Talk:Michael Bloomberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Verification Needed
Verification/sources needed for: He maintains his home address in the white pages and is known to ride the subway to City Hall every morning, even during periods of heightened terrorist alert against the subway system.
Any native New Yorker knows this and it has been repeatedly stated in city newspapers over and over. He rides the number 6 train from 77th Street downtown to the City Hall station.
[edit] Birthplace
The consensus, from the New York Times and the web is that he was born and raised in Medford and not Brighton, nothing against Brighton. What is the factual authority for replacing Brighton? Have you read his autobiography? Dogru144 17:01 13 July 2006, (UTC)
[edit] Administrators, please rescue this article
Article is difficult to read, owing to references, which somehow messed up the formatting. Many edit notes are now visible on the public page. Dogru144 03:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The question of how 'Republican' Bloomberg is; the question of whether he is liberal, conservative or centrist
[edit] Republicans in Name Only
Adding that seems rather POV to me. I can see adding something along the lines of NY Republican, but RINO is, as the RINO page says, disparaging. Yossiea 18:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bloomberg as centrist
Bloomberg is socially liberal, this much is agreed. However, his often belligerant anti-union posture, his opposition to the city's contributing to WTC responder death benefits and his support of police heavy-handedness toward protestors reflect a conservative nature. Thus, it is more appropriate to label him centrist. Dogru144 06:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bloomberg media blitz: Make It Stop!!
this is as good a place as I can find for this, PLEASE MAKE IT STOP!!! No one should run minute and a half campaign comercials, even if they are one of the richest men on the face of the earth Those damn comercials are almost as bad as all the "Join the Army" comercial that show up every 20 seconds, no comercial, whatever it is for, should EVER be repeated 6 times in one comercial break.. It's bad enough he's using the times, post, and daily news op eds as his own personal campaign comercials, does he have to mess with tv as well -PLEASE: VOTE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!!! If only to get rid of these stupid comercials!! Besides, he's worse than Rudy
- This is so not related to Wikipedia, can an admin delete this? Thanks. (Btipling 05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
- You have to admit he is spending an obscene amount of money to run campaign comercials and non stop attack adds, every 3 seconds, and that he's been doing it for the last 5 or 6 months, that has to be a new record, running attack adds before there's even a candidate running against you--NY101 15:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, $66 million later, at least I'll never have to see another one of those damned comercials, and Bloomberg can back to the busy task of dismatling New York City public services, and selling them to snapple--205.188.116.74 17:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have to admit he is spending an obscene amount of money to run campaign comercials and non stop attack adds, every 3 seconds, and that he's been doing it for the last 5 or 6 months, that has to be a new record, running attack adds before there's even a candidate running against you--NY101 15:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Green
There are two politicians named "Mark Green." The reference in this article used to link incorrectly to the article about the Wisconsin Republican. I added a new article about the New York Democrat, and changed the link here. There should still be a disambiguation page about this name.
- I disambiguated the two at Mark Green. -- Djinn112 05:36, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Edit by User:84.112.2.82
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but it looks like someone's personal rant or website promotion. If there's been some huge controversy over this, rewrite it (one either wins or loses a lawsuit, one doesn't 'allegedly' win) and cite some news sources. -Kwh 15:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- In 2004 he allegedly won the lawsuit he forced against http://BL00MBERG.com, an art project based on the demand of homography and alternative news role in infowarfare. BL00MBERG.com is stillegal under http://web.archive.org/web/20030408085623/http://bl00mberg.com which shows, that art and freedom of speech is under attack. NUSE IT!
[edit] Bloomberg's height
An anon has added that Bloomberg is 5'10" (although the height is just stuck on there, without a verb or anything). I'm taking it out of the lead section and turning it into a sentence, but I know that, on other bio pages, there's been disagreement about whether the person's height should be listed at all. I lean toward listing it but it's open to argument. JamesMLane 05:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you look over the history, you will see this guy keeps adding different heights almost every time. This is apparently someone's idea of fun.--Pharos 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This entire article is Pro Bloomberg
This whole thing is totally POV. It lists only his victories and describes his efforts as 'substantial' improvements. I will remove all POV statements, and any other unproven comments. If Mr Bloomberg has staff editing Wikipedia, he needs to know that money and political power mean nothing on Wikipedia. If a policy is described as a 'substantial improvement' then we need substantial evidence. Otherwise it will be deleted and I will track this article.(Btipling 05:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
- I have removed or reworded the following statements
- His approach to such problems has been seen as less controversial than Giuliani's, who was often criticized by advocates for the homeless and civil rights groups.(Less controversial? Says who?)
- Since then, the school system has demonstrated measurable improvements in student performance. (Really, how have they improved? Needs proof).
- In one of his first political victories he wrested back control of the New York City Public School system from an independent Board of Education.(reworded, he's depicted as a hero and the independent board negatively here)
- Despite running on the ticket as a Republican, polling has shown Bloomberg to be popular with registered Democrats, often more popular than the Democratic candidates. (This is an incredibly biased statement that I have reworded).
- Under his term, the reduction of crime started under Giuliani has continued. (needs proof)
(Btipling 05:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
- I actually decided to remove that bit about being popular in the polling, because it seems to speak universally and not of a distinct time and or poll (which should be linked to for support.)(Bjorn Tipling 09
- 11, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
- I have removed the following Propoganda
Up for re-election this November, he is widely expected to win, in what one pollster has dubbed a "Bloomberg Blowout." As of October 11, 2005, a separate Marist College poll shows Bloomberg leading by a formidable 27 percentage points.
It's irrelevant propoganda that doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. (Bjorn Tipling 02:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC))
These guys don't stop. I have removed the following highly biased statements:
- Recent polls have shown that Bloomberg will likely win re-election this November in a massive landslide, by as many as 27 percentage points as shown by a Marist College poll, thanks in part to his strong leadership in the mold of his predecessor Rudy Giuliani, leadership which has brought crime levels to lows not seen since the days of black-and-white television. This lead is not surprising given his overwhelming support from New Yorkers; he currently pulls in a formidable 65% approval rating across the five boroughs.
- Polls have consistently shown that Bloomberg will only face token opposition in the general election as well.
(Bjorn Tipling 02:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Smoking
Is it correct to say he's supported "a number of measures"? I remember one major piece of legislation -- one with a significant effect, to be sure, but I'm not sure "a number" is correct. JamesMLane 18:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't live anywhere near New York, so I haven't been keeping up, but apparently there was at least a rise in taxes on cigarettes in 2002, in addition to the well-publicized bar/restaurant/public area ban(s?). Change it as you like, I just didn't like seeing the info from an anon reverted because he didn't phrase it very well. Everyking 21:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Gun control
Someone put in a sentence in the gun control section that seems to express POV in its reference to the second amendment. Dogru144 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference in the gun control section
The author of the above gun control comments cites a Free Republic freerepublic.com post as its source. Does a post on a political webpage suffice as a good reference? The author does not give a real quote of the mayor. Rather, he gives a paraphrase. This also seems to go against wikipedia standards. Dogru144 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- And yet you inserted the NRA as a special interest group that gave legislators high rankings. Do you have a source that it was the NRA and not some other special interest groups? Yossiea 13:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have two sources re the NRA ratings: 1) Gail Cardwell article the New York Times, cited below in the references, and 2) Project Vote Smart: www.vote-smart.org, a non-partisan organization that gives information on elected officials. BTW, why did anyone remove the reference to his philanthropy? Dogru144 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Someone should start a Criticisms of Bloomberg section for this page
would help to provide balance. even if we remove all pro-Bloomberg bias from the article, a straightforward neutral recounting of only his achievements and desired policies is in itself, unbalanced and pro-bloomberg. Bwithh 02:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (I live in NYC, but only got here from the UK earlier this year and not really positioned to wrtie about NYC politics myself)
- I totally agree.
(Bjorn Tipling 04:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC))
- Because of the continued POV editing I will add a POV tag to this article. I am obviously not the only one who feels that this is article is highly POV (just check the edit war history). My explanation for this move can be seen above and the subsection also. Please do not remove the POV tag until we can all agree that this article has become less than POV. (Bjorn Tipling 13
- 46, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
-
- Be specific. What text is POV in this article? patsw 16:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two sections worth of what is POV about this article right above this part. Have you read it? Also as was stated by Bwithh, without a criticism, this article in it's entirety is POV. It sells the candidate that is currently up for election, it's not neutral nor objective. (Bjorn Tipling 16:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)) For example, you have added his endorsements by democrats, why not also list who his opposed to him. Is it fair and balanced to just list all the people who have endorsed him? It seems if all the world was for him. It's not accurate, nor realistic. You yourself, have contributed to futher pushing this article into a more unbalanced presentation of Bloomberg. (Bjorn Tipling 16:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
- The Democratic endorsements are accurate and significant facts. As such, they are not my point of view but of the named individuals. Outside of the Wikipedia, I think you need to pick an argument with Koch or Carey, or find prominent Republicans to endorse Ferrer. We're constructing an encyclopedia based on facts. If you have facts that are accurate and relevant, please enter them.
- Be specific. What text now in the article is POV? patsw 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay let me put it to you very plainly: Without any criticism of Bloomberg, and only a listing of his accomplishments and endorsements, this article is POV. Are you getting that? Also, I dispute the signficance of the democratic endorsements. This is an encyclopedia, not a Bloomberg advertisement. So, NOW, your contribution is still POV. In fact, I will remove it now. (Bjorn Tipling 21:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
- The removal of POV stuff like "strong leadership" was clearly necessary and has improved the article. As the article stands now, it's still unbalanced in that the pro-Bloomberg side is much more fully presented. The remedy is that people who want to improve the article should simply add the missing material. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. The POV tag isn't appropriate on the basis of an omission unless the addition of properly encyclopedic material has been attempted and thwarted. JamesMLane 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- James is right. By all means we should be adding more "negative" information, but we shouldn't be removing his endorsements, which are just facts. If facts are not actually in dispute, a POV tag is inappropriate.--Pharos 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay let me put it to you very plainly:. Btipling, I won't be intimidated by a lack of civility on your part. I've made two edits to this article which are full of facts, without POV, and cited. If you believe this "article is POV" by the inclusion of such facts, then we have an editing dispute. I certainly don't know if "the missing material" (as James characterized it) is going to be pro-Bloomberg or anti-Bloomberg, but I enter it, it will be significant, accurate, and cited.
-
-
-
- I utterly reject the idea, Btipling, that you can be some sort of executive editor with a delete key -- evaluating neutral significant accurate facts about Bloomberg against a personal criterion of "Are they pro-Bloomberg or anti-Bloomberg" and deleting whatever you consider to be pro-Bloomberg while waiting for hypothetical new editors to come along to add anti-Bloomberg material to your liking. patsw 03:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The fact that Ferrer failed to get the endorsements of Democrats Koch, Carey, Vallone (Sr. and Jr.), Flake, and Markowitz is significant by itself. The fact these six endorsed Bloomberg makes it doubly so. No Republican candidate for mayor has had so many Democratic endorsements since Fiorello La Guardia patsw 03:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ha ha, you called Ed Kock a Democrat--NY101 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that Ferrer failed to get the endorsements of Democrats Koch, Carey, Vallone (Sr. and Jr.), Flake, and Markowitz is significant by itself. The fact these six endorsed Bloomberg makes it doubly so. No Republican candidate for mayor has had so many Democratic endorsements since Fiorello La Guardia patsw 03:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
I'm not trying to intimidate anyone. I'm frustrated, however, by your inability to see the blatantly obvious bias in this article. I misunderstood the use of the POV tag, and I now see that it would be inappropriate. I'm not questioning the accuracy of your facts, Patsw, I'm questioning your inclusion of them, in addition to any and all the other positive highlighting of Bloomberg's implied 'greatness'. I don't see how the endorsements are relevant or informative. I do see however the political benefit Bloomgberg will gain by New Yorkers looking him up on the ever more popular wikipedia without ever checking the discussion page and learning how biased this article is.
- I didn't know there were people out there who didn't see Ed Koch as a Republican attack dog, the only Democratic candidate he hasn't tired to rip to peices was himself, he was also one of the most corrupt mayors in NYC histroy (at least in pre-Rudy days), I mean who in his adminstration wasn't proscouted for *something*--NY101 16:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to see me as isolated in my views, but if you read this section carefully, which I'm sure you have but are conveniently overlooking, you'll see at least three others who share my take on this article. Your facts may be accurate, but your use of them is disingenuous. (Bjorn Tipling 04:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC))
- To my mind, one of the biggest negatives about Bloomberg is the charge that he, in effect, bought the election. New York City has a comprehensive campaign finance law, enacted as a reaction to the excessive importance of money in politics. Bloomberg made a mockery of this law by opting out. He used his personal fortune to bury his opponent, who had spent his life working for nonprofit organizations and government agencies, instead of seeking personal enrichment.
- What I've done is to add the spending information to the article, with a citation. Of course, I've omitted the editorializing, because my personal opinion isn't notable and isn't worth reporting. Similar opinions have been expressed by plenty of other people, though. The passage I wrote could be improved by a reference to the criticism of Bloomberg on this score, attributed to a prominent spokesperson for that point of view. JamesMLane 07:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- And good that you did that. But still, if Bloomberg has strong support in polls, it should be mentioned; if crime was reduced under his leadership, it should be mentioned, with appropriate sources. To write that the crime fell to levels "not seen since the days of black-and-white television" is probably a biased way to exprress it, even if true; instead, one should mention that the crime was not so low since 1941 [1] - if this is true, of course. --Heptor 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I have no problem with objective information about crime. (The reference to television isn't "probably" biased, though, it's quite clearly inappropriate.) The difficulty is with expressly or implicitly attributing a reduction in crime to Bloomberg's "leadership". Crime in NYC began going down when David Dinkins was mayor. It's been going down in almost every major American city. See Talk:Rudy Giuliani#Crime Control for more discussion. JamesMLane 11:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Then it would be appropriate to mention crime reduction on the national level as well, with appropriate references. The question would be how much the crime falls in NYC compared to the rest of the nation. Still, I live in Norway and even here I've heard a lot about the fall in crime rate in New York City. --Heptor 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Bloomberg financial contributions to GOP
-
-
-
- An editor has removed documentation of Bloomberg's contributions to GOP congressional candidates. It is violation of NPOV ethos to remove documentation of these contributions. It is most pertinent to include this documentation in this biography. There is a widely held assumption among New Yorkers that "Bloomberg is not a real Republican", or "He is a closet Democrat." In actuality, Bloomberg has given substantial donations to Republicans. These donations have a significant impact on races and elections. Hence, it is relevant to include this material.
-
-
Lastly, in contrast with much of what is in this article, there is firm documentation (two NY Times articles, authors, dates) of the claims that Bloomberg funds Republicans. One can go to vote_smart.org to see that these candidates are conservative across the board: on social, economic issues. --Dogru144, 5 July 2006, 20:22.
[edit] Administrator need for intervention in recurrent POV vandalism of financial contributions to GOP
Administrators, please intervene regarding the repeated vandalism of sections regarding his support for Republican candidates. Such vandalism is intrusion of POV. Entry regarding donation patter is fully documented. Dogru144 04:15 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not an American but something else.
Bloomgberg's introductory sentence identifies him as a Jewish-American as opposed to an American.
Why is he not simply an American? What other American subjects of Wikipedia articles are described as Christian-American or Bhuddist-American or Atheist-American?
At the least, I consider this usage inaccurate. The identification of his religious affiliation should conform to the style of other articles. patsw 14:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think thats a fairly valid point that Bloombergs intro sentence should not primarily categorize him as jewish-american. his religion/ethnicity should be mentioned later. is he even particularly religious? On the other hand, I disagree that "Jewish-American" is an odd phrasing. It's an ethnicity as well as a religion, so along the lines of "Arab-American", "African-American" etc., and I think its fairly commonly used. Point to think about - in a similar case, would it be okay or not to primarily identify a black US politician as "African-American"? Bwithh 18:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wealth
Is Bloomberg not the wealthiest citizen of NYC? If not, who is?--Pharos 03:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- According to Forbes Carl Icahn is the richest. You can see the whole list for New York on the page I've linked to. patsw 04:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- I edited the article to include his actual Forbes rank. Of course, this should be updated as new information becomes available. patsw 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Massively editing this article is not a good idea
How do we get the article visible again? I edited parts of it; and most of the article disappeared. However, the lost parts of the Bloomberg article remain on the edit portion of the screen. Use:Dogru144 17:53, 4 July 2006.
If you believe that there's pro- or anti- Bloomberg point of view in the article, please discuss it here before editing. A lot of work has gone into establishing a consensus over what is either a neutral point of view or "both sides presented" point of view.
You are always free to edit the article, of course, but working with the pro- and anti- Bloomberg advocates on the talk page is more likely to give your edits permanence. patsw 22:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- True, but since the entire article reads like it was written by one of Bloomberg's own staffers, such discusion would be rather pointless, especially since it probably doesn't just look that way--NY101 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- despite what you see on television, Bloomberg is an extreamly unpopular mayor, yet this article lacks a single critism of anything he's done as mayor, and frankly spouts the same bull$*t that the times, the post, the etc.. has been spouting, oh since the last time he paid them too...--NY101 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with NY101 about the pervasive pro-bloomberg stance of this article. Apparently however, a POV tag isn't 'appropriate' even though the article is highly POV. I suggest a substantial rewrite. (Bjorn Tipling 05:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Non-notable
What does non-notable mean?
Is it a neologism for insignificant? patsw 02:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- yeah that's a strange descripton in that change. I think it's a bit uncivil (although I agree that the change was warranted). (Bjorn Tipling 05
- 18, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
-
- I don't think it's uncivil; it's jargon. "Notability" is a concept frequently discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The context there is whether a particular subject is notable enough for an article, but the term is used by extension in the context of whether a particular fact is notable enough for inclusion in an article. There's some enlightening discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive December 2004 to August 2005#Notability_not_a_criterion_for_deletion.3F.
-
- On the specific point here, I'm inclined to favor leaving in such matters as a prominent person's height. JamesMLane 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- On a really specific point here, let me point out that anon IPs have been consistently adding different heights (often varying by several inches) to articles about New York politicians (for example, Rudolph Giuliani also) after every time the addition is reverted. On this article, a link was once added to a Daily News article which mentioned his height, and which basically concluded that noone really knows the number.--Pharos 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it's secret agents communicating to each other with special codes. I personally think a person's height, unless it's relevant (like it would be for some individuals known for their height (Andre the Giant) or a basketball player) does not belong in an Encyclopedia. (Bjorn Tipling 14
- 49, 29 October 2005 (UTC))
I think the random adding of the height to some of the bio articles I (and some of you) edit is a Wiki-prank by some anonymous coward with an anti-conservative agenda, or at least an anti-Wikipedian-editor agenda for those articles. When you look at the bio articles of the current liberal icons you do not see a similar editing insurgency taking place. So I edit references to height out as soon as I see them -- unless and until the subject of the bio puts it into the public record. patsw 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Stupid anti-conservatives, trying to defame the man by listing his height, next thing you know these articles will contain hateful information like his name, or place of residence, gasp they might even try and insert his political party--172.143.240.29 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes be uncivil and anonymous. You're really doing Wikipedia a favor by editing. (Bjorn Tipling 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Vandalism
Can someone block the vandal that's putting this defemation on the article? Someone put on there that he's the first openly gay mayor since Ed Koch. (Bjorn Tipling 22:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
[edit] lame
- Bloomberg has chosen to apply a statistical results-based approach to city management, appointing city commissioners based on expertise and only loosely overseeing their policies.
Could you repeat that, in non-PR language this time?
[edit] Immigration
Why were the sections related to immigration and illegal immigration removed / vandalized? Factual statements regarding immigration, supported by documented references were stripped out. This is clearly violation of NPOV rules. Dogru144, 03:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The term "undocumented immigrant" is intellectually dishonest. The correct term is illegal alien.
[edit] Personal Life
I was a bit disappointed to see the personal life section so short. I wanted to hear more about his life and how he got to where he is today (before the elections).
-
- Indeed, the story of how he made his money after getting fired from Salomon is pretty interesting, and a detailed account of it would really help the article. There are also lots of other colorful anecdotes about him that have been reported in various profiles over the years which would add flavor (and can be defintively sourced). For instance, his mom reputedly often denies being his mom and says her son is a different Michael Bloomberg because she's so tired of people asking her "Oh, could you help my son/daughter get a job working for him?". There's also a lot of amusing info on the public record about his swinging bachelor ways before settling down a bit when he became mayor (when a reported once asked him about his sex life, he said "I'm a single billionaire in New York--how do you think it is?"). And the "personal life" area may not be the right place for it, but there are also interesting ways he's used his wealth on behalf of the people of New York since he's been mayor (in a union dispute a few years ago, he flew negotiators from both sides to his house in Bermuda for the weekend to play golf , thereby averting a strike with a last-minute settlement that might not otherwise have been possible).Andrewjnyc 12:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "marriage bans"????
Bloomberg opposes marriage bans? Did NY City ever ban marriage???? If this is a reference to the gay marriage debate, someone should change it to be NPOV and for that matter make sense...
- I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have anything to do with Banns of marriage. KWH 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, New York City banned marriage up until the 1970s (or was that pinball?). Anyway, there is no evidence that the bachelor Bloomberg has ever favored the reintroduction of the fabled general marriage ban, and in fact he has also opposed the ban on same-sex marriage, while at the same time being unwilling to perform such marriages until they are actually recognized under state law.--Pharos 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- His support of gay marriage is mentioned in four different sections of the article, which seems kind of redundant--it's in the lede, under "2001 Election", "Education and Social Policy" and "2005 Election". I would submit that it might be best to leave it in the lede and "Education and Social Policy" and chop it from the election articles, since his opponents in those races, Mark Green and Freddy Ferrer, were also supporters of gay marriage, making it a total nonissue in both campaigns.Andrewjnyc 12:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Even considering the positions of opponents on gay marriage, Bloomberg's position on gay marriage is relevant, as he is touted as being liberal, and his position on gay marriage is pertinent to question of whether or not he is liberal. Dogru144 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Family history
I am curious, what is Bloomberg's family heritage? Did he have immigrant parents/grandparents, and if so, where are they from originally? J.J. 07:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms of Bloomberg Section
I have created the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Criticisms_of_Bloomberg
edit away. but as noted above, to keep the article from being totally non POV (with all the PR by bloombergies monitoring the article), the section has been created.
i'm sure people will add other criticisms, this is just a starting point after some quick googling.
JJ211219 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This section should definitely be in here, but the language seems to not conform with NPOV standards. While I'll admit I'm not familiar with all the criticisms, they do seem valid, just need to be worded a bit differently. Getting rid of the scare quotes and aggressive adjectives would be a good start.
Oh, and I'm posting this because I put up the POV flag. Jfiling 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Bold text
This section is completely unsourced. WP:BLP requires that any negative information about a living person be solidly sourced, or it should be removed. Every criticism should be citing a reliable source. Crockspot 00:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I added references for the issues about park closed for Yankee Stadium and publication of names and addresses of former residents of public housing projects. Journbot 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- It has now been ten days, and no other criticisms have been sourced. I'm removing all the unsourced claims per WP:BLP. They can be added back in when they are sourced. It shouldn't be that difficult to do. Crockspot 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh good, so now the entire criticism section is gone--152.163.100.68 18:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- It has now been ten days, and no other criticisms have been sourced. I'm removing all the unsourced claims per WP:BLP. They can be added back in when they are sourced. It shouldn't be that difficult to do. Crockspot 05:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poverty
The comment that Bronx County is the poorest urban county in the US is not slander. Wikipedia's figures give Bronx's per capita income as lower than these other urban US counties or cities co-terminus with counties:
- Suffolk County, MA
- Erie County, NY
- Monroe County, NY
- Essex County, NJ
- Passaic County, NJ
- Hudson County, NJ
- Mercer County, NJ
- Camden County, NJ
- Philadelphia, PA
- Washington, DC
- New Orleans, LA
- Shelby County, TN
- Bernalillo County, NM
- Alameda County, CA
These details can be further corroborated in http://factfinder.census.gov.
[edit] Out-migration
Out-migration in New York City simply is not happening. It was reported yesterday (by Bloomberg news service, no less) that the U.S. Census Bureau revised its previous 2005 estimate of New York City's population to a new city record of 8.2 million inhabitants.
Since the article cites a reputable source for its claim of out-migration, I wanted to discuss this issue before changing the article.
As an aside, I live in New York City, and I think that the perception of most New Yorkers is that it's getting more crowded here, not less. I realize this is anecdotal and can't be cited, but it does lead me to be suspicious of the claim that NYC's population is shrinking.