Jump to content

Talk:Billy McFarland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the Phrase "convicted felon" useful in the first sentence?

[edit]

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)[reply]

It's inappropriate, for all the reasons you say. It's a cliche phrases often used by non-encyclopedia sources ie. sources with no concern about NPOV language. Per WP:LEAD the first sentence says why they are notable. However one can only get so much into the first sentence. So we generalize in the first sentence, and then fill in details in later parts of the lead. And then expand on those, in the main body. This is such a common problem on Wikipedia we have an entirely lengthy essay about it see WP:FELON. -- GreenC 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a poor argument and is poorly written. Perhaps you can't help the writing, but I feel a first sentence accurately reflecting what the subject is most noted for is fair and probably appropriate. But the title labeling the subject as an "American Businessman" is quite misleading. A close inspection of his ventures would reveal that there was fraud or, at the very least, egregious and gross deception and mismanagement taking place. The title "Scammer" is far closer to the truth. 71.95.130.205 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]