The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Is there a bias why the word “felon” is not used in the article? compared to articles of politicians like Jeff Fortenberry207.96.32.81 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term "felon" in a biography can be unduly aggressive and stigmatizing. Using the term "felon" in a biography not only carries aggressive and stigmatizing connotations but also violates Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. These guidelines emphasize the importance of a neutral point of view, avoiding undue weight on any aspect of a person's life, particularly those that are controversial or negative. Labeling someone as a felon in their bio can skew the reader's perception, overshadowing other significant aspects of their life and work. This approach is contrary to Wikipedia's commitment to balanced and fair representation, which seeks to present individuals in a comprehensive and respectful manner, without focusing disproportionately on their past transgressions. Therefore, in line with Wikipedia's standards, bios should focus on presenting a well-rounded view that includes positive developments and contributions, avoiding terms like "felon" that can lead to bias and unfair characterization. GatosCiencia (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This term was recently added by User:Death Editor 2Special:Diff/1187018229/1187273801, a day or so before they got blocked for tenaciously adding the term to Sam Bankman-Fried without consensus. There is considerably controversy over this term, and this user should not be adding the term at the same time they are getting blocked elsewhere for doing the same thing - it's very WP:POINTY and disruptive. I removed it Special:Diff/1187471267/1187520340 but then today, an anonymous IP editor restored it Special:Diff/1188069475/1188085933 with the edit comment "stop your vendetta", obviously they are aware of this history and not happy about it. Users should not go on a campaign to add fraudster all over Wikipedia. -- GreenC 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a contentious label, and should be avoided. We cover his criminal history sufficiently. Let that speak for itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudster might be considered contentious but it is used by multiple reliable sources to describe Shkreli - such as The Wall Street Journal, Fast Company, The Daily Beast, ABC News. If reliable sources describe Shkreli as a fraudster, as a convicted fraudster (along with "pharma bro") why is Wikipedia avoiding a common term? Shearonink (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fraudster" isn't more accurate or effective than "criminal" in this instance. It's also generally informal, and may not be suitable encyclopedic language for the lede unless there is no effective alternative. Ertal72 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A criminal could be anyone from a petty thief to a hardened murderer. Fraudster is more accurate description of a guy who's crimes are mostly related to fraud. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We note he was convicted of fraud (along with another crime) later in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also "felony crimes", "criminal felonies" etc.. there must a dozen ways to say it that don't use fraudster. -- GreenC 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what pejorative means? Honest question, not everyone does. Because some words can be used neutrally and also pejoratively. They straddle the line. These words are problematic for the tone of Wikipedia. Because one person can read it as a neutral description, and a different person sees a criticism. Same word, different people, different interpretations. We try to avoid those terms, on Wikipedia (WP:BLPSTYLE), because they cause controversy and ultimately waste a lot of time and generate disruptions. People have even been blocked for using words like this in BLPs. Other people get so angry about it, they go on a crusade to use the word more often. They cause disruptions while trying to make a WP:POINT. Eventually these people will resort to using sock accounts, but it's obvious who they are, we were WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. -- GreenC 21:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also not born yesterday and I am not an idiot, nor are our readers. You don't have to treat a fraudster (and that is what he is and everyone calls him that) with kid gloves, you can just straight up call him one you know. And Felon is just as much of a pejorative as fraudster as well. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you are someone who, "doesn't treat a fraudster with kid gloves". You employ a phrase that contains the violence of a physical assault, a rhetorical one. Nothing more needs to be said, you are the embodiment of why we don't use fraudster in a neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia. It's emotive and non-neutral in tone. If you want to use fraudster anywhere else but Wikipedia, good for you, nobody cares. -- GreenC 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even dismissing concerns of WP:BLPSTYLE, it's unclear how a casual term that sees minority usage is more effective here. Inclusion would likely make the lede muddier. Ertal72 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Felon is an objective, neutral, widely-used descriptor for people convicted of one or more felonies. Biographies of living persons are not governed by whether language is deserved; it is based upon objectivity and informative value. "Fraudster" is not encyclopedic language, and fails to make the lede more clear or accurate. Ertal72 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is objective and truthful that Martin Shkreli was a guy who committed fraud. And if only we had some kind of word for a guy who does/did fraud. 2601:281:D880:DED0:AC9D:3431:C88C:4A0A (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a word for people who lie, but we do not refer to people as "liars" in encyclopedic articles as it would be unclear, inappropriately informal, and biased due to the pejorative quality of the word. It seems from the tone of your discussion that this issue is not a good-faith effort to improve the article. Ertal72 (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: it would be fine inside a direct quote. There's no reason to use it in Wikivoice. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the common argument: A source uses it, we can too. The problem those sources are not operating under Wikipedia BLP rules, they can say anything they want, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, most source's don't use fraudster. Take for example all of the sources currently cited in this article, dated post-conviction. What percentage of them use fraudster? I did this exercise at Sam Bankman-Fried and found about 15% of them use fraudster, and many of those did so in a pejorative frame. It's a minority usage term that is often used pejoratively. Finally, the term fraudster was coined in the 1970s, and made it into dictionaries in the 1980s and 90s. It's fairly new, and many people think of it as a slang term and/or a pejorative. Given all the other ways to say the same thing, there is no reason to burden the article with a controversial term. -- GreenC 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this: we're not a news organization. CNBC has to create a few-word headline to summarize their article and also attract clicks; we don't. Neither of the two articles we currently site that uses "fraudster", uses the term outside of their byline or lead sentence. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow! That is a whole lot of nothing! Do you have any actual arguments or? Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if only we had a singular word used to describe 'financial criminals' sadly no word exists in the human language. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Death Editor 2, participating in a discussion both logged out and logged in is considered abuse of multiple accounts. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
