Talk:Michael Bloomberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bloomberg's height[edit]

Recently User:Chess added Bloomberg's height to the infobox. Chess, I disagree with this and I plan to revert it while we discuss. We don't generally report a person's height or weight, except for sports figures. For example, there has been a lot of coverage about Trump's weight (is he obese or isn't he?) but we don't mention his weight in his article. The argument given for including it was that Trump has been calling attention to Bloomberg's height. Yes, that's true; Trump has been calling him "Mini Mike". I can't imagine a worse reason for including it. Are we now going to list the physical characteristics of everyone Trump mocks? God forbid. Trump loves scornful nicknames and particularly loves mocking people that are shorter than he is; see Little Marco (Rubio), Liddle Adam Schiff, etc. In any case, the reference cited is not authoritative; it says that Bloomberg "once referred to himself as 5-foot-7" but other sources say 5 foot 8.[1] -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN Although I think height is a bit different from weight (since Trump for example used to be thinner, but he's not getting any taller or shorter), the fact of the matter is people come looking for information, and his height is something people will come looking for. I like Mike, I think he'd be a great president, but I came onto this page looking for his height and couldn't find it; I don't know any good reasons not to include it since it's in the popular zeitgeist other than to resist Trump (which while fun is a bad reason in this instance). 50.204.125.186 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, this seems like something that's worth mentioning on the page. It's also just interesting; there aren't many 5'6" people in politics, and that's not something you'd assume about Mike just from watching him on TV/hearing about him on the news. Haxonek (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to add a section where it says Blombers didn't ask for a box to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.54.223 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If they want to know his height they can just Google "Bloomberg's height". Try it! The answer pops right up.[2] Aside from Trump's nasty nickname "Mini Mike" he has been blatantly lying about it lately - the other day he claimed Bloomberg is 5'4", and there is a faked picture circulating that makes Bloomberg look like he doesn't even come up to Trump's shoulder.[3] If this keeps up and gets coverage we might want a debunking sentence in the article. But the height generally doesn't go in the infobox except for athletes. (BTW re: "Trump's not getting any shorter": actually he probably is. People his age tend to lose an inch or two of height as they age.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This is sort of unrelated but why is snopes fact-checking a meme? Would they also fact-check Seinfeld if they didn't like a joke he made? lol. That said you need to remember that wikipedia is intended for neutral content, it's not about taking political swings at people you don't like. I'm not saying you would do that but some of your comments are coming across as rather political Haxonek (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I added a section under personal info about Bloomberg's height. I forgot to add a section where https://nypost.com/2020/02/23/warren-placing-fourth-in-nevada-still-cant-resist-a-mike-bloomberg-height-joke/ also discussed it, making it a topic of political discussion that happens among the most prominent figures of all political stripes. Moreover, the New York Times in the 2000s detailed a lot of speculation and interest about Bloomberg's height, so it has been a long-standing area of public interest--not something that President Trump just fabricated. (I already cited that) HorseDonkey (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop and frisk/Muslim surveillance paragraphs[edit]

These two paragraphs have recently been added to the "Mayor of New York City" section:

"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, which ruled that the city's implementation of the policy violated 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 long-term downward trend in NYC crime which began prior to Bloomberg's tenure continued after stop-and-frisk was restricted.[56]

After the September 11 attacks, with assistance from the Central Intelligence Agency, Bloomberg's administration implemented a controversial "suspicionless domestic surveillance" program that surveilled Muslim communities on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, and language.[57][58][59] An eight-person NYPD unit profiled and surveilled schools, bookstores, cafes, restaurants, nightclubs, and every single mosque within 100 miles (160 km) of New York City using undercover informants and officers.[60] The program was exposed in 2011 by the Associated Press in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of investigative reports.[58] The program was discontinued in 2014.[61][57]"

Why should this section include two long paragraphs about just two policies during Bloomberg's administration while ignoring everything else about his mayoralty? This section is not supposed to be about Bloomberg's policies. Bloomberg's support for stop-and-frisk and surveillance is already mentioned in the "political positions" tab. These two paragraphs make this article seem extremely biased. This is supposed to be a biographical article. These two paragraphs belong in the "Mayoralty of Michael Bloomberg" article, not this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18e8:2:1378:f000::da5 (talkcontribs)

Stop and frisk has been in the article for years. If you ask anyone what they knew about Bloomberg as mayor, they'd say his soda tax, and stop and frisk. Biographies of politicians typically have summaries like this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
And this was a major issue at the recent debate, brought up repeatedly by the moderators as well as the other candidates, and heavily reported. This is probably THE most notable thing about his tenure as mayor. It probably was even before he ran for president. Bottom line, yes, this should be included. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the most controversial, most criticized, or (as he says) most regretted, but not the most noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Kolya, stop and frisk was a massive issue that affected over a million people. I don't know if it was the most noteworthy. But, it certainly is noteworthy. As a NYC resident, I disagree that we'd say the soda tax was more important. I didn't even remember he was a part of that. Frankly, his effort to build a stadium in Manhattan was a bigger deal during his mayoralty. O3000 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't writing them in order of notability.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bar mitvah back to bat mitzvah[edit]

Men have bar mitvahs. Women have bat mitzvahs. 1 RR prevents me from fixing the good faith typo introduced concerning his daughters. Slywriter (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's trivia. It is irrelevant to this very long bio of Michael, not his kids. It should be removed entirely. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What is being referring to here? The 'typo' correction was in a source quotation. (The wording used in the article itself wasn't changed and still used bat mitzvah.) The source was used to support claims about both Michael Bloomberg, and claims about his daughters. I'm not sure if we need those details about his daughters, but I don't see the harm in the source quotation if we do have such details and I don't see how a source quotation is 'irrelevant' or 'trivia'. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes I understand. But is that really a key fact in Bloomberg's life story? SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Image of section "Business career"[edit]

Why the most descritive image of his job at Bloomberg L.P. has been removed from the article? Érico (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There were already plenty of photos of Bloomberg himself. That photo did not clearly show his product, and the previous photo (now reinserted) does a better job of showing the computer platform that bears his name. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced evaluations and opinions added to lead[edit]

This edit [4] adds evaluations and opinions that cannot be in a BLP without strong sourcing. In addition the edit removed previous content that was tagged as needing attribution. @TheGreatClockwyrm: if you have strong, BLP-worthy sources, please indicate them promptly. Otherwise this content cannot be left in the artice. The lead was recently trimmed by a couple of editors, and it would be best to use the talk page before going back in the opposite direction. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The source I had on the lead were removed by those same editors. I would appreciate consistency in the policy. Some editors are completely against sources in the leads, some favor them. I will add my sources but I would appreciate some clarity. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ideally topic should be mentioned later in the article and sourced there. Ledes do look prettier without citations but I get the need in heavily edited articles.
For what's it's worth, I don't see much of an issue other than 'pioneered', 'persistent' and 'large' do require strong sourcing to use. Otherwise they are just embellishment. Slywriter (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. That kind of stuff is a big issue. Really it should not be added to the lead before it's in the article. Then the cites in the lead problem doesn't arise. If we don't get solid sourcing for those claims soon, I am going to remove the evaluations and other unsourced claims. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The last few sentences in the lead did not need a source because they are already included in the 2020 presidential campaign section. --Wow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated Lead[edit]

Per SPECIFICO's request I have updated the lead with sources as well as updated it with relevant contemporary information. If you have any criticisms or suggestions please direct them here. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The cited sources do not verify the content you wrote. Please remove the new content, with the citations, to the talk page here and we can work on it piecemeal. Otherwise it just needs to be removed. You can't add your own interpretations and evaluations or cherrypick from published sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the structure as stands, if you have any issues with the particular vocabulary please share them. I went through a lot of literature surrounding Bloomberg's mayoralty and reputation and did my best to parse them down to objective statements. It is typical for leads of prominent, influential politicians to have sections related to their public image, legacy, and/or governing style, especially after they've left office. For instance, Boris Johnson's page lacks any lead citations whatsoever and makes more claims. It is important that a lead is not simply a list of jobs a person has held, which the previous iteration was. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
TheGreatClockwyrm, please take the sources out of the lead, per MOS:LEADCITE. Anything in the lead should be cited in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a much worse problem. He's imposed his own opinion as to what's most significant about Bloomberg's 12 years as NY mayor, and cited sources that do not support the assesrtions. Moreover, it's preposterous to make an overview statement about a 12 year mayoral term and then cite it to a source published during the second year of the term. There are no other sources I'm aware of that make that evaluation, and we need them. Yes, they should be in the article not the lead, and it appears that the new additional lead text was done with little or no concern for the main article text. That rework of the lead was also a 1RR violation, which I politiely went to Clockwyrm's talk page, asking in vain for him to undo it. Finally Clockwyrm, in this thread and the one preceding, you'll see several editors' objections to your addition to the lead. I will now remove most of it. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, yeah, I see the problems with what you took out. I agree with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In the future please try to be more diplomatic in how you talk to others SPECIFICO, you've come across as particularly vitriolic throughout this discussion. The edits you've made seem sufficient, but I would advocate adding back the clause talking about his contributions and support for candidates of both parties. This is an important part of his profile in American politics and not only well-documented but also incredibly relevant currently.
Throughout his career as both a businessman and a politician, he has used his wealth and platform to support both Democratic and Republican candidates, which has attracted criticism from both parties, particularly Democrats.[1][2][3][4] TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Peters, Jeremy W.; Saul, Stephanie (November 26, 2019). "Michael Bloomberg Has Used His Fortune to Help Republicans, Too". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  2. ^ Heer, Jeet (February 19, 2020). "Bloomberg Is Creating a Party of One". The Nation. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  3. ^ Barkan, Ross (December 4, 2019). "Mike Bloomberg's $ymbiotic Relationship With NY's GOP: 'We Agreed With Him On So Many Issues'". Gothamist. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  4. ^ Short, Aaron (November 29, 2015). "Mike Bloomberg has spent $72M on campaigns, won 67% of races". New York Post. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
You may leave any personal comments on my talk page, not in article space. And if you'd responded to my polite visit to your talk page, this unnecessary work could have been avoided. The main body of the article still needs plenty of work. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced claim[edit]

This diff [5] attributes a presumably damaging statement to the opinion of Business Insider, a website with mixed reputation that has been considered a problematic source for Wikipedia, see here. This opinion that there are 65 lawsuits needs a better source or otherwise needs to be removed from the article. Moreover, this needs to go in the business section, not the political campaign section, where it is in a SYNTH juxtaposition. @Mdaniels5757: I'm going to remove it as a SYNTH BLP violation later today, if a better source cannot be found to cover the subject. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The statement that there are "nearly 40" (not 65) lawsuits is backed up not only by the article on Business Insider, but the table contained therein that lists the lawsuits. Further, I don't understand how the statement is an opinion -- it's "a piece of information presented as having objective reality" (Merriam-Webster). Finally, please elaborate on how the claim violates WP:SYNTH (i.e. "[C]ombine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources [or combines] different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."). Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Your text attributes it to Business Insider and does not present it as verified fact. I have no idea about the underlying fact. But if it is indeed a fact then you will be able to verify it with an unimpeachable RS citation, e.g. Washington Post, NY Times, Bloomberg News, et al. The SYNTH is that the matter of 3 releases is implied to be the tip of the iceberg of nefarious misconduct by the juxtaposition of 3 with 40 or 65 or whatever. Please just fix the problem. It should not be difficult if indeed there is no substantive problem with your contribution. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
"The three agreements he’s willing to open up relate specifically to comments he’s alleged to have made. His company reportedly faced nearly 40 lawsuits involving 65 plaintiffs between 1996 and 2016, though it’s unclear how many relate to sexual harassment or discrimination."[6]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut:, thank you for that. I found that, but I believe that 'reportedly' refers to the Business Insider article, and I defer to more experienced users on whether that's acceptable. I've replaced the text at issue with text to a similar effect, but sourced to ABC News and the Washington Post (Special:Diff/943113280/943116422). cc @SPECIFICO:. Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
You still have the SYNTH problem. And while we are working on this, I don't think you should have re-added the accusation about "kill it" back to the article. It's been discussed before and widening the content does not help us converge in the specific problem of this thread. Also, the statements about the company and about him personally would go in other article sections, not the campaign section. Please revert until we have a solution here. I'm sure other editors can help us get to a good and complete resolution of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I don't believe there's a SYNTH problem, as I don't think that the juxtaposition produces a new thesis. To the extent that it does, it's only prohibited if that thesis is unsourced, and I've added a cite to NPR, which notes the releases' limited scope. W.r.t. the section placement, I don't believe that it's incorrect -- the statements made are related to the 2020 election because that's when they were best publicized and most relevant. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
You're entitled to believe whatever you wish, even when it's incorrect. But your belief does not justify summarily inserting your preferred content in the article text. We need to reach consensus for that, and if you're not willing to do it in a simple discussion, we can start cumbersome RfCs or noticeboard threads. It's much better to reserve judgment and collaborate on the article talk page. And I hope you'll get the questionable text out of the article in the meantime. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Fine, let's build consensus. It is absolutely appropriate for it to go there. ɱ (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Business Insider has a mixed reputation, partly because they often recycle material from other papers. But in this case [7] they are reporting it as investigative journalism, with bylines from three reporters; they say this is the result of "a Business Insider investigation, including a review of thousands of pages of court records." That sounds like solid journalism and I think it should be retained - cited to BI of course. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. There are still the other problems I mentioned. And now @Mdaniels5757: has added additional problematic edits. For example the latest one uses a citation that predates the adjacent content about the releases. Regarding Business Insider, it still would be better, for significant BLP and AP content, to have a more mainstream citation. It's rare that noteworthy, article content would be found in only a single off-mainstream website source. An unimpeachable source would guide us as to tone and context with an authority that Business Insider, regardless of their raw research, simply lacks. In fact, that kind of source may lead us to cobble together SYNTH such as was in the version that initially concerned me. Mdaniels, it really would be easier for us all to collaborate on this if you seek consensus on talk, rather than not trying out a sequence of edits in real-time in article text. Regardless of the other issues, there is still the problem of adding non-campaign content about the company in the campaign section.
All the news about Bloomberg L.P.s work environment, allegations and documents with toxic speech, and the lawsuits were known and extensively reported during Bloomberg's mayoral campaigns and mayoralty. The fact that editors may just have learned of this in the current campaign should not suddenly and unduly change the weight of narratives in this article. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
He was a New York figure then, not nationally-known as a more-or-less household name. The spotlight's on him now, so saying this is old news and shouldn't be covered is a straw man argument. Wikipedia's poor and often fails to cover important aspects, that's the reality. ɱ (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Like this is just such a poor argument. The cork has existed for perhaps 400 years, and only got an article two days ago. Are you saying because this subject has been known for so long with no article here, that one should not exist??? ɱ (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Please address the problem we're discussing, not corks etc. "This subject" has had a Wikipedia article for 18 years. This subject has had over 14 million page views. This subject has 500 page watchers. Specious arguments and casual speculation are exactly why problematic material, espeically in a politics-related BLP, needs to be worked through on talk and not pushed into the article so that each iteration's problems need to be reverted and debated piecemeal. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, and there are more-heavily-watched articles that lack larger important points... Wikipedia is always developing, it's not an excuse to say this article has a lot of eyes, and he really wasn't well known to Americans outside of the Northeast before this campaign. The point on corks stands, immense and far-older topics are often neglected here in favor of things like List of Pokémon Black and White chapters. ɱ (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Pageviews Analysis shows a huge spike in both readers and editors, from about 2,500 views, 8 edits, and six editors per day in 2018 all the way to 146,000 views, 527 edits, and 105 editors per day this month. So yeah it's completely relevant to reanalyze an article that wasn't really in the national spotlight even last year. ɱ (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
While I do think the material belongs in the article, I agree that it belongs in the Business section, not the Election section. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
We have a start in the place where we mention the frat-house atmosphere. Perhaps we could broaden that from sexual conquests to other vulgarity in the office and then mention (without unadjudicated allegations) the lawsuits, the settlements, and Bloomberg's expressions of regret and embarassment. Warren's debate tactic may be worth a mention in the 2020 section, but the content there would refer simply to the debate. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: This edit of yours even while this thread has been open. You also re-added the "kill it" bit that was discussed on talk and removed from the article two weeks ago. Quoting verbatim from a single allegation after it's been denied and the matter has been settled. We need summary treatment of these workplace issues, including the problems and behavior that Bloomberg says he regrets. But the edits you have made today can't stay in the article until the problems are resolved. The WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is this consensus on removing "Kill it"? ɱ (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have copyedited, added sources, removed non-campaign content from the campaign section, and removed the controversial statement, which did not have consensus for inclusion two weeks ago on this page and which presented an allegation as fact, failing verification for the text. If anyone feels strongly about including this detail, it needs to be discussed and consensus reached on talk as to the weight and context. Please see WP:NOCON WP:ONUS WP:WEIGHT in addition to BLP and AP. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo in the infobox[edit]

Hello Slywriter,
I initially put a new image of Bloomberg in because the image currently in the infobox was vandalized by someone on Commons. The vandalism has settled and the user has been blocked there. I won't change the image again and I hope you understand the reasons behind the change. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: No worries. It's just been a weirdly contentious photo here. The edit summary was more of a general comment from me as a result and not directed at you specifically. Slywriter (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind restoring this photo of Mr. Bloomberg wearing a suit? This one is too informal. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed on talk. There is no consensus to remove the official mayoral photo of him in the suit. This needs to be restored. I have "used up" my daily edit here. SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless I hear from somebody soon I will change it back tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Not sure what Commons rules are and whether can get the picture removed for being used in a constant disruptive manner. Slywriter (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It makes Bloomberg look like Barney the happy dinosaur, just ridiculous. Especially with the "mayor of NY" caption. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead text not reflected in article[edit]

The lead says

As mayor of New York, Bloomberg established public charter schools, rebuilt urban infrastructure, and supported gun control, public health initiatives, and environmental protections. He also led a rezoning of large areas of New York City, which facilitated massive and widespread new commercial and residential construction after the September 11 attacks.

. Somehow the corresponding text and sources no longer are found in the article. This is an important part of Bloomberg's legacy as mayor and the article text needs to be reinstated or developed in the Mayoralty section. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to add this, seeking consensus.[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add this? Mike Bloomberg has pledged at least $100m (£78m) to help Democrat Joe Biden's presidential campaign in Florida. [1] Thank you! AngusMEOW (chatterpaw trail) 12:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

KBE[edit]

Under MOS:POSTNOM, the use of state-issued post-nominals is reserved for individuals who have been associated with the issuing state through citizenship or residence. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done --TheImaCow (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is in the info box too. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Bangabandhu (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Bloomberg donates $100m for Biden in Florida". BBC News. September 13, 2020. Retrieved September 16, 2020.