Jump to content

Talk:Michael Bloomberg/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


Changed order in article

I just changed the order of some paragrahs to better reflect the importnace of the current bid for presidency. Furthermore, some unimportant aspects of the prior rumours in 2019, that mainly were copied to the main page for the presidential bid anyway, were deleted here.Meerwind7 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Introductory section too long

In my view, the introductory section before the list of content is way too long. Still after I moved some sentences to the rumours' section.Meerwind7 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Meerwind7, I concur with that assessment. We should include a brief sentence or two about his founding Bloomberg L.P. and his terms as mayor of New York City. We should also mention his birthplace, but the part about The Giving Pledge doesn't belong in the Lede. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs could, and should, be migrated elsewhere. Doug Mehus T·C 21:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I shortened the Lede to four sentences: Birth and professions, musiness life, mayor of New York City, and presidential candidate. The latter one will change either to be irrelevant and deleted, to him being the Democrat's candidate or to be president. As Bloomberg has more aspects to his life than most other people, I put the remaining context of the original introdution to a separate paragraph "indroduction" (or overview). I believe that is warranted, as few people have so many separate main aspects in one lifetime (i.e. businessman, phliantroph and politician). Many people will not want to read more. His wealth is now behind his founding of his company, as it originates from there. Meerwind7 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What Did Bloomberg Do About the Draft?

When a person proclaims a desire for public service, as Bloomberg often does, it becomes more interesting to know what that person did in the presence of a draft and a big war. The year Bloomberg graduated from college, the Tonkin Gulf resolution was a big issue and there was a very active draft of young men. Vietnam was ISSUE ONE during the time Bloomberg was a young man. What did Bloomberg do about the draft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2010, Wednesday (6 years, 8 months, 1 day ago) (UTC+1)

Student deferment I imagine. Quit impunging someone who could buy and sell you 100,000 times and have hundreds of millions left over. How many millions, let alone billions, have YOU made?98.10.165.90 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bloomberg-vietnam-war-story-probe-casts-doubt-didn-serve-article-1.937277Robinrobin (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg financial contributions to GOP

An editor has removed documentation of Bloomberg's contributions to GOP congressional candidates. It is violation of NPOV ethos to remove documentation of these contributions. It is most pertinent to include this documentation in this biography. There is a widely held assumption among New Yorkers that "Bloomberg is not a real Republican", or "He is a closet Democrat." In actuality, Bloomberg has given substantial donations to Republicans. These donations have a significant impact on races and elections. Hence, it is relevant to include this material.

Lastly, in contrast with much of what is in this article, there is firm documentation (two NY Times articles, authors, dates) of the claims that Bloomberg funds Republicans. One can go to vote_smart.org to see that these candidates are conservative across the board: on social, economic issues. --Dogru144, 5 July 2006, 20:22.

Administrator need for intervention in recurrent POV vandalism of financial contributions to GOP

Administrators, please intervene regarding the repeated vandalism of sections regarding his support for Republican candidates. Such vandalism is intrusion of POV. Entry regarding donation patter is fully documented. Dogru144 04:15 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dogru144, As long as the section notes his support to all political parties (he has supported both), I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with us mentioning only donations to one political party. Admittedly, I haven't looked at the section in question, so these are just general comments.--Doug Mehus T·C 21:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Bloomberg. 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:

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) 22:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Bloomberg. 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:

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) 12:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Paternal grandfather's birthplace

Why it is written that his paternal grandfather was from Russia if this statement is referring to an article in Britannica where it is written: "Bloomberg’s father, a Polish immigrant" ?

Yes I wonder it, too. In another source [1] his paternal grandfather came from Lithuania and his maternal grandfather came from Belarus. --Abc10 (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


These were all areas formerly part of the Russian Empire.
Nuttyskin (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

Please change "After being one of the largest supporter and financial contributor of Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, Bloomberg made it well known he loved President Trump." to ""

 Done The unsourced statement was removed per WP:BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"SECNAV"

ANSWERED
 Done --Doug Mehus T·C 20:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why in the Christ does a photo caption for an article about a civilian need to include US military jargon? FFS. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:45E6:FE9C:3F33:E0C4 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:45E6:FE9C:3F33:E0C4, Agreed and  Done. Doug Mehus T·C 17:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 25 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg → Mike Bloomberg – Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is the name used on his social media pages and website. Admittedly, most hits on google go to Michael, but there is precedent for page moves based on common names that go against google searches. Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thenextprez, we are agnostic as to candidates' websites. Lots of candidates use short names on their website. What matters is their common name; there's no clear answer here, so the status quo should be preserved. Doug Mehus T·C 02:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Doug Mehus, alright, let's consider that agnosticism to candidates' websites. Bloomberg himself very clearly is running as Mike. His campaign committee is "Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc." for God's sake. I think we should respect his wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextprez (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Common usage hasn't caught up with the campaign, which could turn out to be a short-term situation. BD2412 T 01:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless the campaign becomes significant, we should stick to most sources which use "Michael Bloomberg". Ylevental (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is known by both names. I don't think there's a clear common name here. If anything, "Michael Bloomberg" is probably still more common and recentism could be at play. At least we don't have his middle name in there or something. ;) --Doug Mehus T·C 02:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only is this the more formal name, it is often the name used in newspaper reporting.Davidbena (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Postpone While I dislike these shortnames, it must be agreed that there is also a Jimmy Carter and a Bill Clinton in Wikipedia. Have there been any documents signed by him recently, e.g. editorials in his name? I would AGREE as regards a renaming of the campaign page.Meerwind7 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    Meerwind7, In those cases. Jimmy and Bill were much more commonly used. Rarely did you see the news media reference "William J. Clinton" except in a biographical documentary after which subsequent references were to "Bill". In the other case, I can't recall ever seeing "James Carter" or "Jim Carter" used. With "Michael Bloomberg," definitely "Michael" is still more commonly used than "Mike" (though I suspect around the office, he's "Mike"...or "Mr. Bloomberg.") Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – WP:TOOSOON. If most sources start referring to him as "Mike Bloomberg", then we can re-assess the move. — JFG talk 03:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Uh, the man is 77 years old. If he was mostly called "Michael" for 76, and "Mike" for one, does that justify such a change? 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:45E6:FE9C:3F33:E0C4 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's worth pointing out that some media outlets are starting to refer to him as "Mike Bloomberg" (a quick search for the past 24 hours shows Mike being used by CNBC, Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, the Washington Post, and Fox News). Beyond that, however, he's still widely referred to as Michael Bloomberg. Let's wait a little longer to see which one sticks. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This dude has been "Michael Bloomberg" his entire business and political career. This move is basically an attempt by his campaign team to "rebrand" him, and to make Wikipedia complicit therein. Stop the madness! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:45E6:FE9C:3F33:E0C4 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is because of Wikipedia's nickname and hypocorism policies, which say, for example, if this article's title is changed to "MIke Bloomberg", this article's lead sentence will still say "Michael Rubens Bloomberg" no matter what, because "Mike" can't be presented in the lead section (or anywhere in the article) at all, I learned about this the hard way from JesseRafe and Bagumba. "Respect his wishes"? It doesn't matter what Mr. Bloomberg's personal preference is, I don't think his wishes are going to be respected on this site at all. I'm just worried about the edit wars that might occur because of this page move. Besides, I have always referred to this former NYC mayor as Michael Bloomberg, and never "Mike". "Michael Bloomberg" this article's title should remain. Jim856796 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need taxation section. He now supports steeper progressive taxation

There needs to be a separate, detailed section on his taxation positions; on income taxes, wealth taxes, etc.. That section needs to be separate from the Economic Issues section that is now out of date.

Need separate page for Political positions of Michael Bloomberg

Same as Political positions of Bernie Sanders. I and many others want more detailed info on Bloomberg's political and economic positions. The political positions article is the topmost link in the Bernie Sanders sidebar navbox: {{Bernie Sanders series}}.

If you look at the pageviews timeline graph in the show/hide box at the top of this talk page, you will see that the Bloomberg article is now getting a massive amount of hits daily. So people want more info. This need for more info can only be done adequately by creating more articles in the Bloomberg series of articles: {{Michael Bloomberg series}}.

Politico has a detailed site on the political and economic positions of all the Democratic candidates:

Please remove blatantly false information on the second sentence of the page

Please remove the change made by the user פֿינצטערניש on 6 February 2020. Bloomberg was absolutely NOT the Republican mayor of New York City from 2002-2013. He changed his affiliation from Republican to Independent in 2007 and was a lifelong Democrat before 2001. He was the Republican mayor of New York from 2002-2007, not 2002-2013. Please change it from "Republican mayor" to just "mayor" please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melioraoptimus (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC) '

He was a Republican mayor. Do you have sources suggesting otherwise? Per Vox, "He was a Democrat before his 2001 mayoral run in New York City, but switched to the Republican Party for his bid and subsequently won." Bangabandhu (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

He was the Republican mayor from 2002-2007, not 2002-2013. He was an Independent, not a Republican, from 2007-2013. I can't find any politician whose party affiliation while in office is included in their office position. For example, Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia page says that he was "the 107th mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001," not the "Republican mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001." Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melioraoptimus1 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is entirely correct, and I will remove "Republican" from the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Michael Bloomberg, KBE"

I removed the honorific “KBE” from his infobox, saying "removing KBE. Americans do not hold foreign titles."[2] User:Slywriter reverted, saying "BBC and other sources disagree and say he can use KBE."[3] Well, of course the BBC says so. Do any American sources use it? Here’s what American sources say about that: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." That’s from the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 9, clause 8.[4]

Yes, occasionally the British do convey a title on an American - not a title of nobility which is forbidden, but something like an honorary knighthood. (Has to be honorary; only British citizens can receive a real knighthood.[5]) Rudy Giuliani was given an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2002, but he doesn’t use the title. Others I found: Ronald Reagan GCB, George H.W. Bush GCB, Dwight D. Eisenhower BCG, Bill Gates KBE, Melinda Gates DBE, Billy Graham KBE, J. Edgar Hoover KBE. I’m betting you won’t find those initials in the lead or infobox for any of those people.

Right now it is back in the article here, but I am seeking opinions about whether it should stay there. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

US sources also reference it. WaPo[6], NYT[7], The Hill.
More pertinent and why I am almost inclined to self-revert is that I can't find a single example of him using the letters himself.
As to the Constitutional argument, He can use the letters but he can not be called "Sir Mike" as a result of the title.
Slywriter (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, the awarding of the honorary knighthood was reported at the time, as in the sources you cite. And it's reported in the article text. That does not mean that American sources (or for that matter any sources) took to referring to him as Michael Bloomberg, KBE. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Remove it. Per MOS:POSTNOM, we only use post-nominals when they are bestowed by the subject's country of citizenship or residency. Per WP:ENGVAR, this article should follow American style rules not British ones. DrKay (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Self-reverted, per MOS:POSTNOM, which was not the original reason given for removing it. Slywriter (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please re-instate mayoral political affiliation to reflect Giuliani's page re: placement of statement in first paragraph, as per the example followed earlier

If Mayor Giuliani's page is the example used to justify removing Bloomberg's mayoral political affiliation from the first sentence/paragraph, than Bloomberg's page should also correctly reflect the same format as Giuliani's to alleviate any question of bias. While the previous user was correct in pointing out that Mayor Giuliani's page simply states "Mayor of New York City," it is almost immediately followed by a sentence listing his political affiliations while in office. See the examples below, and please make the necessary change to move the sentence in bold in Example B to the first paragraph, as shown in bold in Example A. The sentence could be shorted, as per Example A, so as to not repeat the bit about "107th Mayor", etc.

Example A: "Rudolph William Louis Giuliani (/ˌdʒuːliˈɑːni/, Italian: [dʒuˈljaːni]; born May 28, 1944) is an American politician, attorney, and public speaker who served as the 107th Mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001. He currently acts as an attorney to President Donald Trump.[1] Politically first a Democrat, then an Independent in the 1970s, and a Republican since the 1980s, Giuliani served as United States Associate Attorney General from 1981 to 1983. That year he became the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, holding the position until 1989.[2]"

Example B: Michael Rubens Bloomberg[2] (born February 14, 1942) is an American politician, businessman, and author. Bloomberg was the mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013. He is currently a candidate in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 United States presidential election. [SHOULD BE PLACED HERE TO REFLECT EXAMPLE CITED BY OTHER USER]

Bloomberg grew up in Medford, Massachusetts and attended Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School. He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers, before forming his own company in 1981, Bloomberg L.P., a global financial services, software and mass media company that bears his name, and is known for its Bloomberg Terminal, a computer software system providing financial data widely used in the global financial services industry. He spent the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO. As of November 2019, this made him the ninth-richest person in the United States and the 14th-richest person in the world; his net worth was estimated at $58 billion.[3] Since signing The Giving Pledge whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth, Bloomberg has given away $8.2 billion.[4]

Bloomberg served as the 108th mayor of New York City, holding office for three consecutive terms, two terms as a Republican and one as an Independent beginning his first in 2002. A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later. Bloomberg campaigned to change the city's term limits law and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent on the Republican ballot line. His final term as mayor ended on December 31, 2013. Bloomberg also served as chair of the board of trustees at his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, from 1996 to 2002. After a brief stint as a full-time philanthropist, Bloomberg re-assumed the position of CEO at Bloomberg L.P. by the end of 2014. MeAliasX (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Bloomberg did not serve two full terms as a Republican as this sentence implies. He left the Republican Party in 2007 and his second term ended in 2010. In fact, he spent the majority of his second term as an Independent! Wikipedia should not spread blatantly false information like this. This edit should be removed. The original mentioned him being elected as a Republican in 2001 and 2005 and leaving the GOP two years after being reelected, which is sufficient. Melioraoptimus1 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is this not in the article?

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981, with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar,[7] and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.[8]

Products and services 3.1 Bloomberg Professional Service 3.2 Bloomberg News 3.3 Bloomberg Radio 3.4 Bloomberg Television 3.5 Bloomberg Markets 3.6 Bloomberg Pursuits 3.7 Bloomberg Entity Exchange 3.8 Bloomberg Government 3.9 Bloomberg Law 3.10 Bloomberg Opinion 3.11 Bloomberg Tradebook 3.12 Bloomberg Beta 3.13 Bloomberg Innovation Index 3.14 Open Bloomberg 3.15 Bloomberg Live 3.16 QuickTake by Bloomberg 3.17 Bloomberg New Economy Forum 4 Offices Peter K Burian (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate for an article on Bloomberg LP and not a biography of Michael Bloomberg. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is from the article about the company. But if he started all of these businesses, why are there not even a few sentences about these? Peter K Burian (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Chronology of third paragraph

It looks like Bloomberg's stint as chair of the board of trustees at Johns Hopkins University should be placed at the beginning of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.36.56 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible COI Editor?

I don't know enough about the Bloomberg's career to have a clear sense of the constructiveness of the multiple changes User talk:2604:2D80:E684:3500:49BE:5CA6:D9DC:B7D6 made to this page on December 28 and 29. These seem to be a mix of toning down or deleting some passages of questionable neutrality with deleting information on aspects of Bloomberg's career because they are "irrelevant."

The editor has only worked on Bloomberg-related articles. The nature of the changes and some of the qualities of the language, particulary with respect to Bloomberg LP, made me wonder if the editor has a connection to Bloomberg's office.

Sandy267 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sandy267: I wondered the same thing, but I figured that they could've just been a Bloomberg supporter. I believe the IP address geolocates to New York (though this says Iowa). Either way, I mostly found myself in agreement with that user's edits because they were mostly removing some pretty heavily POV material. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Sandy267 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I came here after reading about Bloomberg's spend on Google ads [8] and have to say I find the edits rather troubling and likely to be COI edits. For instance not only does it remove some negative information but it adds new information without citations for things like "Most large financial firms have subscriptions to the Bloomberg Terminal software". I have removed that offending sentence but really think much of this IP's edits should be reverted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sandy267: If you have an issue with a particular editor potentially have a conflict of interest, the proper place to raise it is on their talk page first, and then to raise it on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Article talk pages are for discussing how we can improve the article, not about other editors' conduct. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m new to this. I just joined so I could try to get a spelling correction on this page.

In the Personal Life section the word “disrespectful” is misspelled as “disrepepctful.” Donegak1 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Typo

"and employees bragged about bragged in the company's office about their sexual exploits." should be "and employees bragged in the company's office about their sexual exploits."Rick Phipps (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How does he pronounce his last name?

Is he saying the double "O" as it sounds in "book" or "look"? Or he saying it like the short "U" in "plum"? Meanwhile, the world seems to be saying it like the long "U" in "broom" or "groom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.83.213 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

as in “bloom”. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Redlining quote

This edit I restored is sourced to the AP, it appears to be appropriate.[9]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an editing/revert war on this paragraph. I support its inclusion. The content, which is cited with reliable sources, is a direct quote from Bloomberg. If anyone believes the quote was taken out of context, feel free to elaborate in the article with additional reliably-sourced information. I'm sure his campaign has responded at some point. Sk5893 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
We do not necessarily include everything that is reliably sourced." As the initial reverter made clear, this quote has been taken out of context and used to insinuate a meaning that is not evident from the initial event. Moreover, Reliable sources do not merely report the quote -- which by itself is a primary source -- but also provide context and the full extent of the discussion. SK, please undo your reinsertion and put it back only when you have gained consensus for it on this talk page. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate the validity of your proposed edit. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The initial reverter cited an opinion piece that never clearly stated anything one way or the other, incredibly nowhere near a factual news article disproving anything. ɱ (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
"Cite" means to use a source as a reference in an article to verify content. The initial reverter referred to the primary source, and asked you to watch the complete video, and then also referred to a non-RS summary for your convenience. You are conflating his attempt to help you understand with an attempt to use an invalid source in a Wikipedia article. At any rate the burden is on you to craft verified content that reflects the weight of Reliable Source narratives, not a cherrypicked snippet circulated by Bloomberg's political opponents through various channels. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a source which challenges the AP.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I found another (later) quote that might better establish a broader POV on his comments: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2011/11/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-not-the-banks-000000 My proposed revision: "Bloomberg blamed the subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 recession on government housing policies instead of banking companies." followed by the notation of his 2008 speech in question. This would help establish his POV on the economy and housing policies, as opposed to just dropping the quote in. Thoughts? Sk5893 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like most sources are focusing their analysis on the "redlining" piece of his quote. I think we should discuss that in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I would like to add the following entry: "Bloomberg blamed the subprime mortgage crisis and recession on government policies instead of banks.[Politico source footnote] In 2008, Bloomberg cited government housing policies intended to reduce the effects of redlining as contributing to the economic crisis, saying: [quote here][AP source]" This will help properly tie the quote into his position on the economy and help put the quote in its allegedly intended context (as opposed to the media narrative that "he supported redlining).Sk5893 (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly object to anything attributed to him that says "instead of banks". He did not say that banks were blameless. Your second sentence, "In 2008, Bloomberg cited government housing policies intended to reduce the effects of redlining as contributing to the economic crisis of 2007-2008." would be fine and is enough. No need for any quote from him. This is an already-very-long biography, we can't go into that level of detail. One sentence, one reference, no quote, should be all we give to this subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed the "instead of banks" line to better reflect his quote the cited source. Refer to my new discussion section below - this section of the article is getting incredibly detailed and his campaign is now notable enough to warrant its own "political positions" page.Sk5893 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

While we discuss it I am going to remove the whole section. This was added very recently and has been highly contentious. Our practice is that if recently added material is challenged, it requires consensus to put it back. And in particular, that we don't edit war at the article page until agreement is reached on what (if anything) to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Create a separate Political positions page?

As Bloomberg's campaign gains prominence, there is going to be a lot of new information crowding this page, which is meant to be a biography. Most of the other 2020 candidates have a separate page for their policies and political positions. I propose the creation of Political positions of Michael Bloomberg (see Political positions of Bernie Sanders and Political positions of Amy Klobuchar for other examples). On this page, there should be one section labeled "Political positions" led by a (main article) link, then a brief 2-3 paragraphs outlining his major positions. There is a lot of back-and-forth about specific positions that would be better suited on a specialized page. Thoughts? Sk5893 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Unless someone else does it first, I may create the page and start it by copying & pasting the information currently in this article's "political positions" section and let it grow from there. The next questions are: 1. What are the most important topics/positions to summarize in this article's section that links to the new article? and 2. What topics should be summarized in the new article's introduction? Sk5893 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
And what related detail can be removed from this bio? SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Political Positions Unsourced Information & Opinions

The Political Positions section includes a number of policy positions without sources and opinions. The first two sentences in particular have no sources or substantiation: "He is regarded as socially liberal or progressive on multiple issues, supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control measures, environmentalism and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. On economics and foreign policy issues, Bloomberg has tended towards a moderate stance. He opposed a timeline for withdrawal from the Iraq War, and criticized those who favored one." There are no sources for any of these positions, or for the fact that Bloomberg is socially liberal or progressive. Who considers Bloomberg socially liberal or progressive? These may be weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivere123 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've taken out the positions without sources as well as the opinions on Bloomberg's ideology (socially liberal or progressive).Rivere123 07:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal life

To stave off what may be a looming edit war, I'm initiating talk about the following content here - Specifically, diff, or this text:

During his time working on Wall Street in the 1960s and 1970s, Bloomberg claimed to keep a girlfriend in every city, which he disclosed in his 1997 autobiography

or On multiple occasions, Bloomberg has commented "I'd do her", regarding certain women, some of whom were coworkers or employees. Bloomberg claimed that by "do", he meant that he had a relationship with the woman

Nothing WP:UNDUE in a lengthy section about his personal relationships to characterize his life during that time using words that he, himself used to describe that period. Multiple RS, including [10] here, | and here, where he apologizes for all those comments Bangabandhu (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC) @SPECIFICO:

You have no RS there - one tabloid and two dead links -- and the content can be summarized without going beyond what he's said and without getting into salacious morsels and gossip. I used the valid references in the article to reduce the content to what's encyclopedic. We are not here to right great wrongs. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why those links are garbled above, but they're not dead. I'm putting them here:
- https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/bloomberg-campaign-apologizes-after-ny-times-report-on-history-of-demeaning-comments-about-women/
- https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/michael-bloomberg-democratic-campaign-sexism.html
- https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination
- Even Fox news, if that's more to your liking- https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/michael-bloombergs-past-comments-on-women-could-loom-over-2020-run
Really, its tough to find an article about his personal life that doesn't make reference to those comments. Their inclusion is critical. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Note that I did not expunge the content related to these matters. I removed tabloid style detail that was excessive and not suitable for an encyclopedia. I hope you'll study the guidance at the two links I gave you. Your sources do not establish any basis for tabloid-style detail and the sources you provide are weak at best. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm familiar with BLP policy, this is far from my first rodeo and its disappointing that you'd sully my talk page with redundant warnings. Especially when you're mischaracterizing your edits. The diffs are clearly linked above and I've highlighted the perfectly appropriate text that you've expunged. Maybe if you could explain what you think its tabloid-level detail or salacious we could get on the same page, but to me (and I think most other editors, as wells as the editors of the NYT, Fox News, Current Affiars, etc.) none of that text merits that label. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
You're apparently not familiar with these standard Discretionary Sanctions notices, which include the text that says they are not any sort of accusation but are rather intended to alert you to special Arbcom-mandated enforcement modes for articles relating to BLP and American Politics. Your addition of excessive anecdotal detail was WP:UNDUE and the same references can be summarized in an encyclopedic form that conveys all the relevant information without suggesting anything beyond what they say. We are not editing a daily newspaper here, nor do we repeat such content in detail merely because it's been reported in the press. I noticed you don't say you are familiar with WP:WEIGHT, so perhaps that's where we differ on this. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you've dropped the claim that its salacious or somehow appropriate for a tabloid as it isn't. Neither is it unduly weighted. Given the overall length of the article, the attention to minutiae around other business developments, and the importance of how he treats his female colleagues - if anything, the section should be given more weight, not less. Newspapers and magazines quote from the pamphlet at length; a few sentences in an entry is appropriate and encyclopedic. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reworded it so you would not immediately recoil. I stand by my evaluation of your edits. This is not about "how he treats his female colleagues" -- it is about how an encyclopedia communicates the issues. The fact that you cite a social issue as being your first priority suggests once again that you do not fully understand BLP or DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is already very long and apt to get longer if Bloomberg continues to be a candidate or funds the ultimate Democratic candidate. The appropriate way to handle detail on matters like this -- and there are many -- is to start articles that can describe them in detail. So there could be [[Gender issues at Bloomberg, LP], [Michael Bloomberg's views on law enforcement], [Education policy in the Bloomberg Mayoralty], etc. If you look at the main Donald Trump article, you'll see dozens of such spinoff articles listed beneath the infobox. All of those allow us to limit the main biography article to summaries of his life the most significant narratives about him. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless you propose we create an article called Personal life of Michael Bloomberg to spin off this I see nothing undue in a single sentence or two about this. Not undue in the appropriate section, relevant to the aspect of personal life and covered by multiple sources including Bloomberg himself. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Please review my edits, which contained the sort of summary, more than a sentence or two, that would be appropriate. What is not OK is cherrypicked quotes for shock value running into many times longer than that. Please compare the two versions. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention the sexual discrimination lawsuits? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg/bloomberg-makes-pitch-to-women-says-he-regrets-bawdy-jokes-idUSKBN1ZE2N3 Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Already there but not citing Reuters. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any mention of lawsuits or harassment claims.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
If you have no objection I would like to add language about the lawsuits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It is in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
It is not already in the article, but if your understanding is that it is in the article then I assume you do not object if I add it.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Do I need to explicitly respond that, yes I have an objection? OK then. When somebody tells you twice that it's in the article, why don't you just read the article and find whatever you overlooked? Nobody owes you their time to correct your oversight. If you put it in the article a second time it's going to be removed, and you will be wasting your own time as well as the time and attention of the other editors who are trying to collaborate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking about the claims against the man himself, not his company.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We went back and forth on this before, here is diff. It doesn't need a whole paragraph and really doesn't need a pull quote, but should be mentioned. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be very clear to you that there is not consensus to add this morsel, which -- taken out of context and in isolation -- is a defamatory BLP violation that echos the various tidbits that have been circulating in the media since Bloomberg became a prominent candidate. Your edit summary "per talk" is out of line here, and I am removing it once again. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I see it as significant enough to merit inclusion, and its been abundantly cited and prominently featured in many articles about him. BLP doesn't require the exclusion of negative incidents. One sentence on the matter is appropriate. Do you want to do an RfC? Bangabandhu (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You have repeated the insertion of an unadjudicated allegation from a lawsuit -- one that Bloomberg has denied -- as if it were fact. If you continue to promote this text you risk being blocked or sanctioned under either BLP or American Politics Arbcom Enforcement. Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
We may not need the specific quote, but a mention of Garrison's lawsuit may be warranted. "For years, the disputed “kill it” comment has been a central focus of questions about how Bloomberg treated women."[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
"Bloomberg was sued several times over the years. Three cases remain open."[12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I have warned you, and I'm not going to be your companion here any further. Do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
We seem to have had a misunderstanding.  Now that you know I am discussing his personal life rather than his business' lawsuits, please clarify.  I understand you do not want specific quotes, but warnings and comments about me are not advancing the discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Whose editing is contentious here? I'm accurately reflecting a cite and asking other editors to weigh in about whether the text is appropriate for inclusion. Yet somehow you accuse me of being disruptive. I think you may be heading for your fifth (!?) block. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. Thanks. El_C 21:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, I am not seeing the notice bar at the top of the talk page, if you intend it to appear there? SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, sure, why not. Added. El_C 22:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remove recently added incorrect information

A user recently added this line to the first sentence of the third paragraph: two terms as a Republican and one as an Independent beginning his first in 2002.

This is blatantly incorrect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source. We should not spread false information like this. Bloomberg left the Republican Party on June 19th, 2007, so he served 1.3655030800821355‬ terms as a Republican, not 2. That doesn't even round up to two! He spent most of his second term as an Independent. The line should be removed. The following sentence, "A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later," accurately lists Bloomberg's political affiliations while in office and is sufficient.

Who are you and who paid you to be here? - 73.97.133.207 (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Add to the blatantly incorrect, and ungrammatical, "New York City has not been won by a Republican in a presidential election year since Calvin Coolidge won in 1924." Coolidge was never Mayor of New York, and Mayoral elections occur in odd years ... like 2001/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4380:46B0:C560:A6B1:759E:167D (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Please correct Mayor Bloomberg's political affiliation as stated in the Mayoral section. Your own data shows him as a Republican until 2007 and an Independent until 2018. He was not a lifelong Democrat. This needs to be corrected. Morrisdlx (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added a citation for "lifelong Democrat". Thanks for pointing this out. SPECIFICO talk 22:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there some kind of recourse to User:Specifico very obviously showing a political bias in his editing? That article doesn't mean anything and is just being used to further a political narrative. - 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:AF (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The recourse you have is to expand on your position, here on the article talk page, while focusing on content rather than on individual editors. If you reach an impasse, please feel free to make use of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. El_C 07:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Medicare for all that are uncovered

@Sk5893: You removed the description of Bloomberg's healthcare plan He advocates what he has called "Medicare for all for people that are uncovered" rather than a universal single-payer healthcare system. with an edit summary saying it was redundant. Is the nature of Bloomberg's healthcare plan described elsewhere in the article? I don't see it. The sentence you removed is certainly not redundant to the previous sentence, which merely states that in general Bloomberg supports social and health services. If the plan is not described elsewhere, please undo your revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the wording (albeit tweaked a bit) back. In the preceding paragraph, it mentioned that he opposed Medicare for All but supported Obamacare and a public option. So there were two mentions of his healthcare proposal in separate paragraphs. I added back the line you are referring to in the preceding paragraph.Sk5893 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Looks good. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What is being done to ensure impartiality?

As everyone knows, this candidate is currently running for office, utilizing his wealth to attack from just about every possible angle, from buying Twitter followers to sponsoring Facebook memes. I noticed that this article is pretty devoid of his commonly noted criticisms, and as seen in the Redlining discussing above, there is undoubtedly an effort to remove facts like this from the page. Considering that Wikipedia is one of the first results for anyone searching for information on this person, it is not out of the question to consider that there are (paid) efforts to keep it as innocuous and appealing as possible. Who is responsible for this page's content, really? Who is ensuring that this article isn't a paid advert for Mike 2020? - 73.97.133.207 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bought by Bloomberg? Because his own personal quotes are inserted and presented as neutral facts (he falsely describes himself as a "lifelong Democrat" those are his words, yet it's a demonstrably false statement. He has switched parties multiple times — so he can never qualify to use the term "lifelong" (which by definition only means from the first day he was political to literally this day today without interruption). --Loginnigol (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article text does not say "up to this day". This talk page is for collaboration on the improvement of the article, not personal opinions and smears of living people. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this IP, this really has been lacking many details. I had to add about his many mansions, cars, helicopters, and planes and their environmental impact contrary to his "political beliefs", even though some of this has been known since 2012. ɱ (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Well of course you "had to add" information. This is a collaborative project. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
My point is, the omission of such important public information is either a significant oversight or potentially a deliberate whitewashing effect. ɱ (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That is POV. Do we track every notable person's airline miles, meat consumption, electricity usage and other environmental impacts? Your concern reflects UNDUE content unless you find Reliable Source references that explicitly demonstrate the noteworthiness and larger significance of such details. You should remove any such additions that do not meet this test. Please review WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You say "the omission of such important public information is either a significant oversight or...". Then boldly add the information. Obviously others may come along and alter the material you've added. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I already did... And thanks SPECIFICO. If anyone's coming across as protective of this billionaire, you are. Blindly ignoring massive criticisms and fighting back against efforts to add them doesn't exactly come across as NPOV either. ɱ (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is important to specify that Bloomberg lifelong Democrat before running for office. Simply saying “A Democrat before seeking elected office” could leave one with the impression that he might’ve not been a Democrat his entire life before running for mayor, when in fact he was. “Lifelong” doesn’t mean “up to this day.” “Lifelong Democrat before seeking elected office” clearly means that he was a Democrat his entire adult life before running for mayor. Melioraoptimus1 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg was from Russia or from Lithuania ?

At this moment in this wiki-article it is written

Bloomberg's paternal grandfather, Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg, was an immigrant from Russia ...

... while here https://www.geni.com/people/Alexander-Bloomberg/6000000013039079098 it is written that he was born in what is present-day Lithuania.

Also it should be taken into account that when Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg was born there were virtually no Jews in what is present-day Russia due to wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement

Pamerast (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

The claim that Bloomberg's company sold terminals to "all" Merrill Lynch's clients is obviously false. Merrill Lynch had many, many retail, individual-investor clients. So the claim should be made about "institutional clients". Even then, I'd drop the word "all".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.117.17 (talk • contribs)

I have tagged that content "citation needed", so we will see what references are proposed and exactly what they say. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Content was lifted from Bloomberg LP Wikipedia article. Exclusive in the source was misinterpreted as all. Source caused a NASTY self-published book warning, though seems to be sound information. Feel free to check out source now that it's there. Slywriter (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed major revision of section 3.3, "Campaign speculation beyond New York City before 2019"

I propose that we significantly reduce the "Campaign speculation beyond New York City before 2019" section. It's long, it's not relevant, and it's not what people are coming to this article for information about. It might have been relevant at the time, but now it just reads like old gossip to me. This article is already very, very long, and I'm sure it will only grow longer as the campaign progresses. I think we should trim it now to make room for more important and timely information that will be coming very shortly (whatever that ends up being). I propose each of the current sections be given only one paragraph (two at the most).

Thoughts or concerns? Trevdna (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Likely can be deleted in it's entirety. If anyone sees something relevant that isn't already covered in the other sections, a sentence can easily be moved to relevant header. Slywriter (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. SPECIFICO talk 08:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the timeline correlation between this conversation and the article edits, but as it looks right now, the "Post-mayoral political involvement through 2019" section is a good shortened summary of what was there previously. His past campaign speculation is important to note, but not in the detail that it was previously.Sk5893 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Move paragraph on "The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg" pamphlett

Someone recently added this to the article on the "Business career" section:

"During this time, colleagues published a pamphlet entitled Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg. The work included numerous off-color and misogynistic sayings that were attributed to its namesake. Among the contents of the 1990 publication are a suggestion that if women wanted to be known for their intelligence, they would spend less time at Bloomingdale's and more at the library.[29]"

This has nothing to do with his business career. Please move this to "Personal life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melioraoptimus1 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It most certainly belongs in his business career section and has nothing to do with his personal life. I've expanded it to show greater relevance. Bangabandhu (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn’t. A pamphlet made by Bloomberg’s colleagues as a joke for his birthday has absolutely nothing to do with Bloomberg’s career as a businessman. It has nothing to do with Bloomberg L.P. This was a personal event that belongs in the Personal Life section. Arguing otherwise is absolutely nonsensical.Melioraoptimus1 (talk)

Wikipedia works on reliable sources, which doesn't support your characterization. The pamphlet is cited in many articles, it is notable, and representative of Bloomberg's office culture at the time: "Biographies of Mr. Bloomberg, along with contemporary news reports, have described the company in those days as a hotbed of brusque talk that was often demeaning to women." Bloomberg has described it as a joke; no reliable source uses that characterization, and the comments have been verified by those who were there at the time. I'll expand the section further. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should remove the paragraph. I'm just saying that you should move the paragraph to the "Personal Life" section. Mr. Bloomberg's alleged sexist behavior HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS BUSINESS CAREER. His sexist behavior is a personal characteristic and thus belongs on the "Personal Life" section.Melioraoptimus1 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you intending to communicate by writing in all caps? The book is about his behavior in the office and managing his company. The personal life section deals with private relationships. The pamphlet most certainly doesn't belong there. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The pamphlet specifically belongs in the personal life section. It was a gift given to him on his birthday by his colleagues listing his memorable quotes. It has nothing to do with Bloomberg's business actions or Bloomberg L.P. as a company.Melioraoptimus1 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The content of the publication was about what he did and said at work. It was written and distributed by his coworkers. The only argument you have provided that is in any way credible to support your contention that it belongs in his personal life section is that he received it on his birthday. Which is really irrelevant, as his coworkers could have given it to him on his anniversary, his wedding, or his sendoff but its is entirely appropriate to for his section on business as it has nothing to do with his private relationships.Bangabandhu (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
not a personal life or election related issue. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree that it is clearly WP:UNDUE to have in the career section, which is ostensibly a highlight of his career. The reporting on the pamphlet came about as a result of his political activities, and thus belongs in one of those sections along with other reporting on scrutiny of his record. I attempted to move it here, but was later reverted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

I have restored the longstanding mayoral portrait to the infobox. This would need consensus on talk before a change. I have no opinion, but the caption "mayor of NY" certainly seems odd if we do change to the informal image. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on articles like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden is to use up-to-date images, especially where their official roles are not what they are nationally known for currently. Bloomberg is best-known nationally as a presidential candidate, billionaire, and media/finance executive. I support an up-to-date image. ɱ (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. The caption would need to be changed to match. Something like "Michael Bloomberg in 2019". SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind Bloomberg isn't a presidential candidate nominee yet, and maybe never. Keep in mind we have another whole article about his attempts to be: Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign. YoPienso (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Bloomberg isn't a presidential candidate yet? That is simply a false statement. Keep your opinions out of this. ɱ (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
My bad, and my apologies; I've stricken "candidate" and replaced it with "nominee." My point is that you could leave the mayoral photo here and put the campaign photo on the article about his campaign. YoPienso (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
That also seems reasonable to me. The three factors in his notability are his business success, his mayoralty, and his philanthropy. The presidential candidacy may be long-term insignificant. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Reinsertion of informal photo without consensus

I previously reverted to the official NY Mayoral portrait the last time this informal headshot was inserted. Notability is not temporary. Clearly, his notability comes from his business, his mayoralty, and his philanthropy. Of these, there's an official portrait that depicts the mayoralty. I think that's the more appropriate photo for now. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was still ongoing at Talk:Michael_Bloomberg#Infobox_portrait, which never gained much consensus one way or another. More voices need to be heard. ɱ (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The new photo really should be reverted. There are dozens of topics that can degenerate into edit wars on the BLP and we haven't even seen the debate or Super Tuesday campaigning. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Phone

This bit is sourced to 2005: Bloomberg maintains a public listing in the New York City phone directory.[1] Can anyone verify if this is still true? Anyone remote could try calling I suppose. ɱ (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ McIntire, Mike (July 13, 2005). "Who Has Bloomberg's Number? Anybody With a Phone Book". The New York Times.
Even on the remote chance that is still accurate, we should not be listing it or referring to it, per privacy. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have removed it. Thanks for calling it to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop and frisk

This was removed.[13] There's now nothing about Stop and frisk. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

These removals definitely require some examination. Generally I try to stay out of politics-related editing so I don't know how much we would normally talk about a candidate's positions in an article like this. It does seem to be a major point for his critics though. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Undo it? Seems like passing vandalism. - 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:AF (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This removal does not constitute vandalism —please see what vandalism is not— but obviously, if there is consensus against the removal, i.e. an objection which is based on sound reasoning —for example, reiteration rather than duplication— then the removal, indeed, ought to be undone. Please discuss while assuming good faith. El_C 07:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need multiple paragraphs, especially not a pull quote, and definitely nothing expansive when there's a link to the full Mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg article. This text could work to summarize:

Under Bloomberg, the reduction of crime that began during Mayor Rudy Giuliani's tenure [1] continued though some advocates have suggested that the statistics were manipulated.[2] The controversial stop and frisk program expanded and the number of documented cases increased more than six fold while Bloomberg was Mayor.[3]

Bangabandhu (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) My proposal:

The reduction in crime that began in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration continued during Bloomberg's tenure.[1] As mayor, Bloomberg greatly expanded the city's stop and frisk program, with a sixfold increase in documented stops.[3]

SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This wording is blatantly spun in a non-neutral, campaign-friendly way. You are actively attempting to remove this content from the article, trim it down as much as possible, and make it sound positive. What is going on here? - 2601:601:1400:2230:4D47:35A0:B665:49D0 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is Bloomberg's position on Stop-and-Frisk being removed from this article? This was a significant policy of his tenure as mayor, which is his highest political office. Just because it exists on other articles does not mean it should not be here. This would be like taking significant details of Barack Obama's presidency from his Wikipedia page. Rivere123 talk 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rivere123: Nobody is opposing stop and frisk content. The wording of stop and frisk content is being discussed directly above your post in this thread. You went ahead and put your own text, neither of the proposed versions, in the article. It really is not a good idea to put text in the article until this discussion runs its course and arrives at a consensus version. The issue is what wording to use. Please undo your insertion and join in this discussion with your reactions to the two proposals and/or your own proposed wording. Thanks. @Kolya Butternut, Bangabandhu, and Pythoncoder: SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: If there are any critiques of the language I have inserted or the sourcing, feel free to discuss. As it stands, the edits are factual and reflect the basic facts about stop-and-frisk under Bloomberg's mayoralty - that it had already existed, significantly increased, and then was reformed by court order. Thank you for your discussion. talk 02:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Rivere123, that is not really a constructive use of the Wikipedia article/talk page structure here. By the time we have half a dozen interested editors on the talk page trying to work out a mutually agreeable wording, it's not helpful for you to preempt the discussion and put entirely different wording in the article. You've put yourself and your idea in front of all the others who have come to the talk page to seek consensus. I hope you'll give this some thought and remove your version and engage with the rest of us here on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The edit should be reverted as WP:OR / WP:Synth. It is an incorrect stating of the facts found in the executive summary of the Primary Document used. Stop and Frisk is not unconstitutional, the use of race as the sole factor is. Plus 'signature' is weasel word especially unattributed and not supported by the ACLU page linked to. Slywriter (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so to correct the language: "Bloomberg's crime policy included the use of Stop-and-Frisk, a policy which existed before Bloomberg was mayor and which Bloomberg increased significantly during his mayoralty. The policy allowed New York police officers to pat down civilians without a warrant. Under Bloomberg, the number of reported stops grew 604%, from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011,[48] before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York overturned the implementation of stop-and-frisk in 2013 for potentially violating civilians' Fourth Amendment rights. [49]" Keep in mind that stop-and-frisk was not deemed unconstitutional, but the way in which it was implemented was. We could make a note that the policy of stop-and-frisk was not ruled unconstitutional.Rivere123 talk 03:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remove your text from the article and comment in terms of the two proposals in this thread above. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have good wording yet but I would think we should include all 3 components: continuation of previous adminstration policies, large expansion, and fallout including reprimand by court.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please post your proposed version after you've had time to work on it. Meanwhile somebody needs to get the recently inserted text out of the article! SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Well this is certainly more nuanced than expected. Anyway,here is an attempt to capture all the facts. Grammar, word choice and linking may need adjustment:

The reduction in crime that began in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration continued during Bloomberg's tenure.[4] As mayor, Bloomberg greatly expanded the city's stop and frisk program, with a sixfold increase in documented stops, from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011.[5] New York City's policy was challenged in US Federal Court and portions of the policy were found to potentially violate civilians' 4th amendment rights.[6] Bloomberg's adminstration appealed the ruling, based on statements given by Judge Shira Scheindlin prior to the case being filed. This appeal was accepted and the case was sent to a new judge. His successor, Bill de Blasio dropped the appeal and allowed the ruling to take effect without any further consideration of the merits.[7]

Slywriter (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal. I've formatted the proposals for clear comparison.
I like it but I think the last three sentences about the legal details could be combined into one.Bangabandhu (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that, for the sake of brevity in this bio article (not in the new article about his policies) that detail like "from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011" and "based on statements given by Judge Shira Scheindlin prior to the case being filed. This appeal was accepted and the case was sent to a new judge." can be removed. (We'd just need to make clear that the appeal was not adjudicated before Bloomberg left office). SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Shorter Version with too many commas:

The reduction in crime that began in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration continued during Bloomberg's tenure.[4] As mayor, Bloomberg greatly expanded the city's stop and frisk program, with a sixfold increase in documented stops.[8] New York City's policy was challenged in US Federal Court and portions of the policy were found to potentially violate civilians' 4th amendment rights.[9] Bloomberg's adminstration appealed the ruling, however his successor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, dropped the appeal and allowed the ruling to take effect.[10]

Slywriter (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This version provides a succinct explanation of the increase and subsequent drop-off in stop-and-frisk during the Bloomberg years. Much thanks.Rivere123 talk 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adding this, but it's kind of ignoring the elephant.  Stop and Frisk is famous for being unconstitutional racial profiling.[14]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It says that in the proposed text. "violate 4th Amendment rights". More importantly however, editors should not be adding text to the article while we are working out an agreed version here on talk. Also, we need to be sure we are not putting SYNTH or OR juxtapositions. Content about the effect or lack of effect on crime rates, etc. needs to be explicitly stated in any cited source. Meanwhil, Rivere, you should remove your recent addition and continue to discuss on talk. Otherwise the process becomes chaotic. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have slightly modified [15] the version proposed above, as just included in the article by another editor, to substitute "citizens" for "civilians" and Wikilink the Fourth Amendment, which is especially helpful for those less familiar with US politics. Additionally I also removed the word "potentially" as the Guardian article simply describes the judge finding the policy as implemented to violate the Fourth Amendment -- I found no qualifier such as "potentially" in the source being cited. Therefore New York City's policy was challenged in US Federal Court and portions of the policy were found to violate citizens' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We cannot link a reduction in the crime rate to stop-and-frisk. There's no evidence that stop-and-frisk contributed to declining crime rates[16], so it's irresponsible to say "the crime declined" in one sentence and "stop-and-frisk was expanded" in the next sentence. Stating that there is no evidence of such a link (as RS do) is helpful and clarifying context to readers, and prevents them from reading this article and leaving with the mistaken impression that stop-and-frisk contributed to the decline in crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't disagree. Definite impression of A leads to B. Missed that during the drafting. Though as I said on talk page, I don't think the reverse can be proven either unless the actual studies stated that once properly published. Slywriter (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah its too bad this wasn't raised when we were talking about the versions above but it should be added now. Bangabandhu (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The mention of Giuliani implies that his policies began a decline in crime which is not supported in the literature. In fact cities that had broken windows, the Boston miracle, community policing or no change in policy at all had similar declines. It is mostly attributed to the end of the crack wars and changing demographics. TFD (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Propose change to "New York City's policy was challenged in US Federal Court where it was found to violate civilians' 4th amendment rights and encourage racial profiling.. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The source does not attribute "encourage racial profiling" to Judge Scheindlin. Fails verification. If you have a source for that, please add it. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"In practice", she wrote in a 195-page ruling, "the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling."[17]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to establish WEIGHT and cite secondary RS to make a connection between step and frisk and crime rates. Otherwise it cannot be in the article. @Rivere123: SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please restore the text.  The fact that crime continued to fall after stop and frisk was scaled back was all over the news. [18]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Just propose verifiable text based on your source. SPECIFICO talk 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the reference on the sentence about the drop in crime after stop-and-frisk was discontinued. I find the sentence about the reduction in crime under Giuliani under Bloomberg to be out of place and not relevant to Bloomberg's mayoralty - why don't we also comment on GDP growth in New York during that time, cancer rates, or the number of music festivals held in the city over his mayoralty? It seems to be arguing the merits of Bloomberg's crime policy without really saying so. This sentence should be removed. Rivere123 talk 05:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The sources discuss stop and frisk's connection to crime reduction, that's why there are comparisons.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
In that case the sentence about crime falling under Bloomberg should be merged with the paragraph about stop and frisk, since it seems more like an observation independent of the stop and frisk policy. Proposal, with the parts referencing the crime rate put together:"As mayor, Bloomberg greatly expanded the city's stop and frisk program, with a sixfold increase in documented stops.[52] New York City's policy was challenged in US Federal Court and portions of the policy were found to violate citizens' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution[53] and encourage racial profiling.[54] Bloomberg's adminstration appealed the ruling, however his successor, Mayor Bill de Blasio, dropped the appeal and allowed the ruling to take effect.[55] The reduction in crime that began in Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration continued during Bloomberg's tenure.[51] This drop in crime continued after stop-and-frisk was discontinued.[56]" Rivere123 talk 06:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rivere123: You did not wait for the others in this discussion to comment on your text and citation here on talk before placing it in the article. You've done that repeatedly. The editing process cannot function, particularly under 1RR, if you are going to jump to the front of the line with your proposed edits without the benefit of others comments. Please undo your reinsertion. It's better than the previous source, but both the source and article text could be much improved. Also I am pinging Wikipedia:El C who placed the article under 1RR. Perhaps "consensus required" would also be constructive. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Enagaging on the Talk Page only when you disagree and then unilaterally introducing your own edits without any discussion is not a great look. I'm all for WP:Bold and WP:IAR but American Politics tends to get heated quickly so need to try a little harder to collaborate. Slywriter (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
There was no discussion of the drop in crime following stop and frisk when I added that section. I get the message, however - this can be a controversial section and I won't add anything without consulting first. Although I don't see any objections to that sentence besides the source, which has now been fixed. Also, criticism to my proposed movement of the sentence on crime dropping under Giuliani? Rivere123 (talk) 6:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Rivere123: You say you see no objection. The preceding post of mine, in which I pinged you, states Please undo your reinsertion. It's better than the previous source, but both the source and article text could be much improved. I hope you understand that I was politely objecting to your insertion. It can be improved by the group here, which includes many editors more experienced than yourself who are now focusing on the subject and the available sourcing. Please be patient and meantime, honor my request. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Would you be willing to state your objection? I do not see the point in cutting out parts of the article over as-yet unstated disagreements. If we can have a discussion about how to improve the language that would be great. There do not appear to be any objections to the sentence besides the reference, and I am not seeing any dicussion about the inclusion of the Giuliani/Bloomberg crime statistics, so it seems like those would have to go as well if we are attempting to keep the article unchanged until there is further discussion. Thank you for your help with this, and thank you for your experienced help with this article. Rivere123 (talk) 7:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It was not "part of the article" until you sidestepped this talk page discussion by pre-emptively putting in your version. As I said, the discussion process is slower but it is the only way to arrive at stable article text that is almost always better than what any single editor is going to come up with on the first try. You need to understand this. I hope you will consider. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
How do you feel "the source and article text could be much improved"?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to work on this in any detail until the disruptive, pre-emptive editing is halted. But, for one thing, this particular source is referring to the long-term secular downward trend in NYC crime, so "before Bloomberg" is unacceptably vague. The source is also not the strongest mainstream publication and could readily be improved. Frankly, it looks as if the editor simply googled for the first thing he could edit war back into the article with his previous invalid reference. I'm not going to moderate this thread any longer. Either an Admin will step in or you'll soon see things at this article grind to a halt, with everyone needing to choose between lousy edits or 1RR violations right and left. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems that you are accusing other editors of being disruptive throughout the talk section, when in fact they may just have a difference of opinion on how to keep this article as accurate as possible. I think it is important to remember that there is no one correct way to write the article. First you said my source did not directly reference the drop in crime (which is well noted). Now you have a problem with the citation because it can be found on google, which is a critique I do not really understand. If you have any problems with the language or the substance of the writing, please let me know and I can change it accordingly. Thank you again for your discussion. Rivere123 (talk) 9:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It feels like you're gatekeeping all of the edits here and then complaining that you're being asked to "moderate", while also refusing to contribute your own suggestions.  I think Propublica is fine, but I'll try to incorporate your thoughts.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say I was "asked to" moderate. But I shudder to think what this would look like if I had not done so. You paid attention, and your participation is much more constructive now, in my opinion, but we still have editors pre-empting the talk discussion and putting content in the article without collaboration. With 1RR in effect, that is a dysfunctional circumstance. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we will be okay without anyone user taking on the burden of moderating, unless they are an admin of course. As it stands with one user moderator the section is at a standstill with us discussing nothing in particular and not suggesting edits. Would be better if we approached this as equals.Rivere123 (talk) 9:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I note that all of the references being cited here are newspapers, or, even worse, are partisan web sites. Aren't there any proper secondary sources, such as academic books and papers, that analyse this issue? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Judge Scheindlin today

An op-ed by Judge Scheindlin in the current New York Times: [19]
Also this analysis and timeline: [20]
SPECIFICO talk 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to cite the opinion of an expert on racism.  But here is a quote behind the paywall:

Judge Scheindlin states "I believe he never understood the human toll of stopping black and Latino men, 90 percent of which did not result in a summons or arrest. But the stops were frightening, humiliating and unwarranted invasions of black and brown people’s bodies.”

Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b Gareth G. Davis and David B. Muhlhausen (May 2, 2000). "Young African-American Males: Continuing Victims of High Homicide Rates in Urban Communities". The Hertiage Foundation. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  2. ^ MOSES, PAUL (October 25, 2005). "These Stats Are a Crime". New York. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  3. ^ a b McHarris, Philip (February 16, 2020). "Should Mike Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk record disqualify him?". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 16, 2020.
  4. ^ a b Gareth G. Davis and David B. Muhlhausen (May 2, 2000). "Young African-American Males: Continuing Victims of High Homicide Rates in Urban Communities". The Hertiage Foundation. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  5. ^ "STOP-AND-FRISK DATA". NYC ACLU. New York City ACLU. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  6. ^ Devereaux, Ryan (2013-08-12). "New York's stop-and-frisk trial comes to a close with landmark ruling". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-02-17.
  7. ^ Weiser, Benjamin (2016-05-02). "Departing Judge Offers Blunt Defense of Ruling in Stop-and-Frisk Case". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-02-17.
  8. ^ "STOP-AND-FRISK DATA". NYC ACLU. New York City ACLU. Retrieved 16 February 2020.
  9. ^ Devereaux, Ryan (2013-08-12). "New York's stop-and-frisk trial comes to a close with landmark ruling". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-02-17.
  10. ^ Weiser, Benjamin (2016-05-02). "Departing Judge Offers Blunt Defense of Ruling in Stop-and-Frisk Case". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-02-17.

Questionable neutrality

This article reads as VERY pro-Bloomberg, almost sounding like an extended campaign ad. Could a “the neutrality of this article is questionable” banner be added to the top? Not sure what the official terminology is. Subowei.sully (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Examples? Slywriter (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I think for WP:WEIGHT, it seems absolutely disproportionate to have over 2000 words dedicated to philanthropy and another 400 to awards, while the job he did for 12 years as mayor gets under 300 words, with 1200 words for the mayoral elections. Discussing his legacy is tricky – absent a "control group New York City" that didn't have Bloomberg as mayor – because it means attributing broader trends to Bloomberg that might have happened anyway. Skimming through some critical headlines from google search, his decades-long defenses of stop-and-frisk and Muslim surveillance do not receive much coverage in the article, nor do rising rents and inequality or increasing levels of homelessness during his tenure. The article's coverage reflects the media's coverage, of course. If you're worth $60bn, it's possible to comfortably give out $50m a week to charities for the rest of your life and each time get a nice article written by a reliable source. It's "easy" to write an article about someone donating $50m to a charity, at least compared to examining diffuse and wonkish policy decisions about public housing investment (and no oversized cardboard check). I lived and worked in New York during and after Bloomberg's final term in office, and personally got the sense that he had a mixed legacy of trying to make New York healthier (soda & cigarette taxes, calories on menus) while inequality grew unchecked and the city transformed into (as someone memorably put it) "Dubai on the Hudson". Stop-and-frisk was a big enough deal that Stop-and-frisk in New York City is a sizeable article and is appropriately a huge part of Bloomberg's legacy. I won't pretend to know how to strike a balance for the article, though, which is why most of my edits are just to improve refs, but to start, I'd suggest moving much of the "philanthropy" section into a separate article and limiting this to the "greatest hits" album.-Ich (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The way this is handled on WP is to include NPOV summaries with wikilinks to detailed articles such as the stop and frisk in NY article or the protests at the 2004 GOP convention article. This article is his personal biography and we can't do justice to each significant topic within this article. It's also rather a stretch to pin income inequality on him. He was mayor during a period of historically low interest rates that favored real estate and finance, two of NY's biggest industries and employers. The "Dubai on the Hudson" thing, to the extent that it was facilitated by his initiatives on rezoning, may deserve a mention. Sources do not blame him unduly for decisions made in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, when there was credible concern about public safety and whether New York would take decades, not a few years, to recover. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree that NYC would have boomed under pretty much any mayor between 2001 and 2013, just due to global macroeconomic and industry trends (hence the tongue-in-cheek reference to a control group NYC). That being said, I think the philanthropy section gets disproportionate weight compared to the discussion of his policies as mayor, even though the latter is almost certainly more noteworthy (giving a billion dollars to Johns Hopkins affected far fewer people than stop-and-frisk did, for example). Deciding if one merits 50% more coverage than the other, vs. 80% or 20% more is still an editorial call.-Ich (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Just use articles like this as guidelines to determine weight: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-michael-bloomberg-bio-age-family-and-key-positions-2019-11 Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Or an article from before he was a candidate: https://web.archive.org/web/20180213013349/https://www.businessinsider.com/the-fabulous-life-of-michael-bloomberg-the-eight-richest-man-in-the-us-2015-7/ Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Like those, but probably not those in particular. The second is full of errors. The first is OK but Business Insider is hardly the best source for a public figure like Bloomberg. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Democrat Party

Would someone revert [21] by @DroppinKnowledge:. I'm at 1RR. O3000 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000,  Done – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This sort of thing is why we need "consensus required" There are lots of editors holding back, I suspect, so as not to use up their daily dose reverting inappropriate or contested recent content. Plus one never knows how "revert" will be interpreted by any particular Admin. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please Tag this article as unbalanced.

The article is extremely one-sided for Bloomberg and doesn't even bother to hide it. There is no mention of criticism or critical voices throughout the article.

I'm from Germany and don't even have much to do with US politics directly but I think this article is a good example of how wikipedia is unable to cope structurally with the media power position in which it finds itself. An indication of the lack of neutrality would be the least that can be expected. I don't care if there is nothing critical about the person in the US media, but in German media there is serious and noteworthy criticism. For example here: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/bloomberg-kritik-101.html and here: https://www.spiegel.de/thema/michael_bloomberg/

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberlin2 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing anything that isn't covered. Slywriter (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree.

Whoever wrote this are totally shameless and makes a joke out of Wikipedia.

I'm not American either, but i have english as my second language and read US news and came here after watching the debate and reading the news coverage. There was a lot of talk about him being accused of racism and sexism in the past, so I became interested in learning more about it. But it was relly hard to learn anything about this controversial stuff here, strange huh?

First, to find anything about the subject I had to scroll past the section on his business career, past the section on his political areer, past the section on his political views, all the way down to the last section on his private life.

As this section is divided into subsections, I then had to scroll to the last one called "public image and lifestyle" where I learned trivia such as his various cameo appearences and the name of his helicopter before i finally found it. In the last paragraph of the last subsection of the last section.

A total of 433 characters given to what was one of the biggest talking points in the debate. For comparision, in the same subsection 669 characters are given to some messy paragraph of how he traveled to work 25 years ago, and more than 14600 characters are given to the section on his "philantrophy".

Pathetic. Kittens n thugs 💬 16:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:WEIGHT. An article about an individual who is notable for a wide range of things should not focus on the last week of the news cycle. Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign, 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2020 United States presidential election is where "talking points in the debate" should receive the most coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Please read it aloud because I don't understand why it should be relevant at all. You use Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:WEIGHT to defend that controversies surrounding a politician that already received a lot of coverage decades ago should suddenly be all but erased from the article the moment they starts to campaign for president, and be given less weight than their commuting preferences, private helicopters and telegraphy skills? Kittens n thugs 💬 18:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
That was a question, Mr. Administrator @OhNoitsJamie:. Kittens n thugs 💬 10:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps because he hasn't been accused of racism. The Judge who wrote said decision wrote a NYT editorial yesterday to that exact point. He oversaw a police department and authorized the continuation of a policy that caused racial discrimination. Quite different. As to the sexual harassment, talking points in a debate by his opponents do not make this noteworthy to suddenly be the thrust of his article. Slywriter (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Who scrubbed his health history?

The guy has had a stent put in plus he had cancer. This should be part of the personal section. Dym75 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Shall we include he takes medication for high cholesterol as well? The stents may be relevant at some point given one of his opponents Heart Attack but the cancer is trivia and this is still a BLP, which to my knowledge doesn't have special rules for Presidential Candidates that we have to include trivial details. Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Can you link to the diff? Its basically impossible to keep up with all the edits to this page. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

He had a stent put in 20 years ago, not for a heart attack but for an exercise tolerance test. I can find no evidence online that he ever had cancer and you shouldn't spread rumors like that. For now I think we are fine leaving out any health history; this is not a subject that Reliable Sources are reporting on, and we don't have it for most of the candidates - except for Bernie because of his heart attack this year. If Bloomberg becomes the nominee it would probably start to be an issue that was reported on, and we can go with whatever sources say then. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg's stent has been widely reported on since the debate. Here an MD explains: Mayor Bloomberg failed one of these stress tests, and upon examination of his coronary arteries was found to have a blockage that might result in a heart attack. To prevent that from happening, he had a stent placed.[22] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN - You're incredibly dismissive, I really have no faith in you responding honestly here after a statement like that. For god's sake just Google it! this is not a subject that Reliable Sources are reporting on is a false statement as bad as what comes out of the Republican candidate's mouth. ɱ (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm not dismissing you. I haven't formed an opinion on whether this should be included; I am simply stating that at this time it is being widely reported. Also, he has had cancer, but nominally. [23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. "Nominally" is right. "Small skin cancers" (i.e., basal cell carcinomas or squamous cell carcinomas, not melanomas) are very common for people his age and have essentially no effect on their general health or life expectancy. To say that such a person "has cancer" or "had cancer" is highly misleading. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. This article might be helpful for this discussion. It says that most of the candidates "have declined to release full dossiers on their health, relying instead on the Trumpian physician testimonial." -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Bloomberg/Archive_2&oldid=947391912"