'm going to go over it again when I have time later to see if it's a matter of us interpreting things differently, I misread something or you missed something. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for doing that. I certainly could have missed something in the LA Times article. -M.nelson (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems the article isn't very clear on how they got their information. There are some implications of clandestine spending but maybe that's just done intentionally to make a point. Since the article doesn't outright mention dark money it's probably best not to use it to support that line, though on another note, it does mention other large donations to Republicans and Democrats that are not yet in the article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Thriley and M.nelson. The statement Bankman-Fried has claimed he also donated large amounts of money to Republicans through dark money channels. needs to atleast be separated, if not excluded from the article. Everything in the WSJ article cited, is voiced by WSJ. Contrast, the Guardian source which doesn't claim it in it's own voice. By using both statements one after the other, we are presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE to our readers. (I am discounting the LA Times piece, because that doesn't say anything about SBF's donation to republicans) — hako9 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Amend All References To Democrat Donations

At the minimum, all the talk of democrat donations needs to be qualified by the fact that he is on-tape admitting to donating a similar amount of money to republicans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DezodR9hNI&feature=youtu.be

For starters, I think the introduction should end with something like "By his own admission, Bankman-Fried donated a similar amount to Republicans during that cycle via dark-money loopholes in order to avoid liberal media blowback. He estimates he was also the second or third largest donor to republicans during that time."

The "Political Donations" section also needs to be updated IMO. If no one opposes, I will submit a formal request assuming consensus. Bassedgold (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I should note that this interview is the only source, and, in this sense, the information has not been "confirmed." That being said, I did note "By his own admission" and, also, he said it. Bassedgold (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. According to a youtube video, which we do not usually consider WP:RS, he said something that multiple reputable sources say is not true. Consider why he is notable and this article exists: he said a lot of things.--FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I listened to some of the video. At 0:58, he says, "I don't know how to code." He says that he never even looked at the code base for FTX front or back ends. Extraordinary, no? Seems unlikely, even though he said it. Also, the youtube interview was not done by a journalist. She even asks SBF why he is speaking to her.--FeralOink (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the quality of the source. That being said, I've never seen any evidence that SBF knows how to code. There's no reason SBF needed to know how to code - he was a trader at Jane Street (not a programmer, and even if he was programming, that is probably very different than the sort of development needed to run a crypto exchange), and then worked as a director of a non-profit before founding a company. He majored in math and physics. I fully believe he doesn't know how to code, and certainly not full stack application development. Bassedgold (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Until corroborated by reliable sources, we should be hesitant to give too much coverage to his own statements. This claim is covered in a sentence in the body, but doesn't belong in the intro. The purpose of this article isn't to give his every thought or claim, but to summarize what reliable source say about him. Note that interviews are considered primary sources. -M.nelson (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a primary source. I think I was a little too excited. That being said, this primary source does seem reliable and the news is now being picked up by reliable secondary sources: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billionaire-sam-bankman-fried-dark-money-republicans and https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-bankman-fried-says-hes-the-republicans-third-biggest-donor-2022-11 for example. I don't think SBF as a primary source actually violates any of the principles to not use a primary source; for example, there is no "interpreting" what he said and the entire article would not be based on it.

Beyond that, I think there is good reason to just take him at his word. As I detailed in a previous campaign finance-related talk post, SBF donated to a Democrat candidate through an "progressive AAPI turnout group." But, it turns out this group was astro-turfed and the candidate was just crypto-friendly. This is quite similar behavior to what he is admitting to, covertly donating to candidates whom he supports; this time, though, he is using Citizen's United to secretly funnel "dark money" to Republican candidates. Additionally, SBF has openly donated to Republicans, albeit in "smaller" numbers publicly (there are many sources for this). It is also well known that other executives at FTX gave to Republican candidates openly, but, as SBF admits, liberal media would have gotten angry at him specifically - indeed, Wikipedia's own article on SBF until recently claimed he was "left wing," presumably informed by media reporting since that is often how we form opinions in society. I'm not trying to put someone down here, but just trying to highlight that there is good reason to take SBF at his word here. Bassedgold (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it would acceptable to put this information in the article with a qualifier like "Bankman Fried claims that...." Bassedgold (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, SBFs statements are appropriate for inclusion if attributed and relevant. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I will give the other two people who have commented some time to reply, and submit a formal request tomorrow if there is no reply/reasonable objection. We can definitely cite both secondary and primary sources now, and add the qualifier that only he claims this. Bassedgold (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not sourced to a RS. Self sourcing is not part of how we cite information on WP. This YouTube video cannot be used and the claim is dubious at best where SBF is now trying to save some face and not seem like his donations were so one sided. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Cartago3468 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry. Your source doesn't align with factual data.

For big donors to US Campaigns there are paper records kept in according to US Law. Campaign donations are tracked - start to finish.

From OpenSecrets - https://www.opensecrets.org/about - a reputable source:

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors?cycle=2022&view=om

SBF, personally: $35.9M to Democrats - $155k to Republicans. This disparity is not similar in any manipulation of the word similar.

Sorry, but your political agenda and sources that do not align with public campaign contribution record are not valid. Kyanwan (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We really should be wary of using interviews as sources without solid secondary reporting that’s actually confirmed what he has said. There’s probably going to be a lot of interviews and tweets in the coming months. We don’t have a duty to report on all of them. Much of this may likely be attempts at damage control / changing the narrative. Thriley (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The most recent edit to the article used a secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources, not secondary. -M.nelson (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. I’m just saying he may make a lot of claims as the months go on. If he claimed he personally donated money to the GOP via dark money, it would be helpful to know what groups he actually donated to. Hopefully this will be found out soon. Thriley (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is useful to include that he "claims" that he donated such huge quantity to the GOP. IMHO the mere fact that he claims such surprising thing is interesting enough to warrant inclusion. Cartago3468 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is also on opensecrets.com that FTX gave $20 million to Republicans, one of the top organization donors to Republicans, for the 2022 cycle.

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizations 98.116.188.75 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is on OpenSecrets that FTX gave $20 million to Republicans, not that SBF did. Several of the other executives at FTX made political contributions. Some personally gave large contributions to GOP campaigns and causes, but that was done independently of SBF's personal contributions.--FeralOink (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm back, as one of the initial editors to whom Bassedgold considerately referred up above. Thank you for giving us some time to get back with thoughts on this! I read both of the articles, from The Guardian and Business Insider. Both of them use that youtube video interview as their source, and have no other sources. SBF makes all sorts of claims. I heard him on a Twitter space yesterday, which was recorded. I can link you to it. He denied ever doing anything wrong. He denied lots of things that are in this article (and sourced WP:RS) even! Yes, he may have made dark money contributions to GOP politicians for the reasons he stated. Just because he said it about himself in that youtube interview (which I confirmed was not done by a journalist or any established news media organization; note that she did make that clear once I dug around) does not make it suitable for inclusion in this BLP. If there is a source that uses something other than SBF's youtube video, then we should of course re-evaluate this. Sorry for the long reply, I am tired. It's easier to be lengthy than succinct.--FeralOink (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am really ok with leaving this as-is. Definitely have come around to you all's point of view here! Thanks! I guess we'll just have to wait and see in bankruptcy proceedings, I imagine. 2003:CA:1735:1829:983C:9855:4F0C:5473 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@FeralOink: I'm confused. In the video you watched, did SBF actually say all this or did he not? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes he said that - the quote looks correct. He really did say he did this, and it tracks with his public spending record, which is why I personally believe it but understand that sourcing from an interview can be fraught. Bassedgold (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone who presumably was SBF specifically said this: https://youtube.com/6DezodR9hNI?t=774 titled, "SBF on his donations" starting at 12 minutes and 55 seconds. Unlike other interviews with SBF e.g. by Vox's Kelcey, their was no confirmation that it was SBF. Yes, The Guardian chose to report on it regardless.--FeralOink (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:PRIMARY prohibits using his comments from an interview. He said something, and then multiple reliable sources reported and interpreted what he said (their interpretation makes them secondary sources). Magnolia677 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree here. I mentioned this previously. I don't understand why we can't say "Bankman-Fried claimed that..." But I understand that this needs consensus. I previously commented "I don't think SBF as a primary source actually violates any of the principles to not use a primary source; for example, there is no "interpreting" what he said and the entire article would not be based on it." No one seemed to actually respond to this point but that seems like the crux of the debate. I don't see anything wrong with it. I am new to this but I did read those articles you linked to. Bassedgold (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Even I lost sight of this to some degree. Bassedgold (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It was confirmed he gave a minimum of $500k to Mitch McConnel's PAC. Also dark money is hard to track. I see no reason to reject that. Simple qualify it by he stated he was the 2nd or 3rd largest donor to the GOP. 209.129.85.52 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion that Magnolia677 initiated at the WP:RS Noticeboard about this. I suggest waiting another half day to see what guidance we get there.--FeralOink (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bankman-Fried also tells about dark money for Republican Party. 49.146.34.204 (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)