Talk:Michael Milken/Archives/2021

Continuing attempt at a NPOV

My name is Larry Weisenberg and I represent Mike Milken. My apologies for taking so long to respond to the change added by NickCT on October 22, 2020. Like so many editors over the past many years who have tried to promote their own NPOV, Nick added “convicted felon” to the lead paragraph. This addition is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry: it is redundant and serves no purpose but to inflame and degrade. The lead already includes a factual description: “his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws.” The entire second paragraph is devoted to his legal woes. If this is going to be an unbiased entry, I recommend returning to a simpler, factual entry: Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American financier and philanthropist. He is noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds ("junk bonds"), his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws, and his philanthropic efforts. Milken was pardoned by President Donald Trump on February 18, 2020. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional note: RegentsPark previously acknowledged my point by removing "convicted felon" from the lead back in August 2019 based on previous concensus. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Milken is far and away notable for his felony conviction, not for his philanthropy. To even put philanthropist in the lede at all is a bit sketchy as he isn't notably philanthropic especially compared with other persons of similar net worth. If the only thing he did in life was his philanthropic activities, he probably wouldn't even warrant a Wikipedia article. From my research, his philanthropic activities seem more to have been an image rehabilitation effort. I think it is NPOV as it stands. Epachamo (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You have illustrated my point exactly: YOU have decided that Milken is “far and away notable for his felony conviction, not for his philanthropy.” YOU believe that “to even put philanthropist in the lede at all is a bit sketchy as he isn't notably philanthropic especially compared with other persons of similar net worth.” And from your research, YOU have concluded that “his philanthropic activities seem more to have been an image rehabilitation effort.” These are all YOUR opinions. Many respected publications have disagreed with you over the past two decades. A small sample includes:

• Fortune magazine featured Milken on the cover (November 29, 2004) and called him “The Man Who Changed Medicine”: “Michael Milken changed the culture of [medical] research,” says Andrew von Eschenbach, director of the National Cancer Institute. “He created a sense of urgency that focused on results and shortened the timeline. It took a business mindset to shake things up. What he's done is now the model.”
• Esquire magazine named him one of the “75 Most Influential People of the 21st Century” (September 16, 2008), noting that “he's obsessed with accelerating the long journey it takes drugs to go from ‘bench to bedside’ ”.
• And Forbes magazine put him on the cover with other “comparable” philanthropists (Warren Buffet, Steve Schwarzman and Malala Yousafzai among others) as part of its “Visionaries Reimagining Our Children's Future” issue (December 15, 2014). “Milken has been working on education for almost 40 years and estimates he has given away approximately $500 million. His primary focus? Quality of teaching.”

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground of opinions. Factually, Mike Milken is an American financier and philanthropist noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds ("junk bonds"), his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws, and his philanthropic efforts. This is how this entry read for many years based on a collaborative Wiki effort – and it should be returned to that version. 12.44.44.11 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If you really think that the first thing that comes to everyone's mind when they hear the name "Michael Milken" is philanthropy, then I'm sorry to tell you but you are wrong, and evidently on the payroll of Milken himself. Wikipedia is not a place to change the perception of an individual. Wikipedia reflects the current scholarship and opinion of experts, which almost entirely focuses on his finance career and prior felony conviction. There is not a single scholarly article that I can find independent of Milken that does NOT mention Milken's prior felony conviction. It is overwhelming. For every one article you can find on his philanthropy, I could literally find 100 on his prior felony conviction, and this should be reflected in this Wikipedia article. Should we mention his philanthropy? Absolutely, when it is documented by independent sources. But it should not drown out what he is most notable for, which is far and away his prior felony conviction. Please read WP:UNDUE Epachamo (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Doing some further sleuthing, I would have a hard time calling Fortune, Esquire, and Forbes magazines independent of Milken. Milken was an early investor in Ted Turner, who as the owner of Time Warner, was the parent company of Fortune magazine when that article was written, the acquisition of which Milken received a $50 million consulting fee in the mid 1990s (https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/09/30/217426/index.htm). We have pictures of Milken attending parties with the Esquire CEO David Granger (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/david-granger-greg-simon-jhane-barnes-michael-milken-and-news-photo/591606866). One of the founders of Elevation Partners, the owner of Forbes magazine, has spoken at the Milken Institute (https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/GC2019_Agenda_FINAL.pdf). This article is very tricky, because Milken does associate with so many publishing companies, which there is nothing wrong with, but it does make it difficult to determine what a truly good source is. Epachamo (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Describing Milken as a "convicted felon, financier, and prominent philanthropist"

Just wanted to express my opinions on this pending revision, which I think should not be accepted in its current state. Chiefly, this edit serves to erase or minimize references to Milken's criminal background. I privately suspect that the anonymous editor has a conflict of interest. The edit removes "convicted felon" from the lead, something I strongly disagree with, and changes "philanthropist" to "prominent philanthropist". The latter change seems like puffery, but I don't necessarily disagree with it. Some of the other body paragraph revisions may also be acceptable.
From what I can tell, current consensus is that describing the subject in the lead paragraph as a "convicted felon, financier and philanthropist" is appropriate. While it should obviously be handled with care, the subject's criminal past is easily the most notable fact about him, so I believe it should definitely be reflected in the lead, as much as the subject and subject's lawyer may wish for it not to be. Should we consider a terminology like "former felon", which would indicate that the subject is not known to be actively engaged in criminal activity? RoxySaunders (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've rejected it. The current wording was arrived at through a consensus discussion and changing it would require a new consensus. Thanks for the heads up. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My name is Larry Weisenberg and I represent Michael Milken. I’m following up on RegentsPark latest post, noting that he was rejecting the addition of convicted felon to Milken’s bio because “the current wording was arrived at through a consensus discussion and changing it would require a new consensus.” Please note that the only thing that has changed over the many years since the consensus was reached has been Milken’s pardon, which has been added. I agree with RoxySaunders that “prominent” is not appropriate, but clearly we must keep philanthropy. Therefore, I suggest returning to the consensus description, as of February 20, following the pardon:

Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American financier and philanthropist. He is noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds ("junk bonds") and his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws. Since his release from prison, he has also become known for his philanthropy. On February 18, 2020 Milken was pardoned by President Trump.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

He is a felon. He is a convicted felon. In many people's opinions, that is the most important thing about him. To omit the fact of his felony entirely is whitewashing of the worst sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made my bias clear in every post I make – I work for Mike Milken. I guess I can't say the same for others. The consensus description reached in the past (as noted by RegentsPark) was established many years ago with input from many editors. It clearly states that Milken was “convicted and sentenced following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws.” That is a factual, accurate statement. When Orange Mike writes, “in most people’ opinions,” that is nothing but his opinion. It is not factual. He charges me with “whitewashing of the worst sort” and that I want to “omit the fact of his felony entirely.” That is utter hogwash as anyone can plainly see. In fact, the consensus description specifically uses the words “convicted” and “felon” already. Adding “convicted felon” is simply redundant to the facts already reported.

I continue to recommend sticking with the consensus opinion developed over many years. There has been no change in Milken’s status in recent decades that would warrant a change … unless someone is motivated to add a NPOV by adding redundancy for effect. This is an encyclopedic entry, not a gossip or opinion column. Milken deserves to be treated honestly, accurately and fairly – warts and all; no differently than anyone else. On the other hand, if someone wants to write an op-ed article, there are many venues for that. It’s just not Wikipedia.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless anyone has a legitimate point, as RegentsPark has also noted, I will return the lead of this article to the consensus description tomorrow. Thank you.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The "consensus" from above, is that "convicted felon, financier and philanthropist" "is appropriate", no? That's what this thread appears to reflect, (and RegentsPark assenting on). The only objection seems to emanate from Milken's representative. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:CCC. Consensus can change. Regardless, I do not see the solid concurrence from @RegentsPark: or anywhere in any of the archives. The closest to any kind of consensus was on November 2013, but even that I couldn't find any solid agreement. I strongly object to any introduction that does not include what he is most notable for, which is his felony conviction. Epachamo (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Editors: NOBODY is trying to remove convicted and felon from the paragraph. What I object to is its repetition, both because as is it's so poorly written and convoluted (any grammarian would agree). And secondly, there is no reason to repeat those terms unless you're trying to disparage. Take a gander at the second paragraph - it fully details Milken's legal situation. I'm not asking anyone to remove this stuff. The consensus referred to was in place on February 20, 2020 just after Milken was pardoned, which by the way, should not have made any difference in how he's described historically other than to add the pardon. It couldn't be more clear: the pardon triggered a long line of editors trying to paint Milken in a more negative light. If you're arguing for a change of consensus, it's only driven by two word: SOMEONE'S OPINION.

Exactly what do you object to in the Feb. 20, 2020 paragraph below??? It's all there: conviction, sentence, guilty plea, felony charges, violating securities laws: "Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American financier and philanthropist. He is noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds ("junk bonds") and his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating U.S. securities laws. Since his release from prison, he has also become known for his philanthropy. On February 18, 2020 Milken was pardoned by President Trump."

If you're looking for RegentsPark, just scroll up a bit in this thread.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Objection: Mike Milken is known as a felon more than as a "philanthropist", and perhaps even more than as a financier. Attempts to whitewash him by drowning in words should not be made. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

More inaccuracies

I'm still Larry Weisenberg and I still represent Mike Milken. Milken was fully pardoned by President Trump, according to any news source you wish to consult. The recent inaccurate change regarding clemency should be reversed now. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that he still has a lifetime ban on working in the securities industry. I wouldn't consider this a full pardon. Epachamo (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You've identified two separate topics. President Trump granted a full pardon to Milken. Many years ago, the SEC banned him from working in the securities industry, but this is totally unrelated to his presidential pardon. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The reference (Washington Post) specifically uses the word "clemency". Do you have a better reference? Epachamo (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's start with CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/trump-pardons-michael-milken-face-of-1980s-financial-scandals.html). Then the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-has-commuted-sentence-of-rod-blagojevich-11582051259?mod=searchresults_pos5&page=1). What may be confusing to you are the references to the word "clemency" in headlines; however, if you read the articles you'll see that he was pardoned. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Even those articles you cite each use the word "clemency", within the articles themselves. Epachamo (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're expending a lot of energy arguing against reported facts. You actually have to "read" the articles. The WSJ article states that Milken was pardoned and Blagojevich had his sentence commuted. These are two very different factual events that the reporter lumps together as clemency actions. Note that in the paragraph following the fact that Trump pardoned Milken, the newspaper states that Trump "also issued full pardons" to Bernard Kerik and Edward J. DeBartolo. This directly illustrates that Milken was granted a full pardon - it cannot be more clear. The CNBC article states: "President Donald Trump issued a pardon Tuesday to Michael Milken." A February 19, 2020 article by NPR (https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807488161/a-look-at-the-newly-pardoned-michael-milken-a-junk-bond-king-turned-philanthropi) states: "President Trump pardoned financier Michael Milken Tuesday." An Institutional Investor article dated February 18 (https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1kdhwbh80t31l/Michael-Milken-Pardoned-by-President-Trump) reported that "President Donald Trump has pardoned “junk bond king” Michael Milken." LarryWeisenberg (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just a volunteer, trying not to get bullied by a Billionaire's lawyer into phrasing something in a way that makes his client look good rather than in a way that is factually accurate. You will have to pardon me if I'm skeptical, as I do expend a lot of energy doing my due diligence to get things right. Despite what you say, it very much could be more clear. There are a number of high quality sources that use "clemency" and "pardon" interchangeably. Do you have a link to the actual text of the pardon/clemency act? Can you point to a source that makes a legal distinction between the two terms, and further connects Milken's case to one of those two legal distinctions? Epachamo (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, I'm not a lawyer. Nor am I trying to bully you, and I don't appreciate the insult; I think I've been pretty straight forward all along. I have already provided four impeccable news sources that cite Milken's full pardon; one article even differentiated between a pardon and a commutation. Now I've tracked down the official White House statement (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-regarding-executive-grants-clemency-2/) clearly stating that Milken received a "Full Pardon." Please note that Trump also issued grants of commutation to others. Are we good now? LarryWeisenberg (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided also calls it an "act of clemency." I'm still unclear as to why the word "clemency" is inaccurate, POV, or misleading. I also would ask that you read [1] and refute the central point, not the personal characteristics or authority of myself. I'll commit to doing the same, and I apologize for referring to you as a lawyer when you are not one. Epachamo (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling me a lawyer is hardly an insult. Calling me a bully, however, is inappropriate. Clemency, as both myself and the articles explain, is an umbrella term under which commutations and pardons come. So, most accurately, Rod Blagojevich had a prison sentence commuted, which resulted in his early release from prison. Milken, whose term ended nearly 30 years ago, was granted a "full pardon" by the president. Here is a definition from Clear Up My Record (http://www.clearupmyrecord.com/pardon-vs-celemency.php#:~:text=Clemency%20is%20a%20general%20term,actually%20clearing%20your%20criminal%20record.&text=A%20pardon%20is%20meant%20to,appropriate%20for%20the%20crime%20committed.): "While clemency and pardon are not interchangeable, a pardon is a form of clemency. Clemency is a general term for reducing the penalties for a particular crime without actually clearing your criminal record. A clemency can come in the form of a pardon, which is forgiveness of a sentence, a commutation, which is reduction of a sentence, or a reprieve, which is a temporary putting off of punishment while the situation is analyzed further. Therefore a pardon is always clemency, but when someone receives clemency, it does not necessarily mean a pardon." Therefore, to be most accurate, the White House statement reads - and this is the singular most-factual source on this issue - Milken was granted a full pardon. I suppose one could write that President Trump used his powers of clemency to issue Milken a full pardon, but that's just wordy compared to "Milken was pardoned by President Trump." Ultimately, to be accurate, you must state that Milken received a full pardon.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made the change. Regarding calling you a bully, no offense was intended, and please accept my apology. I would highly encourage you to read this Dispute Resolution Chart and refrain from making things personal. I believe you would be a lot more successful in your efforts to create a quality article if you did so. Epachamo (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewed, and I will continue to do my best to focus on facts and sources.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)