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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Billy McFarland is not an entrepreneur. He is a convicted criminal/fraudster. This Wikipedia page is inaccurate in title and in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcullen1128 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
To add further comment; he has started multiple companies with fraudulent financial statements, lied to investors, been convicted of multiple counts of financial crimes, and when on a bail for the Fyre Fraud; he created a new company under false pretense that sold fake tickets. He has shown no remorse and a pattern of fraudulent behavior. In summary, he is more a criminal than entrepreneur.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsmalls1 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Not an entrepreneur. Likewise, we wouldn’t called Bernie Madoff just a “financier”, in light of full weight of evidence. Genetikbliss ( talk) 01:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
We try to avoid labeling people and prefer to simply describe what they do or did. See WP:Crime labels. If a label can be considered true is not the point. Any article that pejoratively labels a person's entire existence, particularly in the first few sentences of a lead section, immediately pops out to readers as unobjective, punishing, unprofessional and puerile name calling - name calling is almost never a good solution for a number of reasons. Again see WP:Crime labels. -- Green C 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like Wikipedia is great and I never feel a need to edit. I'm trying to learn more about it, but I'm always curious about the phrase "convicted felon," being right in the first part of a Wikipedia article. It could be due to bias against the word. Even though this person has been convicted of a felon, and is a felon, it seems both vague and also maybe stigmatizing. With regards to stigmatizing, I mean sometimes people are a thing and reliable sources and court documents can confirm someone is a convicted felon. However, is Billy McFarland notable for being a convicted felon, or is it for defrauding people and mismanaging the Fyre Festival.
I might be a single purpose editor. This is something I have written about on other pages, and maybe a more meta discussion is useful. I edit Wikipedia once every few years. However, I am curious about putting a statement like, "convicted felon" in the front. Is that a meaningful category descriptor. It seems as relevant as the fact that he was formerly an inmate in FCI Elkton. This is something true and also something connected to the way he is notable for defrauding people in the Fyre Festival. I just want to learn more about Wikipedia policy and stuff to understand if "convicted felon," in the opening phrase is relevant or appropriate.
How would you feel if the opening sentence said this instead, "is an American fraudster who co-founded the ill-fated Fyre Festival. He defrauded investors of $27.4 million by marketing and selling tickets to the festival and other events for which he was sentenced to six years in prison."
Other editors: Am I being pedantic here? I just find that the phrase convicted felon is both stigmatizing and also is vague. There are lots of felonies. Why not just say that he is a fraudster sentenced to prison and say what that is?
Feel free to point out if this is a good or bad argument that is or is not in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Hockeydogpizzapup ( talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Billy McFarland is not an entrepreneur. He is a convicted criminal/fraudster. This Wikipedia page is inaccurate in title and in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcullen1128 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
To add further comment; he has started multiple companies with fraudulent financial statements, lied to investors, been convicted of multiple counts of financial crimes, and when on a bail for the Fyre Fraud; he created a new company under false pretense that sold fake tickets. He has shown no remorse and a pattern of fraudulent behavior. In summary, he is more a criminal than entrepreneur.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsmalls1 ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Not an entrepreneur. Likewise, we wouldn’t called Bernie Madoff just a “financier”, in light of full weight of evidence. Genetikbliss ( talk) 01:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
We try to avoid labeling people and prefer to simply describe what they do or did. See WP:Crime labels. If a label can be considered true is not the point. Any article that pejoratively labels a person's entire existence, particularly in the first few sentences of a lead section, immediately pops out to readers as unobjective, punishing, unprofessional and puerile name calling - name calling is almost never a good solution for a number of reasons. Again see WP:Crime labels. -- Green C 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like Wikipedia is great and I never feel a need to edit. I'm trying to learn more about it, but I'm always curious about the phrase "convicted felon," being right in the first part of a Wikipedia article. It could be due to bias against the word. Even though this person has been convicted of a felon, and is a felon, it seems both vague and also maybe stigmatizing. With regards to stigmatizing, I mean sometimes people are a thing and reliable sources and court documents can confirm someone is a convicted felon. However, is Billy McFarland notable for being a convicted felon, or is it for defrauding people and mismanaging the Fyre Festival.
I might be a single purpose editor. This is something I have written about on other pages, and maybe a more meta discussion is useful. I edit Wikipedia once every few years. However, I am curious about putting a statement like, "convicted felon" in the front. Is that a meaningful category descriptor. It seems as relevant as the fact that he was formerly an inmate in FCI Elkton. This is something true and also something connected to the way he is notable for defrauding people in the Fyre Festival. I just want to learn more about Wikipedia policy and stuff to understand if "convicted felon," in the opening phrase is relevant or appropriate.
How would you feel if the opening sentence said this instead, "is an American fraudster who co-founded the ill-fated Fyre Festival. He defrauded investors of $27.4 million by marketing and selling tickets to the festival and other events for which he was sentenced to six years in prison."
Other editors: Am I being pedantic here? I just find that the phrase convicted felon is both stigmatizing and also is vague. There are lots of felonies. Why not just say that he is a fraudster sentenced to prison and say what that is?
Feel free to point out if this is a good or bad argument that is or is not in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Hockeydogpizzapup ( talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)