Talk:Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign

This article is premature
This article is unnecessary at the moment; Bloomberg isn't even officially in the race yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He is now. — JFG talk 08:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, he definitely is in the race now, he has even qualified for his first debate, ( link here ) So this thread seems outdated and should be removed. -- EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's outdated. I started it last November. It'll be archived eventually. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. A redirect from the proposed name has been created. This proposal can be reintroduced after a reasonable period should circumstances change. Station1 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign → Mike Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign –

Even if there is argument whether the article on the person Mike/Michael Bloomberg should be renamed, I believe the case is stronger for naming the campaign "Mike Bloomberg ...", as is also the campaign website and as this shortened name will probably be used in many media posts from now on. Meerwind7 (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Supporting argument: While the official given name of the person is certainly Michael, the name of the campaign is MikeBloomberg2020. The proposed article name is also not "Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign", i.e. the campapaign of the person called Mike/Michael Bloomberg, but "Mike Bloomberg presidential campaign", i.e. the presidential campaign run under the headline Mike Bloomberg. Articles in Washington Post, for example, that name the person Bloomberg are about half in half split between Michael and Mike. Meerwind7 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Although the concurrent Michael Bloomberg → Mike Bloomberg nomination at Talk:Michael Bloomberg is not succeeding because subject had not been referenced as "Mike" more frequently than as "Michael", he has branded himself for his presidential campaign as "Mike" (https://www.mikebloomberg.com/), thus suggesting that the article delineating his 2020 presidential run should use his 2020 presidential candidacy name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, for consistency with the the name of the main Michael Bloomberg article. As I basically stated in the other RM, all this indicates is WP:OFFICALNAME, because he is the one controlling and branding these websites, not necessarily the WP:COMMONNAME currently used by most media sources. Also moving the page to the shorten name now before many media posts start using them is not how Wikipedia's naming policy works. Thus, would probably support after the majority of the media starts using "Mike". Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency with Michael Bloomberg. -- Netoholic @ 02:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – WP:TOOSOON. If most sources start referring to him as "Mike Bloomberg", then we can re-assess the move. — JFG talk 03:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: On grounds of consistency and lack of reliable sources backing this change. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 03:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JFG. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 01:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plagiarism incident
An entry about Bloomberg's campaign was reverted, saying it was "highly exaggerated" and with "unreliable and trivial sources". I feel that the entry was not biased, as it explained the incident and the campaign's response to it. In addition, if the two sources included aren't reliable enough, below are some other sources:
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bloomberg-2020-policy-plan-plagiarism/index.html
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-campaign-responds-to-allegations-of-plagiarism-on-website-2020-2
 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/02/man-who-owns-news-outlet-guilty-of-plagiarism.html

I am reinstating the entry. Feel free to make changes to improve its neutrality and sources if needed. Instead of reverting/blanking it, please discuss here. If a consensus is reached that it's not notable or reliable, then we can take further action. Sk5893 (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I support including it. It is very well sourced, and the entry include's the campaign's response/explanation. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought I added a third reference - CNN - as a more mainstream and thoroughly credible source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Voting Section No Longer Relevant
The section entitled "Voting" appears to no longer be relevant considering it only accounts for 2 votes cast for Michael Bloomberg in New Hampshire although many more write-in ballots were likely also cast for him that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cweisberg (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Article seems to be stuck in 2020
I have noticed some weird stuff here. I do not think phrases like "published a blistering report" should be in an encyclopedia article. There are also things like the descriptions of his policy proposals, which seem wild to me: especially focused on assisting mid-sized cities in the economically lagging American heartland in their becoming economic growth generators,[128][129] would include increased federal funding for community-colleges, technical training programs, and job-creating research and development endeavors that "invest in college partnerships and apprenticeships that connect people with identifiable jobs and career paths";[130] provide to workers, whether gig work, contract and franchise employees, union organizing and collective bargaining rights;[130] increase to the national minimum wage to $15 an hour;[131][128][132] increase to the Earned Income Tax Credit; and, creating "Business Resource Centers" to assist entrepreneurs.[130]. Yeesh! There are also a lot of parts where he "is proposing", "plans to", "is", etc -- when he dropped out in March 2020. jp×g 04:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)