Talk:Michael Milken

Michael milken
Current status 103.157.129.199 (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed designation of Philanthropist
According to Forbes, Milken has given between 5-10% of his net worth to charity, granting him a score of 3 out of 5 on the philanthropy scale. This is hardly notable philanthropy. This is about as much as the average person from Utah and Mississippi A good many people give away much more. This is on par with Ray Dalio and Robert Kraft, both of whom have donated more than Milken, neither of whom have the "philanthropist" label. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other person on Wikipedia with a similar level of giving who are also designated philanthropists. I would also argue that the amount of space spent in this article on his charitable giving is undue. Epachamo (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm Larry Weisenberg and I represent Mike Milken. I did not make the previous edit before Epachamo took the descriptor "philanthropist" out of the lead, but it seems this editor apparently "read" an article in Forbes magazine that is by its nature highly speculative - since NO ONE knows how much Milken or any other philanthropist gives to charity. But if he'd actually read the article, he'd see that on the very same page Milken is credited with both a $6 billion and $3.8 billion (chart) net worth. Forbes has no idea: there is no sourcing of any data in the article; it's just their opinion. It's all speculative and not factual. Secondly, I don't know where the editor got the 5-10% figure (let's not call it a fact), but it's not found in the Forbes article, nor could any publication credibly source that kind of number based on my first point. Thirdly, Milken is a documented member of the Giving Pledge, and pledging to give away a minimum of half of his wealth seems to be the foundational commitment of a philanthropist. And finally, this editor seems to believe HE is the personal arbiter of who is a philanthropist and who is not; you can read for yourself his many comments on this page, the NPOV he brings to his edits on Milken, and the lengths to which he will go to add any NPOV to what should be a balanced encyclopedic entry. At a minimum, Milken has demonstrably given hundreds of millions of dollars to charity, and taken documented personal action in funding and implementing innovative cancer research public health projects, and education initiatives among many others. There is a decades-long history of Wiki editors who have come to a collaborative agreement that a basic, balanced and encyclopedic description of Milken demands that both financier and philanthropist be included. Let's stay factual and put philanthropist back in the lead. Thank you. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that Forbes is a reliable source (see WP:RSPSS). If you disagree, take it up with the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The 5-10% figure comes from Forbes, you can read their methodology here. Pledging to give your money away is not the same as actually giving it away, as pointed out by Forbes. Milken has given away money to charity, but so have the vast majority of Americans. His giving is at a level that is in the average range for Americans. Again, he has given less than other comparably wealthy people who are not noted for their philanthropy. Epachamo (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weisenberg has been here for years, defiantly insistent that his criminal client be painted as some kind of Santa Claus. What he gives is pocket change, and it's obviously being done in order that paid minions like Weisenberg can then point to their client and declare him a "philanthropist" who just happens to have been convicted of crimes that robbed thousands of other Americans (big deal, that's what Wall Street does for a living, right? Mere bagatelles!), and then bought a pardon (as billionaires are wont to do) from a uniquely corrupt and criminal politician. Milken's a felon, not a demon; but he's not one of the good guys either. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Epachamo. Having provided referenced argument it seems that Mullen should not be described so prominently as a philanthropist when this is clearly not a defining feature of his public image nor is there any reference to suggest he gives more than your average American.

As for LarryWeisenberg response, there is no argument that this has been established by consensus as this can change (see WP:CCC). The last consensus was in 2013 and a lot has changed relating to Mullen since then.

Equally, I think the arguments made need to be weighted inline with WP:CONFLICT that LarryWeisenberg contributions should be treated with caution. LarryWeisenberg‘a declaration of a conflict does not negate the need for caution in his contributions.

In conclusion, I think philanthropist should be removed from the lead. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)