Talk:Michael Milken/Archives/2013

Controversial lawsuit

Try to place all discussion about the 1989-1990 federal lawsuit and related civil lawsuits against Milken about wrongdoing in business activities in this talk subpage. The entire article is a whitewash. Milken is the source of most of the current problems on Wall Street. He's been using his influence over the media to revise history. He funded most of the major media companies. He obviously wouldn't have pleaded guilty if the evidence wasn't there. There's no attempt in the article to explain what he did. Wikipedia sucks on this. 76.243.133.114 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

when it comes to plea bargaining the truth can be difficult to find. It is possible that the feds were not confident in winning. The junk bond idea was brilliant and good for the economy. Supporting greenmailers was legal but bad for the economy.

Why don't you both stick around and help fixing the page then? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling of Milken's name

This article doesn't even spell the man's name correctly!!!!! So thousands of undergraduate students are getting red marks on their reports!!!!! It's Michael Milliken....please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssbuckley (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• The website of the Milken Family Foundation repeatedly spells his last name as Milken, not Milliken! If you have a more credible source please provide it here. -- idunno271828 (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread should be removed. To be polite, it's historically ignorant. Mike Milken is the proper spelling.Tardog1959 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

UC Berkeley honors graduation

UC Berkeley does not have a "summa cum laude" graduation status. One can graduate with either "honors" or without.

• Could you please cite your source for this confinement of academic status at UC Berkeley? T.E. Goodwin 05:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize this is old, but was never refuted. They do, indeed, have summa and magna, as shown here —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Information not meeting the necessary relevance level

I removed these passages from the article:--John S. Peterson (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Stone stated in the special features of the DVD release of the movie Wall Street starring Michael Douglas that the movie is a close parallel to Milken's past career. (In fact, however, Gordon Gecko, played by Michael Douglas, is much closer to the arbitrageur, Ivan Boesky, who eventually precipitated his downfall, than to Milken.). Edward R. Pressman, producer of Wall Street, said in an interview about the upcoming sequel that originally there was no one individual who the character of Gordon Gekko was based on, but that Gekko "was partly Milken." .

In 1998, without admitting any guilt, he returned $47 million in fees to settle an SEC charge related to the 1990 order barring him from the securities industry. He allegedly breached the order when he advised MCI/News Corporation in a transaction in 1995, for which he received $27 million in advisory fees, and when he advised Revlon chairman Ronald Perelman on a Revlon/New World Communications deal in 1996, with $15 million in fees to Milken. In 1996, he received $50 million when Time Warner acquired Turner Broadcasting. The SEC did not bring up the last deal in the charge.

Upon his release, he still had net worth of over $1 billion, despite having paid a total of $900 million in fines and settlements relating primarily to civil lawsuits. As of 2007, Milken was worth about $2.1 billion and has long since entered other business ventures. Most of his wealth comes from his success as a bond trader; according to Highly Confident by Jesse Kornbluth, he only had three losing months in 17 years of trading.

The case would have been difficult to explain to a jury despite what appeared to be strong direct and circumstantial evidence. Nonetheless, many experts believed that Milken had little chance of acquittal. Some felt a potential jury would have had trouble relating to a man who earned more in one hour than most of them earned in one year. Also, it was felt that a jury would have trouble believing that anyone could earn the money Milken earned and do so legally.

Movie character inspiration and 50withaBullet bias

After looking into the recent past edits of 50withaBullet (who ONLY edits Michael Milken) I believe we need to revert this change [1]. It was well known that Milken was one of the inspirations for Wall Street. I personally knew Gekko was fictional but also inspired by characters (like Milken) when I watched the movie, but I don't want to base my reason for reversion on my personal experience.

If we're going to mention the Gordon Gekko character background in the article about the film then it also seems appropriate that the article on Michael Milken note the characters he has inspired in movies.

This reversion shouldn't be viewed as putting a negative spin on the article because as was noted in the Wall Street (film) article, many people "wanted to be like [the] Gordon Gekko [character]":

"Over the years, the film's screenwriter Stanley Weiser has been approached by numerous people who told him, "The movie changed my life. Once I saw it I knew that I wanted to get into such and such business. I wanted to be like Gordon Gekko"."

I respectfully request that 50withaBullet or anyone objecting to this action make note here on the Talk page for further discussion. --Benefros (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that text should remain in the intro to the article on Milken since the character inspiration was not the biggest thing Milken has been involved in or known for. Maybe it should be broken out in a separate section of the article? I'll wait for other users to comment (or do the editing themselves) before making such a change. --Benefros (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It does not belong in the lead, but elsewhere in the article. Good catch on that August removal. One request, though: can you refactor the title of this section? There's no need to personalize this, though I do agree with you. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious, factually based encyclopedia. Many people are influenced by any number of people, both in positive and negative ways. Heck, Bob Dylan inspires me, but I won't be adding that into his Wikipedia page. Therefore, if someone wants to include this ancecote in a bio of Edward Pressman, by all means - go for it: "This is what influenced me in making this film." This page, however, is a biographical and historical sketch of Mike Milken. It ought contain accurate information - negative or positive - about his career, not whether a Hollywood producer creates a fictional character based on the media images and news reports he sees. This seems to me to be especially pertinent in the case of controversial figures: Over the years, this page has featured inaccurate information, nasty innuendos, outright falsehoods, racial slurs and much more. As we write, there are contradictions within: under the Impact on the High Yield Market section, someone has added that Oliver Stone suggests that it was Boesky, not Milken, who was the inspiration for Gekko. Well gentlemen: which is it? Shall we debate the issue in what is supposed to be a serious historical biography? Please. How about we agree that speculation on who was or was not the model for a fictional character be better left for more lurid web sites, and try to focus this ENCYCLOPEDIA entry on factual and historical information. I recommend removing both references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you (50withaBullet) have a point about the text: “(In fact, however, Gordon Gecko, played by Michael Douglas, is much closer to the arbitrageur, Ivan Boeksy, who eventually precipitated his downfall, than to Milken). ”[2] text that was added by Olivercorlett. It is clearly an uncited fact _or_ an opinion that was added and does not belong in a bio. HOWEVER: It does not change the fact that both the movie's director and screenwriter both have said that Milken was the inspiration for the character. Biographical pages can show characters inspired by the person. It indeed is a "factually based" piece of information. I agree that "It ought to contain accurate information - negative or positive" but I disagree that it should be limited to only one's career. Stating that a person was an inspiration for a fictional character is not a "nasty innuendo, outright falsehood, racial slur", etc. There has been no stated evidence or reference to claim that Boesky was an inspiration for the Gekko character. I do not disagree with your claim that Boesky was an inspiration for that character -- even if he was. What has been stated in the text was that the screenwriter _and_ director BOTH, on different occasions, have said that Milken was an inspiration for the Gekko character. And just for the debate: there can be more than one inspiration for a character. Nobody has claimed that Milken was the ONLY inspiration for this Gekko character.

I find it both unfortunate and unacceptable, 50withaBullet, that you still have not carried on discussion to come to a consensus on this Talk page prior to making edits to the article. 50withaBullet, you are not the Michael Milken article owner and you do not have authority to just throw out facts (that may be viewed as negative or positive) regarding Milken just because you don't agree with them. (Facts remain facts, regardless of your personal beliefs). --Benefros (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Benefros, I thought we were having a conversation. Perhaps we can look at larger issues. I hope we can agree that the Oliver Stone reference has no business being in the Impact on High Yield section. In fact, I'd suggest that the Buyout Boom section is really misnamed, and that it most accurately includes facts about Milken's Impact on the High Yield Market. How about we remove the Buyout Boom headline and replace with the Impact on the High Yield Market. If you insist that the Stone and Pressman comments belong in a serious biography (a POV I strongly disagree with), put them together and place them in new section called Milken and the Movies. (50withaBullet)

One other question: Dan Stone, who is quoted in this biography, worked for Drexel. Harvey Silvergate worked for Milken. Who, and why, have we deemed that Stone is worthy of quoting and Silvergate is not. Could it be that Stone seems a bit critical of Milken, while Silvergate is supportive? Both have clear POVs, yet only one is fit for publication? Should Silvergate be included, with his relationship to Milken noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.44.11 (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The NPOV policy doesn't say you delete potentially-biased sources: you include their views along with information informing readers of potential biases. And the perspective of Milken's own attorney seems obviously relevant and notable in a case like this. Binarybits (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzling statements

The last entry in the "Philanthropic activities" section says that Milken has been a commencement speaker. This puzzles me because there's no indication of how that is philanthropic. E.g., if Milken made a sizable donation for the honor of speaking, that would be the philanthropy, but without that element and a valid cite for it, this statement doesn't seem to fit here. Does anyone have the facts & a cite? Also, the edit of "22:31, 9 March 2009 50withaBullet", removed a specific year (2008) and replaced it with an unencyclopedic, vague time reference ("recent years")--see MOS:#Precise_language.

The edit of "17:22, 27 January 2009 50withaBullet" added to the "Guilty plea" section a paragraph saying that the charges to which Milken pleaded guilty have never been prosecuted before. That may be true, but it needs a valid cite. Also, the paragraph seems to lack a reason for being there; perhaps if we knew its source, we'd understand its implication. I can draw various, mutually exclusive inferences from it, which leads me to consider the paragraph unencyclopedic as stated. The entire paragraph is:

"None of these matters had ever been prosecuted under similar facts. The reporting violations have never been prosecuted before or since as crimes."

With the phrase "or since", it implies some verification that the statement continues to be true (again, see MOS:#Precise_language). Without the phrase "or since", that second sentence seems no different than the first, making it redundant.

Comments? --Rich Janis (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Milken, 60,000 Deaths, and the Story of Dendreon

It seems someone[3] has reverted the notes about Michael Milken's association with a number of hedge funds that were also tied to Mafia activities. The unfolding Michael Milken, 60,000 Deaths, and the Story of Dendreon] has created a bit of controversy, but it is not an "unreliable source" as noted by the editor at 74.64.81.92. The people mentioned in the story can be independently confirmed to have associations with Michael Milken[4][5][6][7][8] and the list goes on and on. I will re-add the reference to the article as it is still an unfolding story. --71.83.125.186 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this addition was removed once again, I don't want this to become an Edit War. The last revert claims that the claim of association with seven hedge fund managers is "prejudicial claims from [a] self-published source". I agree that the Deep Capture article is not mainstream media and may be a viewed as a "self-published source", but the statement which was reverted was by no means "prejudicial". The Deep Capture article claims "The managers of these seven hedge funds all know each other well. They have all worked with Michael Milken or Milken’s close associates." The Deep Capture article is in fact a compilation of well known facts about various people with ties to Milken. For example, it is a well known fact that Ivan Boesky was prosecuted for illegal trading and turned against Milken. It is also a matter of public record that Bernie Madoff owned put options in Dendreon. Maurice B Gross was running money for the Gambino family according to the New York Times. The list goes on and on... even SEC has stated here that "Mob involvement on Wall Street is not new. As organized crime advanced into the white-collar arena, the stock market became one of its targets. Indeed, there is evidence that organized crime had made inroads on Wall Street back in the 1970's. Then, as now, organized crime reportedly focused its efforts on the manipulation of microcap stocks."

Lets go back to the last revert which stated that it it was a prejudicial claim from a self-published source. We know that it is not prejudicial, since that two sentences make no claim of guilt. The Wikipedia [[Wikipedia::Reliable sources Reliable Sources]] page clearly states: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The writer of the Deep Capture article was an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal and also works for the Columbia Journalism Review. Mark Mitchell is certainly an "established expert" and the evidence he presents in Deep Capture has already been verified and cited both in his article and in this talk page. --71.83.125.186 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how you can argue with a straight face that "tying Milken to... the stock manipulation of a company" isn't prejudicial. It may very well be true, but I don't think we can put it in unless we can include a citation from a source more reliable than "Deep Capture." I did a quick news search and Mitchell appears to be the only one to be covering this story so far. I don't think one guy's blog is enough basis for covering an accusation like this in a BLP--and that's true even if the blogger in question is extremely reputable. Binarybits (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. PStrait (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. If the reverts continue, it may be necessary to semi this page.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Seem's more like Wikipedia content managers are trying to conceal information that is valuable to the public and are doing a great disservice by protecting a known crook. What are you going to do next? Edit out the fact that John Wayne Gacy was a perverted psycho because "it's a matter of opinion?" Binarybits? What is Milken paying you to watch his page daily? Don't tell me you are doing this for fun (HolographicInk)

I think you're misunderstanding how Wikipedia's policies work. The goal isn't to promote or conceal any particular information, it's to produce an encyclopedia that fairly reflects all sides of the subject in question. One way we ensure impartiality is by requiring citation of reliable sources (such as established newspapers and magazines, peer-reviewed scientific articles, books, and the like) before including controversial claims. You can read more about the policy here. In my opinion, "Deep Capture" does not meet the requirements of that policy, and as far as I know, no one else has covered this particular accusation. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies to include it.

An important part of the Wikipedia process is that decisions are reached by discussion and consensus. If you feel "Deep Capture" does qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies, you should make your case here on the discussion page. Conversely, if the accusations against Mr. Milkein have been covered in other sources, please point them out so their reliability can be evaluated.

And yes, I do this for fun. I'm weird that way. Binarybits (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did some more reading about Mark Mitchell, and found this and this. I don't really have a dog in the fight between Byrne and his various enemies, but Mitchell seems to be on the payroll of a guy with an axe to grind, and he clearly isn't the kind of impartial expert we'd want to rely on for verification of negative information about living persons. Binarybits (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted articles which cast doubt on your source here, but there were removed on the grounds of BLP. For some reason it's okay to libel Mark Mitchell, but not post links to news sources about Gary Weiss. So shall we just go with the fact that those are blogs and therefore not credible sources. Zombywuf (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your "fact" tags, by the way. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching around for online references for that section. The phrasing of it sounds like it was lifted straight from the book. Unfortunately it all happened before the big web boom so I've only found the NYT archives so far. Zombywuf (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some of the text you tagged. However there is an overriding tone issue that bugs me and I'm not familiar enough with Milken to correct it. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it quite hard to present criminal activity. Perhaps it needs a rewrite as a summary of known facts rather than a story of the event. Zombywuf (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why. There are plenty of reliable sources on him. Few are on the Internet, which is a disadvantage if one doesn't have the requisite materials at hand. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How can this cyber vandalism be stopped? We're talking about a man's reputation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a convicted felon, and that is going to set the tone of the article. However, you are right that BLP applies and the article was just semiprotected because of BLP violations. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? I had to tone down the lead. Please discuss here and not revert. First I'm not sure that it really is three decades. Second the tone was not neutral. See WP:PEACOCK. It's one thing not to malign him and another thing to go overboard in the other direction. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Miliken's 3 Decades of Medical Research Advocacy

Milken co-founded the Milken Family Foundation back in 1982 (27 years ago - the better part of 3 decades), dedicated to education and medical research (www.mff.org). Cancer and epilepsy research award programs were among the first major awards the Foundation created, a formalization of Milken's previous philanthropy, according to www.mikemilken.com.

Secondarily, and for accuracy sake, if you read the Fortune magazine article, it's clear that Milken does not promote medical research - rather, he seeks to accelerate its progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, but we can't say "three decades" if it has been less than 30 years. Also the phraseology you keep inserting is a peacock term. It has to be neutral. I don't think there's any material difference between promoting medical research or accelerating. Perhaps "funding" would be a more neutral and accurate term anyway. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can assist in creating a sentence without peacock terms. The entire point of the Fortune article seems to be that Milken has not only funded cancer research, his innovative approach to funding and bringing together diverse medical research contributors, as well as understanding the political, social and business ramifications of medical research and then proposing innovative solutions, has literally changed the pace and progress of medical research in many areas. That's what Fortune reported, and why, for example, Milken was included on a special panel discussion this week on a CNBC Report with Maria Bartiromo on the health care challenges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC) — 50withaBullet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sure, but keep in mind we can't go into too much detail in the lead section.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it very strange that Milken was brought onto a CNBC program when he is banned from securities for life. Milken is not a doctor or other health care professional and has no experience in the health care industry other than throwing a ton of money around and being a patient. While it isn't my place to put such an opinion into the article, on this talk page I must question the neutrality of CNBC's decision to interview Milken considering he is banned from the securities industry for life. It probably isn't appropriate to use this Bartiromo program as justification for any claims in this article. --Benefros (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're puzzled by Milken's inclusion in the CNBC interview, you might have to put aside some of your assumptions and research what Milken has actually done over the past nearly 30 years in the area of medical research. It might also require you to be open to accepting the fact that he has indeed made a powerful impact in medical research that has not only accelerated medical research, resulted in more and better treatments for cancer and other serious diseases, but has literally help save thousands of lives. If you actually watch the Bartiromo interviews, you might be impressed. But again, that would require you to let go of your long-held prejudices that sound pretty well entrenched. SwimDude (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch for deletions by SPA

A single-purpose account WP:SPA has been working to de-emphasize Milken's criminal history. That's a bit much. The man is one of the most notorious criminals in American financial history and did time in a Federal pen. --John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You've no doubt viewed the history and discussions on this page. In reading this biography, you've also no doubt noticed that quite a bit of copy is related to Mr. Milken's legal issues. The current biography has developed as the result of several years worth of debate and dicussion. For the most part, it has developed into a fairly straight-forward and accurate biography with little POV. As you no doubt understand, Mr. Milken is a controversial figure about whom many people have often passionate feelings. Indeed, some may quibble with certain points, but the text itself appears to be fairly accurate. This is no white wash.

The edits you suggest are quite simply inflammatory, redundant, disrespectful, irrelevant and/or clearly biased. When using such terms as "notorious", "Federal pen" and "famous crooks" in your missives, you reveal yourself as an editor with an agenda and POV. When you try to add his federal prisoner number from 20 years ago, you reveal yourself as someone with an agenda and POV. It might do you well to examine some other Wiki pages. For example, please check the pages of Martha Stewart and Michael Vick - each has served in prison. Neither have the incendiary language or inclusion of irrelevant information that you are trying to add ot the right-side box. Look at Bill Clinton's page - you find plenty of information about his legal problems, but nothing as disrespectful as that which you are trying to add in his right-side box. Even Tom Delay, who has just been convicted, does not suffer the inflammatory type of copy you propose. Thank you. SwimDude (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Swim DudeSwimDude (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(The above is from a WP:SPA account, one that has edited no other articles.) After someone has been convicted, it is appropriate to view them as a criminal. Especially when the activity which led to their fame turned out to be a criminal operation. See, for example, Bernard Madoff. Listing a criminal's prisoner number is hardly inflammatory; it's a verifiable fact. Deleting it is a form of POV whitewashing. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; problems in other articles do not justify similar treatment for the one under discussion. --John Nagle (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just checked. For both Martha Stewart and Michael Vick, the Federal prisoner ID is listed. So that, when avialable, is a standard item in Wikipedia entries for crooks.--John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Nagle. Unacceptable. Look at Martha's right side box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.44.11 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI issues for this article are being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Milkin_family_reputation_enhancement_project --John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is at least one editor with designs on posting inflammatory and inaccurate information on this page. As far as I can tell, he is adding unprecedented material in the right-side box of the page.

#1 - Milken was never convicted of racketeering. This contradicts accurate information in the body of the page. You cannot convict someone of a crime he didn't commit!

#2 - No page - not Martha Stewart, not Chris Brown, not Michael Vick, not Bill Clinton, and not even Richard Nixon - includes such derogatory or inaccurate information in the right-side box. The suggested edits are unprecedented - the information being added is both inaccurate and irrelevant.

#3 - The main editor making these changes charges that the page reads like a press release. If you actually read the page, nothing could be further from the point. The first three paragraphs of the bio address legal issues, and there are three full sections devoted to it. What this editor cannot seem to accept is that Milken has a documented commitment over three decades to accelerating medical research, improving education and addressing a host of philanthropic efforts - all of which predate any legal issues. This editor brings a clear POV to his edits, one that flies in the face of factual information printed in mainstream magazine such as Fortune and Esquire, and ignores the independent praise from people like the former Commissioner of the FDA and multiple directors of the National Cancer Institute.

Fair is fair, and there can only one conculsion here - someone is intent on smearing Milken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimDude (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — SwimDude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You can see what pages use the infobox criminal template pretty easily [9]. With 30 seconds of looking, Bill Janklow, Kwami Kilpatrick and Michael Vick were easy to spot. Kilpatrick is probably a good place to look, given he's got notability for something else (mayor of Detroit) and for criminal convictions stemming from that. The person template is used at the top, with the criminal template farther down. Same thing with Vick. Something to consider. Ravensfire (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Toxic-Assets ----

The guy should be noted as an ex-con, regardless of whether his criminal record is more than one page long. Without his shrewed "business" activities related to junk-bonds, Wall St. would never have developed a taste for the toxic-assets of the sub-prime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.160.219.117 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Milken's current Net worth?

Since it's stated that Fortune Magazine still profiles Michael Milken's philanthropic activities, have they or any other financial publication ever released recent estimates of his personal fortune? --173.60.152.8 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the current Introduction to this Article, "With an estimated net worth of around $2 billion as of 2010, he is ranked by Forbes magazine as the 488th richest person in the world." Ask and ye shall receive. Dick Kimball (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Eliminating Inaccurate Information

I represent Michael Milken. Recognizing that bias, I would like to correct two inaccurate statements in the section titled, “The high-yield market and the 1980s buyout boom.”

1. “Both these buyers subsequently failed as a result of their junk bond investments.” This statement, which is not sourced, is inaccurate. In a December 2, 1990 Los Angeles Times article, Charles R. Morris, an award-winning author and regular contributor the Los Angeles Time and The Atlantic, wrote: “To begin with, junk bonds have almost nothing to do with the S&L crisis. Savings and loans got into trouble by investing in real estate – the business they know best. Nationwide, only about 1% of S&L assets are invested in junk bonds. Of the 3,000-odd S&Ls in the country, only about 160 ever owned any junk bonds at all.” http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-02/opinion/op-7849_1_junk-bonds

Twelve years later, Wall Street Journal editor emeritus Robert Bartley agreed: “Various politicians caused a savings-and-loan crisis and the 1990 recession by inflating deposit insurance and leaning on regulators not to clean up thrift balance sheets. Their fall guy was Michael Milken and his supposedly malign junk bonds, which in fact had almost nothing to do with the S&L problem and have since been universally recognized as a legitimate financing tool.” Robert L. Bartley, "Businessmen in the Dock: How to tell if we're in a recession," The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2002 (available via Factiva)

2. A post was recently added citing a Los Angeles Times article (11/16/1990) that reported a “U.S. government claim” that Drexel had manipulated 41 failed thrifts into buying its junk bonds.” At the time of publication (21 years ago), this article was reporting a “government claim.” The “government claim” was never proven in court because there was no evidence that any buyer of high-yield securities ever failed because of these investments. In fact no buyer ever did. Later, when the government settled the matter, it could find no wrongdoing. Source: Records of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Based on these impartial sources, I recommend that both of these statements be removed. Thank you. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith (I'm unable to check the second reference provided by LarryWeisenberg), I believe this edit to remove the unsupported statements is reasonable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still editing this page? The figure of Mike Milken fascinates me, I'll say that up front. I want to add a bunch of info from EJE's book Money Demons—any thoughts, objections, etc.? I'll get cracking over the week. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

X-shaped trading desk

Milken's X-shaped trading desk is something of a legend in and out of the financial community. It would certainly be a big plus if someone could contribute a picture of it. Dick Kimball (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 ! The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ex-Con

My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken. With that bias placed out front, I have removed the term "ex con" from the lead paragraph of his biography. I have two main objections: 1. A few editors have sought to place the term "ex con" in the lead paragraph of Mike Milken's biography. In fact, Milken's legal troubles are referred to matter-of-factly in the lead paragraph, the second paragraph is dedicated solely to his legal issues, and entire sections in the body of the biography deal with these issues. The term "ex con" is redundant and adds nothing factual to the entry. 2. As almost anyone knows, the term "ex con" is a loaded term; it is used to create a negative image or POV. Wikipedia strives to provide a neutral, straight-forward reportage of facts. By adding "ex-con" to this biography, it appears that several editors are seeking to bring their own negative POV to this biographical entry.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, "convicted criminal" then. --John Nagle (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are still piling on redundancy and bringing your own POV. The lead sentence notes Milken's "1990 guilty plea to felony charges for violating US securities laws". The next paragraph fully explains the scope of his legal issues. Given the full explanation of his legal status, the only reason to add "convicted criminal" is to insult and bring your own POV. You'll note that at least one other editor - TheSoundAndTheFury - seems to express similar distaste at your edits, calling them "non-encyclopedic," and he reversed them. In no way am I trying to cover up any factual reportage - there is plenty to read in this biography. What I object to is your insistence on bringing your own POV - which is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)98.149.155.137 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling on this one way or the other -- I suppose if forced to give an opinion I'd say the ex-con epithet doesn't really improve the article -- but in any event, since you are associated with the subject of the article, it is inappropriate for you to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. PStrait (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to follow Wiki guidelines, which state that someone with a "COI is encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors." This is what I have done. Perhaps I can point out another example from this biography page. Reviewing through the edit history, I found on January 26, 2011, that through an editing process in which I was certainly not involved, a number of editors reached a consensus that it was improper to list Mr. Milken's federal prisoner ID number, basing it on the fact that "we cannot use primary sources such as this as the sole source for info about living people." It seems the very same editor who originally posted this has re-posted it with another source. In clicking the footnote now cited, I do not find a proper citation backing up this addition. Shouldn't number should be removed?LarryWeisenberg (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan to remove the federal prisoner number based on my previous note.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoring prisoner number per WP:NOPAY. Paid editing of Wikipedia is prohibited. --John Nagle (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How does the prisoner number improve the encyclopedia, particularly for a BLP? There appears to be sufficient information about his conviction and time served in the article without that. 72Dino (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We could use the simple language from the New York Times:"Michael Milken is a crook."[10] --John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

While that wording from the NYT opinion pages clearly violates NPOV, I just wanted to comment here that info like a prisoner number is unnecessary in a BLP and adds nothing to the understanding of the article's subject. That being said, I'm not going to revert nor do I intend to comment further on this talk page. It was just my 2 cents. 72Dino (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or another on the content issues here, I do want to correct one thing. Paid editing of Wikipedia is not in any way prohibited, it is just strongly discouraged. Mr. Weisenberg, the generally accepted best practice for people in your position is to participate fairly and without bias in discussions on the talk page and refrain from actually editing the article. Instead, work to build consensus here and request others to make the edits you desire. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, removed prisoner number, and put back "convicted criminal", which is factual and the most notable fact about this person. --John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And I have removed it. The article does not shy away from Milken's charges and convictions. The phrasing was giving undue weight to them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Now the article gives undue weight to his "achievements" with junk bonds. This is like lauding Bernie Madoff for the performance of his funds before he got caught. Most of the press about Michael Milken came from his criminal activities. "The biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry" wrote the New York Times. (Madoff now has him beat.) It's inappropriate to de-emphasize those crimes. --John Nagle (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be more in this article about Milken's crimes and convictions than his other achievements. That balance could go either way with editing, but it is not out of line right now. Adding "convicted criminal" to the first sentence is not going to fix that, and the second sentence is about his crimes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, someone's criminal acts rarely define someone, and we certainly don't use those to define people on Wikipedia. Consider Osama bin Laden, which doesn't define him as a terrorist in the opening sentence. Ryan Vesey 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let the facts speak for themselves. The article makes it quite clear what he was convicted of. There is no need to label him. Labels in general should be discouraged in favor of neutral facts. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We're now seeing deletions of the details of his crimes. That may be going too far. We need more balance there. See this article: "Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit." [11] from the Brookings Institution, which, starting at page 45, has a good analysis of how Milken did what he did, and examine his role in the Savings and loan crisis. "The availability of S&Ls to be looted made the junk bond market ripe for manipulation" John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked through the history since my edits and I'm not seeing any details removed. There has been some copyediting and more references added, but nothing significant has changed. Can you supply a diff of where you think something was removed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion piece a reliable source as a reference?

This reference is an opinion piece from the New York Times. Is this opinion piece an appropriate source for a WP:NPOV article? 72Dino (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

it would not be hard to find the same assessment in any number of published books. The piece is the official editorial of the NYT and not just a guest columnist/talking head. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

and it is not even being cited for any opinions, just the blatant facts of his conviction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Correcting Inaccurate, Unbalanced Information

My name is Larry Weisenberg and I represent Michael Milken. Recognizing this bias, I would like suggest two changes to this biography.

1: Correction of factual error: The third paragraph states in this profile, “Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research.” This statement is erroneous. In fact, Milken began funding medical research in the 1970s and formalized his philanthropy by co-founding the Milken Family Foundation in 1982, and began funding medical research and education as its two basic missions. http://mff.org/about/about.taf?page=funding

I will correct this statement.

2: More factual errors and returning balance and a neutral POV: In my opinion, the lead paragraph no longer meets Wikipedia BLP policies. Over the past 40 years, Michael Milken has been well documented as a leading American philanthropist, an innovative financier, a prominent funder of medical research, an acknowledged leader in the effort to accelerate cures for cancer and many other diseases, and was convicted of six securities violations. At present, the lead paragraph is overloaded with minute details of his legal troubles (some inaccurately), and yet not one word about his leading role in accelerating medical research or 40 years of philanthropy.

At the same time it excludes any mention of his philanthropic and medical research efforts, the lead paragraph lists crimes Milken did not commit and for which he was not convicted, a prison term he did not fully serve, and an inaccurate fine amount. Most of these details of his legal issues are presented in great detail throughout the article, but do not, I believe, belong in a lead paragraph that should encapsulate overarching career accomplishments and news.

Indeed, Wikipedia’s BLP policy states that profiles “must be written conservatively …Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.” Further, it states BLPs should “not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints.” Wikipedia’s NPOV policy states that “a neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias” and avoids “undue weight.” The matters that were determined to violate the law occurred during a two-year period; Milken's philanthropy and medical-research advocacy have occurred over 35 years. There is no balance.

The current lead paragraph seems to aggressively violate both BLP and NPOV policies. At one time, however, this profile was far more balanced. In sum, I suggest the lead paragraph of this profile be returned to a version dated 3 December 2012. Here it is:

Michael Robert Milken (born July 4, 1946) is an American business magnate, financier, and philanthropist noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds (also called "junk bonds") during the 1970s and 1980s, for his 1990 guilty plea to felony charges for violating US securities laws, and for his funding of medical research.[2]

Unless there are any other suggestions, I plan to implement these changes. Thank you.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

as a representative of Milken you will need to refrain from editing the article per our conflict of interest policies. We represent the material as the reliable sources have published it. the coverage and notability of Milken is entirely related to his financial rise and fall and your efforts to inflate the impact/coverage of his efforts following that blaze to glory are inappropriate and inaccurate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, several editors have added the following caveats to references of Mike Milken’s philanthropy: “Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research” and that he is “known for his philanthropic work, in particular for funding medical research, since his release from prison.” I would like to recommend that both of these caveats be removed based on the following source:

Highly Confident by Jesse Kornbluth

1992

William Morrow & Company

ISBN 0-668-10937-3

Page 309

Prosecutors argued to Judge Kimba Wood, “He should be punished …with no credit for his many ‘post-investigation social and charitable good works.”

An astericked footnote at the bottom of the page explains further: “Judge Wood asked the probation officer to investigate this last charge, and learned that Milken’s good works began long before November of 1986.” The footnote continues to note that when Judge Wood questioned Prosecutor Carroll’s response about his own team’s accusation, he replied: “It [the accusation] might well have been in there, but it was not intended.”

This passage from a published book recounts an investigation commissioned by the Judge Kimba Wood in Milken’s case that came up with a finding that Milken’s good works had begun long before November 1986. This documents that the prosecution tried to paint Milken as a someone who took up philanthropy after the investigation of him began, and that the judge in the case found this to be false, that Milken indeed had a philanthropic history predating the investigation. Based on this published source, I recommend that both references to Milken as a philanthropist only after his investigation began be removed. Thank you.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The text doesn't say he that his philanthropic work started only after his release from prison. Rather, the point is that he is only now known for his philanthropic work (whatever the extent of that work was before he went to prison). We have to balance notability carefully here. Milken is primarily known for the bankruptcy, his conviction, and the fact that he went to prison. He is secondarily known for philanthropy, and that too only in recent years. The lede should make that clear. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you bring up balance. If this biography was written in 1992, you would be absolutely right; Milken was known primarily for his financial career, the good and the bad. However, it's not 1992, it's 2013. Is Milken better known for his conviction or his medical research leadership? You've stated how YOU feel. However, I can assure you, the millions of men with prostate cancer who are living longer, healthier lives because of Mike's influence on medical research might beg to differ with your assumption. Many of the more than 2500 public-school teachers who have received a Milken Educator Award since 1987 might think of Milken as an education advocate before his conviction status. Bert Vogelstein, MD, who received a Milken Family Foundation Cancer Research Award in 1988, and leveraged that award to garner additional funding allowing him to help develop Herceptin, which now treats breast cancer, might also have a different opinion. My point is - it's not up to you or me to decide what Mike Milken is best known for and when he was known for it. YOU have chosen to suggest he's known mainly for his legal issues. That's an opinion - based on events 20 years ago. Wikipedia is supposed to provide an unbiased, neutral encyclopedic biography. If we are truly to be balanced, we must recognize that Mike Milken is known for his innovative role in the high-yield bond market, his securities conviction and his role as a philanthropist in education and medical research - without caveat.LarryWeisenberg (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is not what you or I think. A simple look at a collection of recent articles from The New York Times shows that Milken is rarely, if ever, mentioned without reference to his role in the Drexel scandal and his subsequent conviction. Philanthropy, I'm afraid, takes a back seat. Search "Michael Milken" (in quotes) on the NYT site, sort by date, and you'll need to go to the second page to find an article that mentions Milken without mentioning his role in the scandal. I'm sure his philanthropy is commendable and and voluminous but it doesn't appear to be, even today, the first thing that pops into the minds of writers when writing about him. --regentspark (comment) 03:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Balance in opening paragraph

The version of the opening sentence proposed by TheRedPenOfDoom strikes me as unnecessarily negative. Obviously his indictment is an important part of the story and should be noted in the opening paragraph, but his medical research also seems important. And I don't see any reason for a "since his release from prison" caveat, which based on information later on in the article doesn't even seem to be true. (He founded his foundation in 1982, a decade before he went to prison) Similarly, I'm not sure how his role in Drexel's bankruptcy is a separate point of notability from his indictment. Seems like the opening is cleaner without it.

I'm happy to discuss alternative approaches, but instead of making good-faith changes to my edits, TheRedPenOfDoom simply reverted my contribution wholesale.

Binarybits (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

His funding of medical research (I assume that's what you mean) is specifically mentioned in the first para. I've reverted your edits because of the removal of the word "conviction". In an earlier edit note you said "he wasn't convicted by a jury, he accepted a plea bargain". However, sources such as this one clearly state he was convicted (I've added it to make it clearer). Note that one can be convicted without a jury, for example when one accepts a plea bargain and makes an admission of guilt (in such cases, a jury trial may not be required). My suggestion is that you propose a change here, rather than edit warring - without sources - on the article page itself. --regentspark (comment) 03:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "since his release from prison", how about "Milken is now also known for his philanthropic work, in particular for funding medical research." instead. The now makes it clearer that this is recent and I agree that the "since his release from prison" is gratuitous. --regentspark (comment) 03:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, rather than reverting my edits wholesale, how about discussing them individually?

I don't understand what purpose the "now also known" phrase accomplishes. The whole entry is written in the present tense, so these are all things he's "now" known for.

Note the 'also'. There is a difference between 'now' and 'now also'. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm still not seeing what "now also" accomplishes. You could just as easily add "now also" before the clause about his prosecution, since that happened before his junk bond activities in the early 1980s. We're listing them in that order because that's roughly the order in which they happened, but "now also" just seems like surplusage. Binarybits (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It helps establish a timeline. But, why don't we just let someone else chime in here. Neither of us owns this article. --regentspark (comment) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, how is his role in the Drexel bankruptcy a point of notability? Isn't that just a consequence of the indictment? Binarybits (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. A simple search on Milken shows that he is far more often associated with Drexel than with his philanthropy, even when looking solely at recent articles. Should we then also drop the philanthropy part? --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, obviously his time at Drexel was an important part of his life. My point is just that Drexel's bankruptcy doesn't seem like a separate notable event from the prosecution, it seems like the prosecution is the notable thing and Drexel's bankruptcy was one of the many consequences. If Drexel's bankruptcy is an important part of his life, why don't we have a section discussing it in the body of the article? Binarybits (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

COI

There was a conflict of interest notice added to this page. Which edits is that referring to? Binarybits (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

it is referring to the edits by User:LarryWeisenberg who is the self identified "representative" of the subject of the article who is promoting edits that attempt to negate coverage of the incidents for which Milken became notable and for which he has received the most coverage and to inflate the minimal coverage of Milkens current endeavors . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So which specific passages do we have in mind? Looking back through the edit history most of User:LarryWeisenberg's edits have been reverted. Here are the ones that haven't been that I can see:

"In September 2012, Milken and the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, jointly hosted 1,000 senior medical scientists and members of Congress at a three-day conference to demonstrate the return on investment in medical research."

"Milken himself points out that high-yield bonds go back hundreds of years, having been issued by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th century and by America's first Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton."

He also changed Wharton to Berkeley at one point, which doesn't seem like a NPOV issue.

Deletion of "Both these buyers subsequently failed as a result of their junk bond investments. (The U.S. government later claimed during Drexel Burnham Lambert's bankruptcy hearings in 1990 that Drexel had manipulated 41 failed thrifts into buying its junk bonds.) "

Restoring that last one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Milken&diff=441345081&oldid=441228773) might be a good idea. The others seem innocuous, though maybe the first one is given undue weight. Binarybits (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the first addition down to the philanthropic activities section, since putting it in the intro seemed a bit much. Do we want to re-add the stuff about the 41 failed thrifts? Binarybits (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

the tag was added by User Talk:OrangeMike. You can ask him if his concerns have been fully addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:LarryWeisenberg immediately identified himself as a representative of Michael Milken hence all involvement in this article is entirely aboveboard and many other editors provide input to this article and probably have this article on their WP:watchlist hence this article should not be tagged as tainted by bias. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

being visible about your conflict of interest does not remove the conflict of interest nor its impact upon the article and its content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:LarryWeisenberg has made it clear that he wants this article to concentrate on Milken's philanthropic and other non-criminal activities, in blatant violation of WP:UNDUE. With occasional rare exceptions, the taint of bias reeks from his every edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You say that "the taint of bias reeks from his every edit". Can you give any examples? Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

pretty much these. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Most of those edits were to the talk page or valid. The only ones that may be biased are this one and this one, and this one. Even the one about the conference is pretty benign. 72Dino (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If LarryWeisenberg has undertaken not to directly edit the article itself then, imo, the tag should be removed and, instead, a connected contributor tag placed on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Conviction

There's been suggestion that the opening paragraph should refer to Milken's "conviction" for insider trading. While some sources have used that phrase (although a letter to the editor doesn't exactly cut it), I think a lot of readers will assume this means he was found guilty by a jury. "Guilty plea" makes clear what actually happened, and seems better. Binarybits (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

From the OED: a. The proving or finding a person guilty of an offence with which he is charged before a legal tribunal; legal proof or declaration of guilt; the fact or condition of being convicted: sometimes including the passing of sentence. summary conviction n. conviction by a judge or a bench of magistrates without a jury. Conviction only means that a person has been found guilty. (The letter was from a professor of law at Columbia. But, if you like, here is another source. They are not hard to find.) --regentspark (comment) 12:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I understand that the term "conviction" can technically encompass both a conviction by a jury and a guilty plea. However, saying he plead guilty makes it clear what happened, whereas a lot of people who aren't experts on the legal system would assume conviction means by a jury. We should write in a way that's clear and accessible even to non-specialists. Binarybits (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What does pleading guilty or not guilty have to do with the fact that he was convicted? Lots of people plead guilty rather than go to a jury trial (and a jury trial is a US thing anyway). BTW, I notice you've reverted the lede again despite the fact that 'conviction' is properly referenced and apparently you've acknowledged that convicted is the right term. Are you trying to make some sort of point here by edit warring? --regentspark (comment) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think many people (including me when I first read it) will interpret "was convicted" as suggesting he was found guilty by a jury, which is inaccurate. Saying he accepted a guilty plea makes it clear exactly what happened. What's the objection to doing it that way? Binarybits (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"surplususage' perhaps. But, fine. How about the revised version. I don't think the guilty plea part is necessary because it is discussed in detail in the very next para but what the heck. I've excluded the 'now' pending other comments. --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, please stop bulk-reverting all my changes. In the process, you blew away Bus Stop's helpful addition of a link to high-yield debt in the process. Binarybits (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Bus Stop. It was unintentional (but easily remedied). --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical research

The lede mentions that he is known for his funding of medical research. However, while the article does support the fact that he has funded medical research, I don't see any evidence for the claim that he is known for this. Could someone add a few references that show that he is well recognized for this. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The philanthropy section mentions the Prostate Cancer Foundation, FasterCures, BioBank Central, and the Melanoma Research Alliance. There are several references in the section. Those don't sound like organizations that fund medical research to you? Binarybits (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Binarybits, you appear to have misunderstood my comment above. I clearly say that the article does support the fact that he has funded medical research. My question is "is he notable for funding medical research"? Hope that helps clear things up. --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. The Wall Street Journal says his prostate cancer foundation is "the largest philanthropic source of funds for research into prostate cancer." Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Binarybits (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be looking for multiple independent sources that talk about the medical giving and have no reference to the fact that his previous notoriety was for his actions in the financial sphere to establish that there are circles in which it is in fact the philanthropy itself for which he is known and being covered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. And the WSJ piece I linked to [12] is one such source, correct? Binarybits (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a start. But the article is about Debra Black and the Milken foundation, with only a passing mention of Milken himself. No one is questioning the fact that he has contributed a lot to prostrate cancer research. Rather, we'd like to see some evidence that he is well known for his contributions. --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

but even that source places Milken in context of "the 1980s junk-bond era, Mr. Black worked with its founder, Michael Milken" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

e/c In my opinion, his (secondary) notability for philanthropy has been sufficiently established. There is no need to produce multiple articles that only mention the philanthropy, but don't mention the financial scandals. His foundations are clearly one aspect of his life that reliable sources find notable. Enough to be in the infobox, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE we represent aspects of the article in the proportion that the reliable sources do. The UNGAWDLY VAST majority of sources if not ENTIRELY focused on the financial improprieties of the subject, still treat that aspect in a manner that completely dwarfs any coverage as simply a "philanthropist". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of the information I have read lately focus on three major aspects of his life: Creating the junk bond market, the conviction, and the philanthropy. Articles rarely focus solely on the criminal part. One's view of what he is most known for may be the result of what an individual editor reads (and possibly their age). In my case, I consider him best known for creating the junk bond market. So please do not consider it a consensus that multiple sources focused solely on philanthropy should be required. 72Dino (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If he is in fact known by particular groups solely for the philanthropic aspect, it should be no problem for those sources to be provided and show that per WP:UNDUE we need to add more spin to that facet. But ONLY by providing those sources would there need to be any consideration of doing so. We go by the sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles in The Chronicle of Philanthropy [13] [14] Unfortunately, most of the articles are behind a paywall. If you have access to a university or other library, past articles that focus solely on philanthropy should be available from the publication. 72Dino (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You have 2 journals in specialized "niche" coverage from several years ago that do not mention the "notoriety" of his past life in junk bonds. Here are 5 general market coverage from the past few months that do not mention "philanthropy" [15], [[16]] [17] [18] [19]. I do not see that you have made the case for WP:UNDUE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes article makes no mention of crime (just the deal-making of the 80s), Businessinsider mentions him as a model for Gordon Gekko, and give me a break on a publication like Counterpunch. The references already in the article generally make mention of both crime and philanthropy. I don't see WP:UNDUE as an issue in this article. An RfC may be appropriate to get more feedback. 72Dino (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say they talked about the crimes specifically, i said "his life in junk bonds". and if you want me to go back the 6 years that that you did for sources that have no mention of the junk bond I can fill this page with articles that make no mention of his philanthropy. Yes, there is a portion x of the coverage of Milken that covers his philanthropy. But in comparison to the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX portion that covers the initial reasons for his notability, our article is covering them in approximately the same proportion if not indulging too heavily already on the philanthropy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to go back further for me. I am done with what appears to be an attempt to focus solely on one (albeit important) aspect of his life 20 years ago and minimizing the aspect of his life that has actually been a greater amount as a percentage of his life. I don't want to dedicate the time needed to this article. Good luck (and I still recommend an RfC). 72Dino (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

the % of time of his life doesnt matter: its the % of coverage of his life which happens to be greatly focused on the smaller portion of time.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not concerned with the reference to philanthropy. There seems to be sufficient evidence of that (including the two articles linked by 72Dino which I just took a look at). The question is more about the specific reference to funding medical research. Is it notable enough to pull it out of philanthropy and list it separately as in the current version? --regentspark (comment) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The most recent Form 990 from his foundation shows $150,000 given to the Epilepsy Therapy Project, $100,000 to Brigham and Women's Hospital, $100,000 to NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, $475,500 to the Prostate Cancer Foundation, $100,000 to the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System . . . all of which are designated for medical research for the one year. 72Dino (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether he funds medical research, rather is he notable for funding medical research. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Really long intro sentence

People keep adding stuff to the first sentence, so we now have a clause (At the end of an already long sentence) that reads "and for his philanthropic work, in particular for funding medical research in areas such as prostate cancer, of which he is a survivor."

Given that we already mentioned "philanthropist" earlier in the sentence, I think "his philanthropic work, in particular for" is redundant. And "in areas such as prostate cancer, of which he is a survivor" seems like a detail that's better addressed in paragraph 4.

So I think "and for funding medical research" is the best way to end the sentence, though I'd be OK with "and for his philanthropic work" or "and his funding for cancer research" if people prefer that. But cramming all three into the sentence seems like overkill. Binarybits (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

the context of the philanthropy being focused on disease which he himself suffered is important context that is made even in the sources that do not mention his junk bond past. It should not be covered over. In Milken's case, the cancer had been caught just in time--by a fluke. (His doctors say it could come back; in patients who undergo hormone therapy the cancer often returns as much as ten or 15 years later.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine to mention it in the introduction. I just think putting it in the opening sentence is overkill.Binarybits (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather see it ended at philanthropy. The details are always best left to the body of the article. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think ending with philanthropy is redundant since we already called him a philanthropist earlier in the sentence. WHat about "and for his charitable donations?" Binarybits (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Note: Charitable giving is better than charitable donations. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Fine with me. Binarybits (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest something indicating the new "venture philanthropy" approach. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Google extract from Wikipedia currently reads "Michael Robert Milken is an American financier and philanthropist noted for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds during the 1970s and 1980s, for his conviction following a ... Wikipedia". Make sure that more puffery isn't added to push the "conviction" part out of the Google search results. --John Nagle (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Trading record

The lede section mentioned "only four losing months in 17 years of trading". It didn't mention that Drexel Burnham Lambert then went bankrupt. That's kind of relevant. Fixed that. --John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Drexel Burnham Lambert article, it appears that Milken left the company a year before their bankruptcy, and that there were other factors involved in the company's decline besides Milken and his trading. It seems that his trading record had no connection to the bankruptcy, so tying them together seems somewhat arbitrary (and original research). I'm far from an expert on this subject, so it would be good to hear from someone who is, and who is also neutral towards Milken. First Light (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest taking the entire sentence out. The $2 billion figure is from 2010 and the source is from 1992. Doesn't make sense at all. Plus, logically speaking, the bulk of the $2 billion must have come because his wealth grew between the time he went to prison and 2010. Let's just remove the entire sentence. --regentspark (comment) 00:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The entire last paragraph of the lead could really go, with some of the details going into the body of the article. Five paragraphs for the lead is too much detail. First Light (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This could go either way, but when you talk about a trading record, you have to mention any bad ending. Bernie Madoff appeared to have a great trading record right up to his arrest. There are trading strategies which package up all the risk into one big lump, so that there are years of great results followed by a crash. See Financial crisis of 2007–08. John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So why don't we just remove the entire sentence? If you agree, we have consensus L) --regentspark (comment) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's remove the entire sentence. First Light (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

'Philanthropist'

I think we're overstating the case by referring to Milken in the first few words of the article as a "philanthropist." It is redundant, because it states at the end of that very sentence that he is noted for involvement in medical research. Later in the lead section is a description of his philanthropic activities. Milken became a philanthropist after his release from prison for crimes he committed as a financier. Thus his philanthropy is secondary to his financial work and his crimes, and should not be given undue weight.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Milken is quite clearly a philaenthropist. He was also indicted for security law violations. I don' really see how these are connected, or why one should have any impact on the way we cover the other. Milken has been a philanthropist for most of his adult life, and his efforts have been widely covered in the press, both before and after his indictment. So I don't see the rationale for not wanting to label him as such. Certainly it's not consistent with NPOV to say that we're going to de-emphasize his philanthropy because we don't approve of his securities violations. Binarybits (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Binarybits wrote "Milken is quite clearly a philaenthropist [sic]". "Philanthropist" is a title that suggests an unusual financial commitment to charity. But has Milken demonstrated this? Hardly. According to the article, he has donated a total of $60 million to charities, over (X) years. But at the same time, he was also earning $1 billion per year during his heyday, so for him to have donated a total of $60 million over the course of his entire life is actually a relatively small percentage of his fortune. Another person earning $100,000 per year who donates $6,000 to charity over the course of their entire life has exactly the same claim upon being a "philanthropist"; it's the same percentage of their income. Milken's current personal net worth is $2.3 billion, so that even if he donated all $60 million right now, that would still only be 2.5% of his current fortune. A teenager with $230 to his name would be more of a "philanthropist" if he gave $10 to a charity. Also, let's not discount the perks that Milken gets for his "philanthropy": the rehabilitation of his image, tax write-offs, things and places named after him. Furthermore, Milken was fined about $1.1 BILLION for his crimes, which utterly dwarfs that $60 million, so if we're talking about money expended relative to income, it would make more sense to refer to Milken as "an American financier and penalized felon" than "an American financier and philanthropist". Compare that to Bill Gates, whose PNW is $72 billion, and who has donated $28 billion (so far) to charity; that constitutes about 30% of his fortune. Warren Buffet's PNW is $58 billion, of which he's pledged $30 billion to charity; well over 50%. So Milken's meager 2.5% is laughably small to warrant being noted in his lead sentence. Bricology (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I was remiss in not noticing an inappropriate disambiguation link to Milken Community High School. The purpose of disambiguation links is to guide readers to appropriate articles on subjects of the same name. See WP:D. This serves as nothing more than as an advertisement for the fact that the Milken family gave money to a particular non-notable high school.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I watch the constant back and forth on this and find it amusing. I think neither side in this have adhered to WP:NPOV. Michael Milken is really three things of note for history which in my opinion (admittedly coming from the perspective of someone interested in Private Equity) fall in the following order (i) a financial innovator who basically personally invented a market for bonds that has transformed the financing of mid-sized companies over the last 30 years (ii) a convicted criminal who shamelessly abused his power and position to manipulate markets for his own gain and (iii) a philanthropist who has given and raised large sums to fund areas of research that are of personal interest to him both before and since his conviction. All three of those in my opinion are valid and worthwhile. I think including all three in the lead is not only proper but also important to show the contradictions in his life story. Milken was was notable, well known and followed by the media before he was ever indicted and it appears that his philanthropy pre-dates his conviction since if you read the materials from the late 1980s his defenders always would cite that. Of course just by saying he is a philanthropist does not excuse or mitigate, nor do i should it attempt in the article to excuse or mitigate, his wrongdoings. Similarly. labeling him as a criminal alone does not do justice to the positives he accomplished. I like the compromise that appears in the O.J. Simpson article: "Orenthal James "O. J." Simpson (born July 9, 1947), nicknamed "The Juice", is a retired American football player, actor, spokesman, and convicted felon." I would suggest something similar here rather than the back and forth we have seen recently.

As a footnote, I understand JohnnyB256's position on the disambiguation link but I do not infer the same motives. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What about this as the first sentence, "financier and convicted felon, who devoted himself to philanthropy after his release from prison." Yes, his philanthropy predates his conviction, but the motives behind his philanthropy have been questioned for just as long, recently as part of a reputation-enhancement project to get a pardon[20] and as far back as 1988[21]. None of this is mentioned in the article and should be.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One other point: I disagree with the "see also" link for Milken Community High School. That is tangential at best to the subject of this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256 - your proposals would unnecessarily put a negative tone on the article when the whole point is to maintain neutrality. What other purpose does it serve to insert "after his release from prison" - it is not even true but it just shows that you are allowing your perspective on the subject to color the text you are inserting. I would look to the way Milken is described in mainstream publications - it makes your proposal seem overly negative. Also, I don't see why it is inappropriate to have a see also link to an institution bearing his name |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? This article is about one of the most celebrated white collar criminals in history. It is not about Mother Teresa. He is a convicted felon who spent time in prison for his crimes. In the words of William Seidman, quoted in the Los Angeles Times article I cited above,"If you add it all up, he cost the government more money than any person in the S&L debacle." There is indeed a tone problem, but quite the opposite of what you suggest. There needs to be more notable viewpoints such as Seidman's, and more skepticism concerning his philanthropy such as was expressed in the 1988 article also cited in my last comment. I think the this presents an NPOV problem. And no, I'm not talking about the blog stuff about the drug company that some IPs have been trying to add. I've strongly opposed addition of that stuff and have said so.

I don't follow your objection that he devoted himself to charity after release from prison. That is certainly true, as that is now his full time occupation. We need to be fair to Milken and adhere to BLP, but not whitewash him. The article is better than it was some weeks ago in that regard, but still has a tone problem relating to his philanthropy. On the "see also," you are mistaken. It was not named after him, it was named after the Milken family. It should go.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you advocating "after prison" because it's more accurate, or because it will give a more negative spin to an article you regard as "white-washing" him? And I also don't understand why you feel more "skepticism concerning his philanthropy" is needed. Our job is to describe what he's done, not approve or disapprove of it. By all means if there are notable criticisms of his philanthropy you can add them, but it's not a POV problem that we don't go out of our way to dump on the guy's philanthropic efforts. Binarybits (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's a consensus against changing the lead then let's keep it as it is. But the philanthropy section reads like a press release issued by the Milken Foundation. You need the skepticism that has been expressed about his philanthropy because without that the section and article are not neutral. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't change the lede, but changed the infobox to "infobox criminal" and filled in the Bureau of Prisons inmate data.--John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldnt be using a primary source for this type of information about a living person. WP:BLPPRIMARY. I am removing the ID number from the infobox. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Recents Edits that Unbalance This Biography

My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken. Over the past year, there has been a great deal of discussion about the lead paragraph describing Mr. Milken. At the end of that discussion, a consensus was reached on a straight-forward, factual and balanced description of Milken’s financial career, his philanthropy and his legal troubles. Several days ago, this balanced description was upended.

The recent edits:

- Removed any reference to Milken’s financial accomplishments

- Removed his description as a philanthropist

- Added insult by suggesting that he has “acted as a philanthropist”, as if one can somehow act as a philanthropist as opposed to being a philanthropist.

- Added redundancy of “since his release” from the fourth paragraph, thereby referencing release without a primary reference to prison (which comes in the second paragraph).

- Added the meaningless and undocumented clause, “after returning to stock market ventures.”

- Edited the lead paragraph into a poorly written, ungrammatical, factually inaccurate and unbalanced account.

I have no wish to rehash the discussions of the past (you are certainly welcome to read them on this Talk Page). Rather, I suggest returning the lead paragraph to the previous version, dated November 3, 2013, which was reached by consensus among a number of Wiki editors. Thank you. LarryWeisenberg (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted to that revision for the time being. Will review the discussion though. --regentspark (comment) 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Legal troubles"? The man is a convicted felon who did time in a Federal pen, one of the biggest crooks by dollar amount of the 1980s. And we have a paid COI editor whitewashing the article. The article should have an Infobox Criminal. --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)