Talk:Martin Shkreli

Use of tense

Is it correct to describe someone's previous profession as being in the current tense, when they are currently in prison? I'm assuming there's a wikipedia editorial precedent for this.

Paolo999~enwiki (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Paul

Agreed. Martin Shkreli is not a businessman at the current time. He is a former businessman, and convicted felon. Kim.mason (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Adjusted the wording of the first sentence. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Shkreli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151122022744/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kalobios-stock-rockets-investment-shkreli-194805694.html to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/kalobios-stock-rockets-investment-shkreli-194805694.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/business/drug-prices-valeant-martin-shkreli-congress.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://esportsgo.com/enemy-esports-turned-1-2-million-league-legends-team/esports

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

There is a spelling mistake in this paragraph -> "Criminal prosecution and conviction" (in the second last line) change "Shkreloi's" to "Shkreli's" 132.208.105.184 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed General Ization ^Talk 20:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Mental health

The article currently has nothing on Shkreli's mental health status. I'm very far from being an expert on Shkreli (I'm not even American) but he appears to display clear psychopathic, sociopathic and narcissistic traits. Presumably this has been discussed in reliable sources somewhere. It would be illuminating if the article covered the consensus on this. --Ef80 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

that is because there are no RS about his mental health. this is gossip. People can file all kinds of things in court. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't a motion filed in court, this was an order by the judge and covered in multiple RS's - the edit was still in progress when you reverted it. Given the overall context of the subject, it might be one of the most relevant sections that can be added. I propose the following text (as a start) which is properly sourced and notable and addresses the legitimate point raised by Ef80 above:

Questions regarding mental health

Court records indicate that in September 2017, Judge Matsumoto signed off on an order of psychiatric examination of Shkreli. The reason for the exam and who requested it is unknown, as the motion is sealed and not available to the public.

References

Cypresscross (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A judge can and will routinely order a mental health evaluation any time there are questions about whether someone's criminal behavior might be related to a mental health issue (or drug use, or any number of other causes). We already know that Shkreli is eccentric and has acted in ways the average person would find bizarre. Since the order is sealed, we don't know the judge's reason for ordering it, who requested it, or its findings. The bottom line is that this says absolutely nothing conclusive about Shkreli's health, and describing it as a "mental health profile" improperly suggests otherwise. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The title as you'll notice was changed to "Questions regarding mental health", the order of a psych exam points to, as the question above by Ef80 does, questions beyond just eccentricities. The section says much more than "nothing", it says the judge questioned his mental health, which is notable. Cypresscross (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has questions about Shkreli's mental health (most likely, even his attorneys, who may have been the ones to file the motion); there is nothing notable about a judge ordering a routine psychiatric evaluation. It happens every day. Until there is something conclusive to say about professional determinations concerning his mental health, we should say nothing at all. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a conclusive professional determination of the exam here, which would have been added to the section next. I look forward to additional comments and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Salsberg's stated findings, restated carefully and briefly, are appropriate to add in a paragraph appearing prior to his sentencing (because that's when the examination occurred). It most likely does not require its own section. General Ization ^Talk 02:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The brief part might be hard, because Salsberg's findings seem to explain what lead to the criminal conviction. The following is an initial proposal for the text (which I still think warrants a sub-section):

Following a court ordered evaluation, Dr. David Salsberg found that Shkreli suffers from "generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and unspecified personality disorder," and that his actions were "consistent with a narcissistic outlook," "faulty judgment," "a sense of entitlement," and "denial, and rationalization in order to preserve his self-image." I look forward to your thoughts and feedback Cypresscross (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we know which of Shkreli's "actions" Salsberg is attributing to those personality characteristics? Note also that the linkage to those (currently unspecified) actions pertains only to the psychologists's observations about his personality, not diagnoses (the diagnoses being in the first part of the sentence). General Ization ^Talk 02:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think the "actions" are not those for which he was being prosecuted (i.e. the context of the article and the only actions relevant to the court)? Further the later part of the proposed text is not merely "observations" (a word not used anywhere in the source) the source states specifically that they were the finding of the "exam". Cypresscross (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

When you ask "Is there any reason to think", alarm bells should be going off in your head. We simply don't know what actions Salsberg was referring to when he described "actions consistent with" the characteristics he mentioned. He could have been talking about the actions, generally, for which Shkreli was being tried, or he could have been talking about a specific action or actions. Unless we know the context (which we likely will not know, because only parts of the evaluation were unredacted, and it is not explained in your source), we should not assume we know what actions the psychologist was talking about. He could very easily have been talking about actions in Shkreli's past other than the ones for which he is being prosecuted, or even actions he has taken in jail while he was being held for trial. General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam seem clear from the source. Why not propose a version of the text that you think fits the article and comports with the source? Cypresscross (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the source specifically describes reasons (raised by the prosecution) to question the "subject, focus, purpose and implications of the exam". Conversely, the only parts of the exam we know anything about are those unredacted by the prosecution in their court filing, which means we may not have a clear picture of anything. I'm leaning toward none of this being in the article (at least not based on this one source) until better information is available. There is no deadline. General Ization ^Talk 02:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to have multiple sources anyway, especially on such an important aspect of the article. Cypresscross (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If you were to insist on saying something, and wanted me to propose it, this is what I would say:

Following a court ordered evaluation, Dr. David Salsberg found that Shkreli suffers from "generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder and unspecified personality disorder."

This is the only uncomplicated fact we can extract from that source. General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My initial sense was to add precisely that, but the rest of his findings also seemed relevant (if long), particularly since the most significant part of the diagnosis is unspecified. Its good to have more than one source, which probably is out there. It would also be good if other editors chimed in to help build a consensus. Cypresscross (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The rest of his "findings" (and the context of them) are only incompletely available to us, and in light of that we should not relate them. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And I would add " requested by Shkreli's defense team" after "evaluation", assuming that is actually evident from the source (I think it is). It may be relevant to mention who made the motion, as the prosecution is clearly questioning the motivation for and methods used to conduct the evaluation. General Ization ^Talk 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Cypresscross (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

As for the distinction between observations and diagnoses, "narcissistic outlook," "faulty judgment," "a sense of entitlement," and "denial, and rationalization in order to preserve his self-image" are characteristics, individually and/or collectively, of a large proportion of the non-criminal population having no obvious mental illness. None of those four observations describe mental illnesses; they are simply observations of his personality, which may or may not be related to a diagnosis of mental illness. A psychologist will not diagnose someone as having faulty judgment; they will simply make the observation. General Ization ^Talk 02:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind, please, that even though Shkreli is a criminal, this is a BLP and all the usual rules apply concerning speculation, conjecture or implication about the subject's mental health status. General Ization ^Talk 02:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree fully with the sensitivity around a BLP, the proposed edits have nothing to do with his criminal conviction, the reference provided above is not speculation, conjecture or implication about the subject's mental health status. Cypresscross (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to say that is enduring, encyclopedic, information. That he had a mental examination is meaningless. Should we "report" that he has had colonoscopies and dental cleanings too? It is just scandalmoongering crap at this point. The two sources you have there are a cable news source, which needs to strain at things to fill the 24 hour news cycle, and a tabloid. If at any point there is something to say about his mental health, outside of findings made in the context of a criminal trial, then we can say that. It will need to be very well sourced. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that I'm not suggesting the article say 'Some people think Shkreli is nuts' or whatever. However, if there have been interviews with psychiatric professionals in WP:RS who have expressed an opinion that Shkreli has a personality disorder then it is legitimate to include that info. I have no idea if such sources exist, but it seems likely that they would given his high profile and notoriety. --Ef80 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that we deal with any reliable sources that may turn up discussing the subject's mental health on a case-by-case basis. As the discussion above illustrates, any statements added to the article based on these sources must be carefully considered – before being added – to avoid problems with context, if not with being potentially defamatory. As for whether we need to go looking for such sources, I personally don't think we do. The average reader will very likely already have some opinions about the subject's mental health, and those opinions are unlikely to change (nor necessarily should they) based on a court-ordered evaluation. There is no reason to expect that any reliable source will publish any other qualified psychiatric opinions concerning Shkreli (see Goldwater rule). General Ization ^Talk 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:V is the minimum requirement for something to be in WP. On top of that are WP:WEIGHT and for a living person, WP:BLP. "It is in a source" is not enough. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This article suffers from the "On the 23rd day of the month of September" syndrome

Meaning, half the paragraphs are one sentence stating "On October 22, 2015 ..." (or whatever date) over and over again. Understandable, as when people add stuff, they often don't take the time to integrate it properly into the existing narrative. Could a person who watches this article please consider doing that? —Prhartcom♥ 19:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)