Talk:Michael Bloomberg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Michael Graham article

@Neutrality: I added the content about Bloomberg's personal life and its environmental effects. Given the very large section on all the good he's done as an environmental activist, I'd say it's very fair weight-wise to include the four short sentences on this. The source is neutral and factual, written by the news writer Michael Graham (who himself has a biased article apparently). It's similar to the content already published by the New York Times, and really mostly combines many reliable news sources, each linked within this report. ɱ (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think content on (for example) Bloomberg's ownership of an "SUV and a sports car" belongs in a section on environmental philanthropy. And this article is from an obscure source (InsideSources), from a right-wing media commentator, and has a rather chatty, blogpost-ish tone. If there's any better-sourced critiques out there I would be more open to those. But this is not up to snuff for a BLP. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

An 'environmentalist' who owns not only multiple cars but also not-environmentally-conscious cars is certainly not practicing what they preach, and along with his other carbon-intense lifestyle features, is valid and important criticism of his environmental stance. I don't care if the source is obscure, it is factual and not chatty or blogpost-ish. The writer is conservative, so what? I happen to be left of Bloomberg, as many published critics of him are. I can add the many more-well-known sources to this. ɱ (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I disputed that content several days ago [1], the last time you raised it, and all you do was attack me ad hominem for my objection. It's clearly cherrypicked, UNDUE and a BLP smear. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you may not care that the source is obscure or that the author is an opinion commentator. However, the encyclopedia's policies do. If you have alternative sources that you would like to bring do bear, and would like to bring some proposed wording to the talk page, I'm happy to take a look. Neutrality^talk 00:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you accept this here below? All of his luxury assets are sourced to conventional RSs. The IS source is only being used to cite that the lifestyle contradicts his environmental record, something other sources omit. As well, unfortunately none of the many RSs that report on his new helicopters or planes also mention their carbon impact; one of his choppers gets 3.16 mpg.

Bloomberg's personal life and transportation choices contradict his environmentalist image. Bloomberg owns several private jets and a helicopter, using them to fly to his waterfront mansion in Bermuda (one of his ten properties) several times per month. He is on a wait list to purchase a AgustaWestland AW609 aircraft. ɱ (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Oppose the parathentical, how many properties isn't relevant and source says more than 10. Plus he's a billionaire so seems like a moving target.

Oppose the last sentence as future and lack of context. I get where it's going but don't see how a reader does.

Support the general contrast though hope better RS can be found, come forth to better cover this Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times and CNBC should be sufficient. And how many properties someone has is extremely relevant. Using land, construction materials, and utilities like water, gas, electric for ten different properties (including about 3 mansions) for just him and his girlfriend is obscene. By contrast, the four Obamas (40-125 mil) have been renting a home in D.C., and recently bought one in Martha's Vineyard (two total, maybe to be down to one?). The last sentence is widely reported, as he's near the top of the waitlist for this new, extremely expensive, unique aircraft, also conventionally fueled and environmentally problematic. ɱ (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

how many properties someone has is extremely relevant - That's the epitome of Original Research. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, well into OR including comparisons that are not scientific nor reported and also UNDUE. Move to oppose as while I support the general thought, see this becoming a WP:coatrack Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay no, SPECIFICO, because the source that critiques his environmental record mentions his obscene collection of houses. Dead wrong. ɱ (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Any attempt to cover up the fact that he has at least two planes, a helicopter, and 10 homes, one of which he regularly flies to, is bias on the scale of potentially being a paid editor assigned by the Bloomberg campaign. These assets are all reported in major news sources, regardless of their environmental impact. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a low bar for obscenity. We're not auditors here. I'm reasonably well-read on politics and environment and I'm not aware of any sources that say he's a bad billionaire. You'd need to demonstrate significant issues discussed by the weight of mainstream publications. If you've seen anything like that, show us the sources. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether to include this or not is a matter of the WEIGHT of coverage. Have Reliable Sources made an issue of this? Have his primary rivals made a big deal of it? I didn't hear it mentioned at last night's debate. If it becomes a major issue, we can cover it then. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You all are wikilawyering the hell out of this. It's not that many sentences, and there are plenty of very reliable sources. I'm really beginning to lose faith in your objectivity, unless you just expect all environmental activist billionaires to flaunt their wealth endlessly. ɱ (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a list of sources just about his aircraft. Do you want me to add homes and cars to this list? If so it'll probably be too long to digest properly anyhow. Ignoring all of this reporting on a significant issue is malpractice at the very least. ɱ (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

And none of them talk about them in comparison to his environmental views. The connection you are trying to make is original research without RS covering the issue in the same way Slywriter (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you even read any of them?! You're incorrect, many do criticize the expenses, whether based on a poor and excessive use of wealth or based on the environment. ɱ (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The thought that these need to be significant issues or in a public debate is pure hogwash. How many sources go on and on about all of his honorary degrees? We cover that list quite extensively, along with many other good and praiseful things. As noted many times on this talk page, this article is heavily skewed in favor of the man. ɱ (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Read them twice now and I am unfortunately now well versed in noise complaints and the various toys he owns. What none of the RS state is the environmental or wealth. Other than mere millionaires of Manhattan complaining about a Billionaire's loud toy. I'm not looking for a whitewash, though I suggest you read WP:BLPCOI, as you seem to have strong, non-neutral opinions about the subject. Slywriter (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, consider reverting the trivia as the managing director directly denies this in [[2]], which is a far more recent and direct source.

"Although billionaire Bloomberg is a certified helicopter pilot, contrary to reports, he's not on a waiting list to buy one, Cutillo says."

Slywriter (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong and I'll prove it, but regardless, my statement is still that all of these assets are well reported and should be at least briefly listed, regardless of whether we add the immediately obvious environmental impacts. This is like mentioning all of Trump's racist comments from sources that don't call them racist, and not simply stating the conclusion that he's a racist, because a fact-reporting source isn't generally reliable. ɱ (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

(←) Okay - because some people can't read what I've linked apparently, I've highlighted portions of these sources that point out ridiculous spending and/or hypocritical environmental impacts. It's clear that most RSs just report the facts - because stating that it's hypocritical is in the realm of opinion to them. Yet some do, joined by two opinion pieces (one by a reputable NYT journalist) critical of Bloomberg's environmental hypocrisy. These are joined by several right-leaning to far-right works that most liberal Wikipedians decry as fake news, but report these issues without any falsehoods here. It's clear it's an issue discussed prominently, in news, and in a Q+A with Bloomberg himself (he ignored that part of the question; there's no good answer.) ɱ (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anyone agreeing with your POV on this one, MJ, so maybe you could hat this thread and we'll get back to getting the rest of the article in shape as best we can, with some kind of encyclopedic tone and historic perspective? SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't even reply to my comment! You're ignoring FACTS - many sources, including quite credible authorities, mention his hypocrisy, and it's even gone into live questions asked to Bloomberg himself. What more could you ask for? You're severely biased in wanting to omit information. If we're going to talk about all the environmental good he does, it's WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to also mention the well-sourced (hypocritical) environmental damage he does too, and criticism of that. This clearly needs more input than from a pro-Bloomberg article scrubber. ɱ (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless this becomes an issue, WP:UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you not look at my sources? This already is an issue, and has been reported for years! And how is it undue to mention a page-worth of environmental good and not a single instance of all of his well-reported damage? That's literally the opposite of wp:undue. ɱ (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I did reply to you, MJ. More than once. And I don't consider repetition constructive. If I gave you $20 billion, you'd find out what you decide to spend it on. Then others can cherrypick inconsistencies in your preferences. Might be fun, but it would not go in an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added to my argument, and no, I am an environmentalist - I don't have a car, I don't make needless purchases, I recycle and urge businesses to as well. It's clearly reported that Bloomberg personally doesn't care about his own environmental impacts, and that you don't care about his either, and are content to ignore sources and violate WP:UNDUE. ɱ (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You say you are an environmentalist, but I see that you have contributed photos of cooked meat and other animal products to commons. As all environmentalists know, meat production is a major contributor to global warming. Also, selective pinging is not a good move. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay that's a little stalker-ish, looking at my Commons feed. For the record, I eat very little red meat or meat in general, but that was a dish my mother mostly or entirely cooked, several years ago... ɱ (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want folks to look at your snapshots, don't boast them on your user page. Please stop all the personal aspersions. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you're free to look at them for fun, but looking in order to read into my personal life and criticize my viewpoints is uncalled for. ɱ (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I should have made my point more explicit then. There's a lot of raw and cooked meat on your commons uploads, and it is isomorphic with Bloomberg's aircraft. SPECIFICO talk 23:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't cook most of those, and wasn't even that progressive/environmentally-conscious those 7 long years ago... ɱ (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: @MelanieN: @Neutrality: @Kolya Butternut: and others - what do you think of these sources and the current state of a huge section on his environmental good, with not a single mention of his oft-criticized enormous environmental damage? ɱ (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If he flew a private helicopter in and out of Manhattan; I’d be really pissed because I live in midtown Manhattan. But, I still wouldn’t include it unless it became a campaign issue. And, it pales in comparison to other issues. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't asking your personal stance on the controversy. It's pretty clear plenty of writers take issue with it, and feel readers would take interest in it too. Number of houses as excessive spending did actually come up in the Nevada debate; it's unfortunate nobody pointed out the 10-13 homes Bloomberg owns. It is still an issue of his environmental advocacy, something that needs inclusion in order for that page-worth of promotional material on his environmental stance/efforts to be duly balanced. ɱ (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, Bloomberg has been known to fly his private helicopters in and out of Midtown, even in violation of laws. ɱ (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, thanks for the ping. In my opinion the information about his houses, cars, and plane could be used in this article in some other section - the obvious one being "Wealth". But I strongly disagree with putting it in the philanthropy section, which would be POV and SYNTH. His contributions are his contributions; an attempt to rebut them or cast doubt on his sincerity would be out of place. We often see this kind of accusation thrown at people who support environmental causes - "yeah, but how about you and your lifestyle?" At this point that has not become a widely reported or notable line of attack on Bloomberg. In any case it would be wrong for us to put it in the section about his philanthropy. If it becomes a widespread criticism, maybe it could go in the "political positions" section where his feelings about climate change are noted. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I don't mind where the placement is. But you agree based on the sources and their mentions of the environmental impacts that it is warranted to include more than just "Bloomberg owns XYZ"? ɱ (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That would be editorializing and WP:SYNTH on our part unless we have sourcing that shows this to be a lasting issue. O3000 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec)M, please give a careful reading to MelanieN's comment. She said nothing of the kind. Your insistence is pointless if you can't recognize the views of other editors here. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How many times must I state, this is an issue that has been reported for years and years! There are reliable sources too, so per WP:RS that's all that matters. SYNTH does not apply when multiple independent reliable sources state exactly what I want to include. ɱ (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

But you agree based on the sources and their mentions of the environmental impacts that it is warranted to include more than just "Bloomberg owns XYZ"? Don't put words in my mouth. That is the absolutely not what I said. To be clearer: IMO we can report his philanthropy in the philanthropy section, and his wealth in the wealth section, but we can NOT draw or imply any connection between the two subjects in either place. To be even clearer: if we put a paragraph about all the stuff he owns in the wealth section (which I favor), we should not add any commentary about the environmental impact of same, as it would be POV/SYNTH. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that I took a look at the sources you list in your sandbox and was not impressed. A long WaPo article about his climate activism includes half-a-sentence about the global effect of air travel. An opinion piece in the NYT argues your point. The rest of the sources are either documenting his planes and helicopters, or are opinion pieces from weak sources. This is nowhere near the point of justifying us to draw the "yeah, but what about you?" argument in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Look you two are freaking out - I asked a question - I didn't "put words in your mouth", I asked if that was what you meant. Anyhow, there's absolutely no requirement that a cited fact or correlation be the primary subject of an article or articles. It is a cited fact with reliable sources, undeniably. You can wikilawyer its importance to hell and back, wildly claim that adding an exact statement in an RS is WP:SYNTH, but seeing as reliable sources bring it up, it is undeniably acceptable. ɱ (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we shame any person who financially supports the environment who also eats meat or drinks milk? Sounds like a good way of stopping contributions to environmental causes. In any case, it is not undeniable that you have cited reliable secondary sources with due weight. Calling that Wikilawyering is not useful. O3000 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What? Those aren't comparable in the slightest. It's clear RSs agree - being an environmental activist donating millions stands in direct contrast to owning potentially a dozen fossil fuel-based aircraft, using them to go short distances instead of cars or public transit, along with owning many mansions (10-13 homes), a fossil-fuel-based sports car, and large SUVs. ɱ (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I added further sources to the list; NYT and Time magazine reported on his hypocrisy with a 5-mile or 12-minute helicopter ride to a concert. This was 2009, other sources are from 2011-2013, and many are recent due to his candidacy. Any claims of recentism have no weight. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind most facts need a single RS reference on Wikipedia; I've given a page-worth, and still somehow it's insufficient. ɱ (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT cite is a blog without any actual criticism and the Time cite is truly absurd. You need RS that show there is some actual, lasting issue. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You have a lack of RS understanding; blog-style news reporting is not inherently less reliable. These both pass WP:RSP. ɱ (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, you're still just wikilawyering. Do you really have any doubt into the truthfulness here? The combination of different news sources proves the 2009 incident, along with Bloomberg's various luxury assets he owns. WP:RS is not a weapon to use against every source when it's clear all of these facts are true. Not every source has to be a full news report on the whole issue either in order to count as a WP:RS. ɱ (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just from an economic point of view, if you are a billionnaire, your time is worth a LOT. So flying instead of taking the bus saves millions of dollars worth of your time and attention. That's worth a certain amount of carbon offset. 😌 SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, your point was brought up by the mayor's office among others. We're not debating whether he's right or wrong, I'm proving that he was criticised in at least 4-5 RSs for this environmental hypocrisy. ɱ (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet I'll let you know that environmental costs are immense; most people don't factor in the value of the environmental damage they are doing. Hard to calculate, but taking the bus regularly over being a single passenger in a jet over your whole life is a considerable difference. ɱ (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And when a study is done or his opponents drop such a specific attack and it's written about and analysed by Secondary Sources then wikipedia can cover it. Til then it's weakly sourced and not appropriate for a BLP, even if they are running for President Slywriter (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• ɱ:Keep in mind most facts need a single RS reference on Wikipedia You need to spend some time reading WP:BLP. No, in a BLP, a single negative ref means very little. And your refs are seriously flawed. You are an experienced editor. But, you have wandered into an area under discretionary sanctions and must be more careful. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropy section

Few things

• This section could use a trim but a bold edit is not likely to get consensus.
• Is there a better way to summarize his various charitable donations?
• Excessive words - Philanthropy is used 51 times, Bloomberg is used 200 times. Certainly seems to be excessive referencing especially as it alternates between Bloomberg, Bloomberg philanthropy or both.

Seeking opinions :) Slywriter (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, its extremely detailed, especially considering the amount of attention given to other sections. Maybe a separate page, Philanthropy of Michael Bloomberg. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Right now the section virtually IS a separate article, with an intro and six subsections. This is massive overkill. When I have more time I will check to see if a trim is possible; if not I will recommend a split-off leaving a single paragraph here. Offhand I would rather not do that; I don't find a single "philanthropy of" article about anyone else, even famous donors like the Rockefellers. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There is already a split-off: Bloomberg Philanthropies. It may be possible to offload perhaps 40-70% of the material to that article, while preserving the essentials. I think we're going to need more than a paragraph - his giving is very substantial and goes back several decades, so even covering the basics may need a few paragraphs. Perhaps we can have one paragraph on each of the major themes of his giving. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it seems to me the Giving Pledge should not have been removed from the lead. Donated 8 billion clams and counting. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for knowing about Bloomberg Philanthropies; that solves the problem. We should remove most of the detail from this article, making sure it is included in the BP article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop and frisk/Muslim surveillance paragraphs

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

Image of section "Business career"

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

This edit [3] 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

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. TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

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

This diff [4] 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."[5]. 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 [6] 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)

Bar mitvah back to bat mitzvah

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)

Photo in the infobox

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)