Talk:Billy McFarland

Inaccurate Title
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)
 * You moved the article once and were reverted, so thanks for opening a discussion this time around. Upon conviction of a crime, a person doesn't necessarily stop being notable for whatever they were notable for before. More to the point, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and the way by which a name is disambiguated for the purposes of titling doesn't necessarily change because they've pleaded guilty to something. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding the topic, by any chance? Rivertorch FIREWATER  20:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument does not fly. He is most notable for being a con artist, not an entrepreneur, so the lemma should be "Billy McFarland (con artist). Bonomont (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bonomont. Virtually all of McFarland's work falls into the category of a criminal and not a legitimate business person. As such, the page title should be changed. harryh
 * I agree with the rest of them, and I'm an attorney. Upon conviction and especially upon incarceration it is not libelous to refer to a person as a convict. A convict convicted for fraud, as McFarland was, is a scam artist. Not only is this not libelous but it is inaccurate to refer to the scam artist otherwise because to do so implies there are "two-sides" to the story, a false equivalency between the truth (indictment and conviction) and something besides the truth. Reading the article and these comments I think it best that the "editor" be reassigned. There are two documentaries about McFarland and his scam, countless highly credible articles, and an inordinate amount of documentation besides the conviction. At this point, the false balance on this page is harmful to Wikipedia's reputation. Michaelo66 (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that article should be moved to con artist. Entrepreneur is not accurate. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To Michaelo66: Many editors have contributed to this article not just one and there are no assignments on Wikipedia. You're free to make the change you want. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is locked to us ordinary users (or at least it is to me); that's why I ended up here.Michaelo66 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also heavily agree. As we now know, he is not an entrepreneuer and has never been one. He is convicted con artist who is barred from being an officer or director for several years. "Entrepreneur" is factually incorrect, as the businesses (mentioned in the article, which are the only relevant ones) were all based on his cons instead of being built with the intention of lawfully earning money. The rights for this article were changed so moving it is not possible for me and most other users. Kulmanseidl (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what should the disambiguator (the text in parentheses) be? We can't just use Billy McFarland, because that is already taken. Please propose an encyclopedic disambiguator, perhaps linking to examples of similar biographical articles that use the same word. Suggestions already made on this page are "criminal", "fraudster", "con artist", and possibly others. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fraudster. He has no credibility as a legitimate entrepreneur. Billy McFarland became a household name because of the spectacular failure of Fyre Fest and the laundry list of crimes he committed leading up to its collapse. He was largely unknown prior to the festival-- as entrepreneur, fraudster or anything else. If you're going to put forth Magnises as evidence that Billy McFarland should be classified as an entrepreneur, it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. Magnesis was a scam, albeit a less-publicized one, that hinged on promising its 'members' access to exclusive deals that didn't exist. He's no more of an entrepreneur and no less of a fraudster than John McNamara (fraudster). Those with edit access should strongly consider classifying Billy McFarland in the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:4173:8600:F4FB:83F:6F6A:3F69 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2019 (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)


 * This whole conversation is based on the old title of this article. It was called Billy McFarland (entrepreneur), was moved to Billy McFarland (fraudster) in 2019, and finally moved here last year. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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


 * 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. -- Green  C  17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)