Talk:Michael Bloomberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Bloomberg article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[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] Biased article!

This article is extremely biased. I see no evidence of anything anti-Bloomberg in it. I live in New York and it is not a glowing utopia. The article makes it seem like Bloomberg has turned it into one.

[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] 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)

[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

It seems that almost all biographies are Pro-the person. Exceptions are for notorious people like Charly Mansnion or the like. So unless it is pure propoaganda, it's not an issue. Radio Guy (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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
  1. 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?)
  2. Since then, the school system has demonstrated measurable improvements in student performance. (Really, how have they improved? Needs proof).
  3. 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)
  4. 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).
  5. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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))

I've added a new section on the controversy surrounding his various legal spats with former Bloomberg employees. The section is sourced. Please could others add to it so we can balance the article out to refelct Mr. Bloomberg as he is (good points, bad points, controversy and all). 193.129.65.37 11:21, 8 January 2007 (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)
Lots of tax increases, not just on cigarettes. The first two or three years of his first term, the city raised taxes. See http://www.mikebloombergsrecord.com/?p=16, citing the NYTimes for 9/18/05 Interestingly, Bloomberg campaigned for reelection on his tax reductions. --djenner 14:21, 5 March 2007 (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)

It is rather odd that Bloomberg, as a gun-control advocate, supports candidates who the NRA loves. Can we get a specific url link to either the Cardwell article, or the specific candidates that Bloomberg has supported? Lifthrasir1 19:22, 16 February 2007 (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)

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)
I've added a new section on the controversy surrounding his various legal spats with former Bloomberg employees. The section is sourced. Please could others add to it so we can balance the article out to reflect Mr. Bloomberg as he is (good points, bad points, controversy and all). 193.129.65.37 11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (I've readded this comment -- it was under the POV section, where for some reason it's not appearing on all versions of this discussion page).

[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)

No, Jewish is not an ethnicity, though it is a cultural identity above and beyond religion. There are Bukharan Jews in Central Asia who look Central Asian and speak Central Asian languages, just as there are French Jews who look and speak French. Do they all belong to the same "ethnicity"? No. But there is a cultural identity. I think it's best not to excessively emphasize specific identities unless the person himself or herself emphasizes these identities in life. Bloomberg doesn't, so mention it later.

[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.
I agree. Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist". I think a reasonable middle ground would be "illegal immigrant". It's mostly the exchange of "illegal" for "undocumented" that is slanted and biased. Whind Soull (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)
There is now a sourced section labelled "Controversy" for criticisms. 193.129.65.37 04:34, 9 January 2007 (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.

The issue is confused by comparing different time periods. Further given the association with Katrina leads to bias. Post-Katrina New Orleans per-capita income is almost $31,000 (http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl032707tppercapita.7ebf61c.html), so using a 2000 number 45% below that just doesn't add to a constructive and informative article.

[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.

You are correct. We shouldn't be relying on a figure that the Census now considers inaccurate.--Pharos 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
New York City DOES have MASSIVE out migration. I believe the latest census figures show that more than half a million people left the city for other parts of the U.S. This was more than made out for INTERNATIONAL immigration (people coming into the city from overseas) and through child birth. Not sure it has much relevance for the article either way, though.--Bibliophylax 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're just factually wrong there. People do move out of the city, but considerably more move in. The population is projected to hit nine million in a few years. That's not to say that the issues that force people to leave aren't serious issues, but the population is definitely growing.--Pharos 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RNC

I'm still disturbed by the recent additions. We shouldn't be randomly inserting quotes; we should be integrating them into the article. Furthermore, they're uncited ("a New York Times article" isn't really a valid citation). Finally, we do have a separate article on the incidents: merely mentioning them should be enough, as this article is meant to give a broad overview of his life and not dwell on events that were a) in the grand scheme of things. pretty unimportant, and b) rather vaguely connected to Bloomberg himself. Biruitorul 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Housing

Bloomberg's housing policies seem a bit mysterious. He has talked a lot of talk, but when it comes to the walk -- well, "drunken stagger" seems more accurate.

The Big Promise was to effectively double the amount of publicly funded or sponsored housing. This was supposed to happen over the course of a decade or so — much of which would take place after Bloomberg was out of office. The smaller promise was 65,000 new units, about $3 billions' worth, PDQ. Reality check: The city's public housing operating authority (NYCHA) renovated or built about 1,200 units according to its last capital report (even assuming that's one year's worth, tripling it for three years' worth ain't no 65,000 units).

Bloomberg has successfully campaigned to renew the city's 421a tax abatement program, which allows very generous abatements to developers who set aside 20 percent of units they build for affordable housing. The law is peculiar, though: A developer can put up really posh housing in Manhattan — the 80 percent allowed — and build the remaining 20 percent in the Bronx or the nether end of Brooklyn, as it appears. Attempts to end this practice were frustrated by an obstinate Mayor's Office.

Another conundrum involves Section 8 participation. Bloomberg has announced (1/29/07) that NYCHA will issue 20,000 new Section 8 vouchers, worth $100 millions. This money is supposed to come from new appropriations to HUD; the money appears to have been appropriated in mid-2006, but the funding for it is on hold as a result of the continuing resolution enacted at the end of the last congress (late-2006). There are other peculiarities in this: Most of NYCHA's aging public housing stock normally carries a monthly rental of $350-$550; the HUD Section 8 contract rent is often more than twice that. It has been speculated that NYCHA hopes to use the increased revenue from Section 8 vouchers to underwrite renovations to its aging housing, most of which is not eligible for other kinds of federal or state support.

At the same time, the city's other housing agency (HPD) has been — the only suitable word seems to be "harrassing" — Section 8 enhanced-voucher holders, decertifying them or imposing substantial increases in tenant's-portion assessments. A lot of these vouchers have been used to secure affordable rents to long-resident tenants in city-funded public housing sold off to real estate speculators. The agency has been pretty cagey about disclosing the procedures it uses to calculate these changes; it has refused outright to provide a transparent description of its procedures, either to affected tenants or public officials.

One major project where new housing has been proposed by Bloomberg is in Brooklyn, as part of a grand redevelopment project largely benefiting Forest City Ratner. To accomplish this end, large areas currently occupied are to be cleared, using the city's power of eminent domain. The city's wholesale use of this is as this is being written remains sub judice (see http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/forest_city_ratner_company/). What is ignored in this is the destructive character of the development Bloomberg and his cronies advocate. Public housing on this scale is destructive of extended communities; this is widely acknowledged and well documented for wholesale public housing in general and for New York City in particular. It often provides substandard housing, as well.

Finally, a word about "affordable" in "affordable housing". This term is used in different ways by government than it is by ordinary folks. In gov-speak, "Affordable" means affordable to those with an income of $35,000+ per annum (inter alia, the comments of the Rev. Martha Overall, J.D., D.D., rector of St. Ann's Episcopal Church in Mott Haven, Bronx, and in general a recognized authority on low-income and poverty issues in New York). Quite a lot of the ~1 million recent arrivals in New York do not make that kind of money; if they do, their job security is limited.

In short, this puff-piece reads like something that originated in City Hall, or at least had its blessing, and is devoid of solid foundation. The housing comments are just plain misleading. --djenner 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolerance of CD & DVD piracy by local police - reference or citation needed

Can anyone substantiate the assertions made in the article? Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. Raj 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about POV

I'm concerned about this article's neutrality. Most other politicians' pages have their good points and bad points displayed. Bloomberg's page seems to be systematically edited to remove any comments that indicate negative controversy surrounding him - and often those edits are by first time users or IP addresses, which worries me. The following section, which was the closest this page came to having a "Criticisms" section, was removed by just such a single edit user:

"Harassment controversies
Michael Bloomberg has on numerous occasions been accused of sexually harassing women under his employment. T. Diane Winger sued Mr. Bloomberg for sexual harassment, alleging that he had made explicit comments about her body and encouraged her to spend time alone with him. The lawsuit was withdrawn in 1999.[1] High level Bloomberg employee Sekiko Garrison claimed she was forced to quit after becoming pregnant. Garrison claimed that Bloomberg told her twice to "kill it" when she informed him she was having a baby. He also added, according to Garrison: "Great! Number 16," a reference to the number of company women on maternity leave. [2]
He has also been accused of covering up similar misdemeanours at his company Bloomberg LP, including a rape claim by Mary Ann Olszewski. [3]"

It was taken out on the grounds that the sourcing was somehow invalid or did not provide notability to the claims. I'm uncomfortable with it being removed as the sources are meely examples of its notability, rather than the full extent of it. I recall all the issues mentioned being brought up during his electoral campaign. Before reinserting the section and starting an edit war, though, I'd like to discuss how it can be better crafted to meet WP standards. Coricus 16:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) References: 1. [2] 2. + 3. [3]

I feel comfortable that the harrasment section in its revised form (As of April 4, 2007) largely addresses this issue. Coricus
These comments were inserted into the article but have since (once more) been editted out. That means we're back to having a POV piece unworthy of wikipedia. 88.110.226.130 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this need to be revisited? --Michael WhiteT·C 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

There are several comments above talking about sections containing "Criticisms of Bloomberg". These have been removed, except for the portion on the 2004 Republican convention. An article without some of the criticisms of the mayor is POV. 193.129.65.37 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this alleged section in the history, so I'm removing the tag.--Chaser - T 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What are you blind?88.110.226.130 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did find it very odd that there was no critical view of the man. The article is almost a perfect endorsement of the man. I think he might be a "Wiki Saint" or something. Some political articles are 3/4th critical. Did Mikey buy Wikipedia or something? He seems to buy everything else.Mantion 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture

Perhaps a different picture would improve the quality of the article. --Remi 04:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The picture is not very flattering. I think it is generally accepted that the picture should be an official photo from the politicians website (judging from others on wikipedia). You know, smiling and confident and all that. Anything else will risk POV. Njerseyguy 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


I agree I think that the picture sucks. The pic is blurry, and is making a dumb face, this can't be the first possible 3rd party presidential candidate of this century, let alone the Major of the most important city in the world. 129.186.209.124 21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)cptcolo

[edit] Problems with references

I have just fixed and updated some of the references for this article because they had various faults. The biggest problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not. In short, bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles.

There are also several "references" that merely state the author, date, and newspaper title, requiring verifiers to read an entire paper to find the actual source. This is unacceptable; an article title and/or page number should be included. One need not create a fully filled-out citation, but one should at least include these basic elements.

I ask other regular editors to assist in the effort to convert and maintain more descriptive links. Current citations 12-14, 18-20, 23, 25-28, and 30-35 all need serious improvement of different kinds. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a tag, hopefully it draws more attention to the problem. Jauerback 03:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, but any reference is better than no reference, which is the largest problem faced on Wikipedia. Bare links are better than none at all or an article covered with citation tags.--Gloriamarie 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Problem - Section about "Presidential aspirations"

The section about the possibility of Bloomberg running for president has serious NPOV problems. Under BLP policy this must be fixed quickly.

  • First, the title of the section indicates that he aspires for the presidency. He has not said that.
  • Second, there is no balance discussing his indications against running.

Ichibani utc 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The title was changed and the only indications that he's not running are his continued denials (if he is going to run, he's much more subtle about it than Thompson was). There's nothing we can add here to make it more neutral.--chaser - t 07:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Article about Mayoralty

Bloomberg's bio artcile should be split between his personal biogrpahy and his time as mayor. In a article 70 kB long with the Mayoralty section at around 30 kB long. As the average article length is around 35 kB, both articles would be close to that standard. This has been done before with other articles to trim the articles to more accurately reflect their main point. Rougher07 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this would be a good idea and would allow editors to go more in depth about the mayoralty and not worry about making the article too long.--Southern Texas 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay?

Wait a minute... isn't he gay? I don't see anything in the article, or even on the talk page. My god, is not NOT gay?! I think I need to lie down... -- AvatarMN 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign policy section

This section of the article suggests that Bloomberg is consistently pro Iraq war citing a Village Voice article. The article in question was written before Bloomberg changed his party affiliation, and the quotes of his that were cited in the article are somewhat nebulous, as some of them seem to be about the "global war on terrorism" as it was discussed in the wake of September 11th. The same article also quotes him as saying in August of 2005 that "everybody has very mixed emotions about the war that was started to find weapons of mass destruction and then they were not found." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseword (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for position on immigration

The source for Bloomberg's position on immigration is http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Immigration.htm. Unfortunately, if you visit that site you'll see that their source is Wikipedia! Can we find an independent source? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1983&wit_id=5493 is the July 5, 2006 testimony. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/14/bloomberg-defends-new-york-immigration/ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/nyregion/31bloomberg.html Jmegill (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Video of Bloomberg defending illegal immigration http://www.observer.com/2007/video-boy-let-em-come Jmegill (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiscal Conservative

I object to characterizing Bloomberg's record on fiscal matters as conservative. The Club for Growth has attacked Bloomberg on fiscal policy. Here http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/07/02/cq_3007.html ILikeBloomberg (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Jmegill (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And here http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/01/the_other_tax_hike_mike.php#more Jmegill (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Club for Growth writes about Bloomberg, "Over his first term, spending increased by an average of 10% per year according to New York City's Independent Budget Office -- wildly outpacing inflation and population growth, easily surpassing the 2.84% average during Rudy Giuliani's two terms and even beating out David Dinkins's four-year spending spree." That's not fiscal conservative. Jmegill (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Geee - can not think that your link was from a biased source as well - Club for Growth is known for its attacks - especially as quoted in your own article: "The opinion piece by Toomey came in the context of speculation surrounding a possible independent presidential bid in 2008 by Bloomberg". Sorry, need to have a different source my friend. ILikeBloomberg (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
New York Times says Bloomberg increased spending big time, "Portraying himself as a fiscal conservative despite having increased spending more than any other New York mayor in almost 30 years, Mr. Bloomberg sought to define his own political ideology, telling delegates at the Conservative Party conference here that the key to success was balancing budgets, avoiding deficits, delivering services more efficiently and staying away from politics." Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/nyregion/01mayor.html Jmegill (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
New York Times again, "But Mr. Bloomberg has also presided over one of the largest expansions in the city budget in decades, increasing spending 23 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 2002." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/nyregion/06bloomberg.html Jmegill (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a solution. Wikipedia is not about logic, pure logic... just consensus of other published statements. It turns out that fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with spending, just tax cuts... This tax professor's blog points out... Stop making sense I would agree that fiscal conservation should be defined as spending, not taxing, but the ring wing wacko pols have just focused on Flat earth Flat tax... tax cuts fix everything... Logiocally spensing is the ONLY importnat part when we have at least a 5 trillion dollar debt held in the private market Radio Guy (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Only 5 trillion? I don't want to be there when you find out the real number. Jmegill (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the approx figure if you only count actual debt, not implicit debt. Implicit debt doesn't really really count because a change in formula for retirement or a change in benefits for Medicare is not a capita; makt default. I know it's sad but not as sad as if we didn't Radio Guy (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft Movements

How can a Draft movement listing - which is part and parcel of the effort today - be considered link spam? And who is TurtleScrubber? ILikeBloomberg (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know who you are.
"I am Citizen Ben from the UniteForMike / Draft Bloomberg 2008 group. We are interested in building a fact-based awareness of Mayor Bloomberg in the case of his run for the presidency."
Turtlescrubber (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I am from UniteForMike, but I have been a bit concerned that the draft section of this article may be getting to a size a bit out of proportion of its notability/importance. As a longtime, fairly-experienced Wikipedian, I would be happy to contribute to this discussion about the Draft section of this article. We are also working on an issues page which I will be expanding and adding more citations soon. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We cannot have this article become simply a list of all Bloomberg draft sites that aspire to importance. That is why I have reverted the readditions of ChrisG nyc (who is the creator of RunMikeRun.com) of several non-notable draft sites. Per WP:EL, external links to be avoided include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" and "Links mainly intended to promote a website." I propose that draft sites only be included if they have been mentioned in third-party sources, which UniteForMike.com (NY Sun, NY Observer, WSJ), DraftMichael.com (NY Observer, probably others - I just did a quick search), and DraftBloomberg.com (many MSM, and I would argue inherently notable enough for inclusion because of its founders) have--while RunMikeRun.com and others have not, as far as I know. Other sites' notability/not being spam should be established before inclusion.--Michael WhiteT·C 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources establishing notability of Draft sites: DraftBloomberg.com[4]; DraftMichael.com[5]; UniteForMike.com and RunMikeRun.com[6]. --Michael WhiteT·C 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael White is in fact part owner of UniteForMike.com, and is using his editing priviledged to delete what he sees as "competitor sites" to his, from the external links.

Furthermore, my site, RunMikeRun.com has recieved extensive coverage in the media, including multiple mentions in the Wall Street Journal, as well as New York Daily News. Further more, due to internal fighting among the organizers of UniteForMike.com, one partner, who's name I will not mention, has locked the other members out of their petition logs, so their site (UniteForMike.com) is currently using my site (RunMikeRun.com)'s petition because they cannot access their own. The fact that Mike White has the audacity to suggest that other sites should be removed, while deliberately failing to mention fact that he is a partner in UniteForMike, gives him an explicit conflict of interest in deleting mine or anybody elses site from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisG nyc (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have acknowledged my membership in UniteForMike.com ("part owner"/"partner" is a bit of an exaggeration) in the past. However, I did not add the UniteForMike link originally, I am not editing in a biased manner, and I would fully support the decision of any other neutral Wikipedia editors who decided to remove UniteForMike were it to be determined that it was not notable enough to be included. I a Wikipedian first, Draft Bloomberg supporter second, and I fully support attempts to prune Draft Bloomberg linkspam in this article, both in the Draft Bloomberg and External links section.
Furthermore, in fact, I added back RunMikeRun.com (which, by the way, you are in a conflict of interest for adding, being its owner) once I found the Wall Street Journal blog post linking to it. The other sites, however, are not notable, and their addition is linkspam. I fully support them being added to the list if a reference showing mention in independent third-party sources is provided.--Michael WhiteT·C —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Chris, as I said, I don't have a problem now with your site being included due to its mention in the WSJ blog. However, I can't find the other WSJ source you cite, nor the NY Daily News. Could you provide a link?
As further evidence that I am not editing in a biased way in favor of UniteForMike, I would like to add that I contributed in the removal of ILikeBloomberg's (Citizen Ben of UniteForMike) contention that Mike Bloomberg is a "fiscal conservative," in favor of saying that he calls himself a fiscal conservative, while conservative groups have criticized that, and the addition of a quote of Bloomberg describing his fiscal conservative. I answer to Citizen Ben at UniteForMike, yet I did this, even though it might not be advantageous for the Draft Bloomberg movement that seeks to portray as a socially liberal, fiscally conservative moderate, because I am a Wikipedian first, and a Draft Bloomberg supporter second (on Wikipedia). --Michael WhiteT·C 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Case in point: an administrator has just removed all Draft Bloomberg links. Am I going to add UniteForMike back? No. --Michael WhiteT·C 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't have to, because your business partner, Citizen Ben placed a whole paragraph about UniteForMike in the body of the page. If my own link is a conflict of interest self-promotion, then putting an entire paragraph about yourselves in the body clearly is. So I've removed that as well, based on your own criteria for conflict of interest. Now aren't you glad you started a edit war over this? All I've done is keep all the draft movements posted. All you've done is self promotion, and deleting links to your site's "competitors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisG nyc (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Chris, I'm sorry you see it that way. I did not like the UniteForMike section, and was getting around to making it less promotional and more inclusive of the other efforts (I mean, the Unity08 one is really the notable one if you go by media coverage).--Michael WhiteT·C 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I do accept your removal of the Unite For Mike section due to conflict of interest, though hopefully we can get a high-quality, neutral, inclusive Draft section up soon. --Michael WhiteT·C 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link farm

I cleaned it out. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to put links to aeveryone's opinions. It is not a webhost. It is not a link farm. There are plenty of references here. Anything beyond the subject's home page is superfluous. Dlohcierekim 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cracky, and it is not a sopabox. Dlohcierekim 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approval Rating

The article states that he had a high approval rating through his terms as Mayor. This isn't accurate. I live in New York City and read the local newspapers. His approval rating was very low from around late 2002 until approximately early 2004. I may delete this on the main page if there are no objections. There is no reference to this claim that he consistently had high approval rating. JonErber (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New lead photo by Shankbone

There are about six photos I uploaded, all good, which can be found at Commons:Category:Michael Bloomberg. --David Shankbone 18:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I liked the one to the right a lot, too. --David Shankbone 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrest of Protestors

The text here says "Many of the arrestees were held for hours in crowded detention areas, thus preventing them from being able to fully exercise their rights to free speech."

The second second part seems non-neutral. In any case, the entire thing is not cited. 74.70.124.27 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)