Talk:Sam Bankman-Fried

POV content
you restored disputed content back to BLP, maybe in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE in this diff. I subsequently tagged it. The source that you added simply contains a quote from the justice department, in which they insert the typical "in the interest of the victims" copy paste text into their press release. As I stated initially this is probably grossly undue for the lead. If you want to keep it (as you have already done), then find some sources where the RS actually states this and not a quote from the US Justice Department. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point. You make it sound like there is more to the story, or they are not telling the truth. What is you have a problem with? The victims have billions of dollars in restitution coming to them held in escrow. The prosecution will gain nothing by having a second trial, even if they win, it won't change the outcome. This is what the RS says. Do you doubt this? Do you disbelieve them? Do you think the prosecution has some other motive than justice for the victims? What would that motive be? Seriously you make it sound the prosecution is not representing victims - who are legitimately victims now - or that Bankman-Fried is not guilty of being a criminal. -- Green  C  05:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble seeing justification for the tag; a better source is not needed. The Justice Department is a reliable source for the reasons the Justice Department did or did not do something. FYI the reversion was explicitly not a BLPRESTORE issue since BLP concerns weren't cited in the initial removal. It probably is indeed overdetailed for the lead, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's odd on the one hand to say they decided not to prosecute a second trial, but then not disclose why. It's like, huh? Why not? The two things go together. --  Green  C  06:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to mention a trial that did not occur in the lead at all. Completely fails the ten-year test. VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be true. I'd be OK with removal entire from the lead. -- Green  C  20:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The LEAD summarizes the article, that's first. What is the reason that the US Justices Department's press release needs to be in the lead? The approach here is not to challenge my removal, you need to justify inclusion. I already pointed out that your approach was in violation of policy and it continues to be. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * little less battleground and a little more communication would be nice. I've said why I don't think this reliably sourced info needs to be in the lead, but no policy violation was or is present. This information is already in the article as well so "the lead is supposed to summarize the article" isn't a great argument. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also dont see the need to mention a DOJ press release in wikivoice in the lead of this article. Prosecutors often refer to saving the victims when they drop charges. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What do both of you think of removing mention of a 2nd trial from the lead altogether? VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably shouldnt be there. They are just allegations at this point and it is undue weight since the allegations were dropped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Very recent change to opening paragraph -- questionable?
Should "Jewish American" be included in the first sentence? I saw that someone made this change very recently and thought it might deserve discussion first. Thanks! 205.178.63.9 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That edit has been removed a few times. MOS:ETHNICITY suggests that it's not appropriate here: Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I made this edit -- As mentioned before, it goes against the guidelines, but additionally Sam has mentioned that he is a non-practicing Jew. Adding that is in bad taste, and not remotely relevant to what made him notable. External-cover (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that @TarkusAB was the editor associated with this change, adding it back after several edits to remove it. External-cover (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true. All I did was remove an in-line external link. "Jewish" was added in by an IP. TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies!! Correct, and once again -- apologies. External-cover (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Problem continues. Requested page protection. -- Green  C  00:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

change of photo image
I would like to request changing the main image of sam bankman fried. i work with esports organization TSM and he is wearing a TSM jersey in this pic, showing half of our logo on his chest. this is the image im reffering too https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sam_Bankman-Fried#/media/File:Sam_Bankman-Fried.png

i would like to suggest to please use this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sam_Bankman-Fried#/media/File:MIT_Bitcoin_Expo_2022_-_Sam_Bankman.png

or please crop the existing image to not show top half of our logo on his chest. for reference you can see our logo on www.tsm.gg 209.232.4.17 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did the crop on the principle that it is a trademark and doesn't add anything to the photo. However, know that there's nothing wrong with the uncropped image. the TSM logo is public domain, and TSM and FTX were business partners, so there's no trademark infringement going on here. The uncropped image will remain on Commons. I won't fight a revert if someone disagrees with my assessment. TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the crop action, logo was a distraction anyway.. I suppose one could request the original image be deleted from commons, but I'm not sure on what grounds other than not liking the association. Imagine how many criminals have been photographed wearing Adidas sportswear: "During the 1990s-2000s, adidas also became an aspirational symbol within the world of crime". IOW 'If you don't like the feds, don't make the threads.' --  Green  C  00:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"At the peak of his success"???
What success? Scamming people? This reads like it was written by Bankman-Fried himself. He is a fraudster, he was never a success. Please remove this from the summary. I had done this already and replaced it with the neutral, objective - "At one point, ..." Do not attempt to glamourize this individual with misinformation. He made big bucks through fraud and fraud alone. 2604:3D09:4184:5100:6D85:C839:DA7A:7E2E (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed, have removed this wording that is actually PR + POV, it's offensive to people who lost money because of him. -- Devoke water  21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 2604:3D09:4184:5100:28C2:E9F:77AE:1D7F (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OM: Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. And Wikipedia is not censored. Note that if enough sources qualify B-F as, for example, "one of the most successful fraudsters ever," or some such, then there could not be a strong objection to include the use of that word, "success" or its derivatives, in the article. No "promotion" or "editors' opinions" there. But, either way, please check out my suggestion below, no matter what the language in sources is. -The Gnome (talk)


 * The lead section is a chronological narrative of his life story, which for SBF is one of rise and fall. The way we do things [ideally] is telling life stories chronologically as they occurred. You have to read the entire thing, not cherry pick words and sentences and ignore everything else. He was not always considered a bad guy. If his former public image of being successful is now offensive to his victims, that's understandable, but his former public image of being successful is a major part of his notability, and part of why his downfall is such a big deal - we all got fooled. But, if people want to suppress how publicly successful he was considered before it was known he was a scammer, the impact of his downfall will be harder to understand, particularly for future generations who didn't live through it, or are not familiar with who SBF is. The phrase "At one time" is vague and misses the point. If the word "success" is a problem we can try something else, since the sentence concerns his net worth, more precise would be "net worth". -- Green  C  23:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To denote the zenith of B-F's criminal enterprise, we could use the expression "at the peak of Bankman'Fried's fraudulent schemes", etc. -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's overkill and out of chronological order. If the lead section is unable to convey how widely respected, admired, etc.. he was, then it is not accurately portraying the history of what occurred. He betrayed many people, who trusted him, and didn't know it was a fraudulent scheme. This needs to be conveyed, and it's easily done if you just give a little space to demonstrating it. It's very simple, tell the story in chronological order giving the basic facts as we knew them as they were revealed over time (except the first sentence which is special). -- Green  C  15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Appeals process
Special:Diff/1222816958/1222993873 - "cleanup nonsense. you never have to convince two courts, find a better source if you want to include all this. it is contrary to even a basic understanding of US law"

"The appeal would need to convince the District Court, and possibly the Supreme Court" ie. the appeal begins at the District Court, and if SBF looses that, he can appeal to a higher court, which is the SCOTUS, at which point SCOTUS either rules on it, or sends it back to the lower court decision (or directs the lower court to refactor based on some issue with the law). There is no misunderstanding of the law, it is SBF's appeal roadmap: he will need to convince the District Court, and if that doesn't work and he chooses, SCOTUS. This is basic, commonsense, law 101. Nor is it "crystal" (a woefully overused rule on Wikipedia) to note what is the absolutely predetermined legal path open for SBF's appeals process. -- Green  C  15:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
In the incarceration history section, please add that he is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution, Lewisburg https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_results 2600:100C:A211:7F18:358E:7CD8:2C0A:B889 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reverted and removed all this stuff from the article Special:Diff/1226545638/1226604366. Verify at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ choose the "Find by Number" and enter the BOp Registration Number "37244-510" -- he is still in Brooklyn. Everything else doesn't belong in the article, unless there is a reliable secondary source the says he moved. -- Green  C  18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)