Talk:Bill Ackman

I have just modified one external link on Bill Ackman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516003756/http://www.startribune.com:80/business/13715691.html to http://www.startribune.com/business/13715691.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Ackman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106133206/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad2tlfp2uNZw&dlbk
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203070836/http://www.cnbc.com/id/100332723/There039s_No_Law_Against_Bill_Ackman_Talking_His_Book to http://www.cnbc.com/id/100332723/There039s_No_Law_Against_Bill_Ackman_Talking_His_Book

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ackman was mentioned in the Dilbert comic on September 6, 2014 - http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-09-06 Is this worth adding to the article? If so, where? GoingBatty (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a passing pop culture reference. See

WP:IPCEXAMPLES. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ackman Bill Signature 300dpi-1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His amount of credit protections against his bets against the markets are unknown. The premiums paid and comission costs amounted $27 million. Not the credit protections!!! TobiOne007 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source: CNBC TobiOne007 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltagammaz: Several months ago you added the following sentence to the “Personal life” section.

In late 2019, emails obtained by The Boston Globe showed Ackman attempting to cover up his wife's involvement with MIT Media Lab donations received from Jeffrey Epstein.

To say Ackman attempted to cover up his wife’s involvement is a misrepresentation of the information contained in the supporting citations. None of the four citations use the words “cover up.” I am requesting a revision of that sentence to more accurately reflect the cited sources.

In late 2019, emails obtained by The Boston Globe showed Ackman requested that the former MIT Media Lab director avoid naming his wife when discussing Jeffrey Epstein.”

Please note I work for Rubenstein and am making this request on behalf of Pershing Square Capital Management. NinaSpezz (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair revision request (shrug) Nickgray (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinaSpezz: I disagree. The emails were very clear. Lets define "cover up":

Merriam webster defines cover-up as: a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public

The emails show Ackman trying to do just that, cover up. Neri received a large donation from Jeffrey Epstein in 2015, years after he was a registered sex offender and convicted of pedophilia. I would consider that unethical behavior. When journalists learned of those donations and other associated connections between Neri and Epstein Ackman attempted to cover up his wife's involvement by coaching the Lab director on what to say (not to use Neri's name) and had his legal and comms teams help. If that's not covering up I don't know what is.

I am willing to meet in the middle on this... how about something along the lines of?:

In late 2019, emails obtained by The Boston Globe showed Ackman requesting that the then MIT Media Lab director avoid naming his wife (Neri Oxman) when responding to press inquiries about a $125k gift given to her lab in 2015 by Jeffrey Epstein.

I appreciate your disclosure of a COI rather than other PR firms that ruin wikipedia. Deltagammaz (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltagammaz: I am okay with your suggested revision. Appreciate your collaboration on this. NinaSpezz (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated Deltagammaz's suggested text revision into the article. NinaSpezz (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Bill Ackman and Pershing Square Capital Management, I would like to flag that the citation used in the intro paragraph^[1] does not support this sentence:

Ackman is considered by some to be a contrarian investor but considers himself an activist investor.

The Reuters article makes no mention of contrarian investing or the kind of investor Ackman considers himself.

The investment style section of this page notes: Research published at the University of Oxford characterizes Ackman's activities with Canadian Pacific Railway as paradigmatic of "engaged activism," which is longer-term in nature with correlated benefits to the real economy, and distinct from shorter-term "financial activism.”^[2]

I am requesting a rewording of the intro paragraph sentence to say:

Ackman is considered an engaged activist investor, which is long-term in nature.^[2]

NinaSpezz (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinaSpezz:  Done That seems fair. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Found a source and added it

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Bill Ackman and Pershing Square Capital Management, I would like to flag that a sentence in the second paragraph of the Pershing Square Capital Management section is unsourced. I am requesting the removal of the unsourced content in that paragraph:

In December 2007, his funds owned a 10% stake in Target Corporation, valued at $4.2 billion through the purchase of stock and derivatives.^[1] In December 2010, his funds held a 38% stake in Borders Group and on December 6, 2010, Ackman indicated he would finance a buyout of Barnes & Noble for US$900M.

NinaSpezz (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 22:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Bill Ackman and Pershing Square Capital Management, I would like to request the removal of the following paragraph within the Herbalife short section as it is incorrect, poorly sourced, and irrelevant to the subject of this page:

At an investor conference in January 2013, the company released results of a Nielsen Research International survey showing 73% of Herbalife distributors never intended to make money by reselling the product. Instead, they wanted to buy products at a discount for personal use.^[1] To make the distinction clearer, the company announced on its June 2013 earnings call that it would begin referring to these discount buyers as "members" rather than "distributors." ^[2]

The survey referenced was conducted by Lieberman Research Worldwide, not Nielsen Research International.

The sources used - Herbalife's Investor Day Presentation and the transcript of the Herbalife Q2 2013 earnings conference call - are primary sources and neither mention Bill Ackman.

In addition, the claims made in this paragraph were refuted by a complaint filed by the FTC in 2016[1], which alleged:

15. Individuals who participate in Defendants’ business opportunity are called “Distributors” (also referred to herein as “participants”). In 2013, Defendants began calling participants “Members” rather than “Distributors.” The change in terminology, however, was not accompanied by any substantive change to the nature of the business opportunity available to Herbalife participants.

98. Since 2013 Defendants have publicly claimed or implied that a mere 27% of their Distributors are pursuing the business opportunity either full-time or part-time, and that a “substantial majority” (73%) are simply interested in buying Herbalife products for their own personal consumption.

99. Defendants’ express or implied claim that a “substantial majority” of their Distributors are not pursuing the business opportunity is based not on Distributor behavior, but on surveys commissioned by Defendants beginning in July 2012 that are flawed and unreliable. For example, many survey participants who were included in the category of Distributors who purportedly “joined Herbalife primarily as discount customers” themselves reported that they quit Herbalife because “finding new customers was too difficult and/or time consuming,” or the “business was harder than [they] originally believed.”

NinaSpezz (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NinaSpezz the reasoning provided by you for the removal of the segment is not enough compelling. Plus the sources seem fine and adequately describe what is written in the article right now. Chirota (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL You were helpful in implementing a requested edit I made earlier this year. Hoping you might be able to weigh in on my latest request, above. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . FMatPSCM (talk · contribs) has been paid by Pershing Square Capital Management.

Hello! Francis here, representing Pershing Square Capital Management. I've registered an account here to propose article improvements, starting with the Bill Ackman biography. Given my conflict of interest, I'll be offering suggestions on discussion pages instead of editing directly. Previously, NinaSpezz from Rubenstein submitted a few requests on PSCM's behalf, as seen above. Thanks for being patient as I familiarize myself with Wikipedia!

To start, I'd like to propose changing $3 billion to $4 billion in the Pershing Square Tontine Holdings section, per MarketWatch. This article, titled "Bill Ackman's Pershing Square Tontine raises $4 billion as IPO prices at $20 a share", says: "Pershing Square Tontine Holdings Ltd. PSTH.U, , a special purpose acquisition (SPAC), or blank check company, formed by billionaire investor Bill Ackman, raised $4 billion as its initial public offering of 200 million shares priced at $20 a share." Could someone please update the article's text on my behalf? Thank you! FMatPSCM (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'd like to suggest another improvement to this Wikipedia article. Currently, the first sentence of the "Early life and education" section says Ackman is "the son of Ronnie I. (née Posner) and Lawrence David Ackman, the chairman of a New York real estate financing firm, Ackman-Ziff Real Estate Group."

Lawrence Ackman is currently Chairman Emeritus of Ackman-Ziff Real Estate Group, per Pershing Square Foundation and Harvard Business School.

I suggest changing the text to either "... Lawrence David Ackman, the chairman emeritus of a New York real estate financing firm" OR "... Lawrence David Ackman, the former chairman and current chairman emeritus of a New York real estate financing firm".

I'm just trying to make the text more accurate and I'll let editors decide what's best. Thanks! FMatPSCM (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have another request for the Wikipedia article. Currently, the Philanthropy section says, "Ackman endorsed Michael Bloomberg as a prospective candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 presidential election. He is a longtime donor to Democratic candidates and organizations, including Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee."

I suggest moving this text from the Philanthropy section to the Personal life section. I don't believe political endorsements and contributions are considered philanthropy. Thank you! FMatPSCM (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

@Ptrnext: Thanks for reviewing my requests and updating the article for me. Since the three above requests have been answered, I'd like to submit a new one, this time to update text in the Gotham Partners section. Specifically, the following sentence is problematic: "Despite an ongoing probe of his trading activities by New York state and federal authorities, in 2002 Ackman researched MBIA in order to challenge Standard & Poor's AAA rating of its bonds."

There is no ongoing probe. An investigation occurred in response to Bill Ackman's public views about MBIA. His views were proven correct and he was completely exonerated, per The New York Times, which says, "Mr. Spitzer opened an investigation into whether Gotham Partners, Mr. Ackman’s firm at the time, manipulated the market by publishing research promoting its positions. He eventually dropped his investigation, and Mr. Ackman was exonerated, but not without having his reputation tarnished for a time." Therefore, I propose removing the text "Despite an ongoing probe of his trading activities by New York state and federal authorities" and adding language which informs readers that Eliot Spitzer's investigation as attorney general of New York was dropped and Bill Ackman was exonerated. I'm seeking to make the article's text more accurate and neutral, and I hope editors will agree this request seems fair.

Can Ptrnext or other editors please review and update the article on my behalf? Thanks again! FMatPSCM (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I think the editor meant that the probe was ongoing in 2002, so instead of removing it, I could rephrase it as "In 2002, Ackman researched MBIA in order to challenge Standard & Poor's AAA rating of its bonds, despite an ongoing probe of his trading activities by New York state and federal authorities." Per your suggestion, I could then follow up that the investigation was eventually dropped, and the fact that (according to The Globe and Mail) NY-AG began to probe MBIA itself. What do you think? Ptrnext (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext: Thanks for reviewing this request. I'm mostly ok with the proposed way to continue. My only concern is the first sentence sounds like the probe related to other trading activities. I would suggest: "In 2002, Ackman researched MBIA in order to challenge Standard & Poor's AAA rating of its bonds, and New York state and federal authorities opened a probe into Mr. Ackman's firm after he published his findings." Then as you suggest, it would be great to follow that up to note that the investigation was eventually dropped and that (according to The Globe and Mail) the NY-AG began to probe MBIA itself. Thanks again for your assistance. FMatPSCM (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM: Thanks for your update. The confusion (from my side) seems to arise because there were more than one lawsuits or investigations happening. In the earlier para, the citation talks about a different lawsuit in 2002, and also talks about NY-AG launching an investigation unrelated to MBIA[2]

In 2002, however, Ackman's young career took a decided turn. The New York Supreme Court blocked a merger between one of his investments, Gotham Golf, and First Union Real Estate in response to a lawsuit by preferred stockholders. Ackman decided to stop making investments and wind down Gotham because of the distraction of the litigation. (A New York appellate court later ruled in Ackman's favor and reversed the Supreme Court's decision.)

and

In 2003, then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into Gotham's trading practices after the investment firm wrote an article praising a company, Pre-Paid Legal Services, and then sold its stock. Ackman said he liquidated Pre-Paid's stock, as well as all of its public investments, because he was winding down his fund.

And then there's the WSJ piece:

Mr. Spitzer and the SEC are examining complaints from companies whose stocks were hit after negative research by hedge funds. The companies include MBIA Inc.; Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corp., known as Farmer Mac; and Allied Capital Corp.

and

Mr. Spitzer already has launched an investigation into whether Gotham misled investors with inaccurate stock research;

I still don't fully have the right timeline of events to tweak that sentence. Any suggestions or additional citations to help with this? Also, if someone else wants to update it, feel free to do so. Ptrnext (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext: Sorry for the delayed response here, but hopefully I can help clarify. I think there's some confusion about lawsuits brought by non-government folks vs. 'probes' brought by the government. There was not an ongoing probe when Bill announced his research about MBIA. The sources shared here note that Bill did his work on MBIA in 2002. Spitzer did then investigate, but that was in 2003, which is why I suggested a text change. It's true that there was a lawsuit in 2002, but that was unrelated and brought by shareholders, not the government. I hope this is helpful. FMatPSCM (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hello, I made an update. Since the section doesn't go into MBIA probe, I didn't add language that Eliot Spitzer's investigation as NY-AG was dropped and Bill Ackman was exonerated. Ptrnext (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext: Thanks for your help here! I've submitted a request to remove redundant text below, if you're interested in reviewing. FMatPSCM (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FMatPSCM, I'll leave this one to another editor. I feel that these redundancies might be OK since the Wendy's one highlights Ackman's investor activism. Also, if we are removing the one on Target Corp., we should probably also remove the company from his notable market plays in a later section ("His most notable market plays include...and his stakes in the Target Corporation, ...") It is uncited and there is no other mention of Target in the rest of the article. But I do agree, a lot of the text can be trimmed around those sections. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext: Thanks for your feedback here. Yes, I was actually going to request the removal of "Ackman's investing style has been praised and criticized by U.S. government officials, heads of other hedge funds, various retail investors, and the general public. His most notable market plays include shorting MBIA's bonds during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, his proxy fight with Canadian Pacific Railway, and his stakes in the Target Corporation, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Chipotle Mexican Grill. From 2012 to 2018, Ackman held a US$1 billion short against the nutrition company Herbalife, a company he has claimed is a pyramid scheme designed as a multi-level marketing firm." in a separate request, but I feel I can only ask editors to review so much at once. However, since you've mentioned this concern before I could even flag the issues, I would invite you to remove this text. Otherwise, I will submit another edit request below. Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FMatPSCM, yes, I'd recommend opening a separate request. I'd rather have another editor consider it, as I feel the highlighted text is appropriate for the 'Investment style' section. Ptrnext (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am back with a request for the Pershing Square Capital Management section. I've identified two pieces of text which are duplicated at Pershing Square Capital Management and do not seem necessary in a personal biography about Bill Ackman:

1. I suggest removing the following text: In 2005, Pershing bought a significant share in the fast food chain Wendy's International and successfully pressured it to sell its Tim Hortons doughnut chain. Wendy's spun off Tim Hortons through an IPO in 2006 and raised $670 million for Wendy's investors. After a dispute over executive succession that led Ackman to sell his shares at a substantial profit, the stock price collapsed, raising criticism that the sale of Wendy's fastest-growing unit left the company in a weaker market position. Ackman blamed the poor performance on their new CEO.

Reason for removal: This text is about PSCM, not Bill Ackman specifically. Additionally, Pershing Square Capital Management already says, "In 2005, Pershing bought a significant share in fast food chain Wendy's International and successfully pressured them to sell off its Tim Horton's donut chain. Wendy's spun off the Canadian restaurant donut chain through an IPO in 2006 and raised $670 million for Wendy's investors. After Ackman sold his shares at a substantial profit after a dispute over executive succession, the stock price collapsed, raising criticism the sale of Wendy's fastest growing unit left the company in a weaker market position. Ackman blamed the poor performance on their new CEO."

2. I also suggest removing the following text: In December 2007, his fund held a 10% stake in Target Corporation, valued at $4.2 billion, through the purchase of stock and derivatives. In December 2010, his funds held a 38% stake in Borders Group and on December 6, 2010, Ackman indicated he would finance a buyout of Barnes & Noble for US$900M.

Reason for removal: This text is about PSCM, not Bill Ackman specifically. Additionally, Pershing Square Capital Management already says, "In December 2007, his funds owned a 10% stake in Target Corporation, valued at $4.2 billion through the purchase of stock and derivatives. His funds now own a 7.8% stake. In December 2010, his funds held a 38% stake in Borders Group and on December 6, 2010, Ackman indicated he would finance a buyout of Barnes & Noble for US$900M."

I'm hoping User:Ptrnext or other editors will agree to trim or remove this duplicate text, which is more about PSCM than Ackman.

Thanks for continued help and consideration, FMatPSCM (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Bowler the Carmine | talk 10:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have another request to submit on behalf of PSCM. Currently, the "Personal life" section says, "As of 2013, Ackman owned a Gulfstream G550 business jet." This is not accurate. Bill Ackman has used a plane owned by Pershing Square, but does not own the plane. The source for the claim is a company website, not journalism. I propose removing, if someone can update the page on my behalf.

Thanks again. FMatPSCM (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concerns about the source of the citation. Because the COI comments indicate the plane ownership statement is inaccurate, I have removed the sentence as indicated in the edit request. I’ve accordingly also closed this edit request. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

WP:RS

citations.

Hello @FMatPSCM: Besides the two sources I've added, there are at least a couple more indicating his ownership of the jet. Do you have sources that state it was owned by Pershing? Ptrnext (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, Ptrnext. Those citations provide RS documentation of the jet ownership, so you are correct to put that information back into the article. The citations are appropriate and clear on the facts. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Go4thProsper and Ptrnext: Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a news source which specifically confirms Pershing's ownership of the jet. While I'm disappointed to see this inaccurate text restored, I understand your decision and will continue to search for a source which could be used to dispute the claim. In the meantime, might you be willing to review either of the other edit requests on this page? Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again! I'd like to flag some issues with the current "Pershing Square Capitol Management" section. Three concerns for editors to consider:

1. The section says: "At a panel meeting discussing Bernie Madoff in January 2009, Ackman defended his longtime friend Ezra Merkin, saying, "Has Ezra committed a crime? I don't think so," and "I think [Merkin] is an honest person, an intelligent person, an interesting person, a smart investor." In April 2009, Merkin was charged with civil fraud by the State of New York for "secretly steering $2.4 billion in client money into Bernard Madoff's Ponzi fraud without their permission." A settlement was reached in June 2012 requiring Merkin to pay $405 million to victims including the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty."

• Issues: The subject's comment at a panel discussion about someone else seems unnecessary in a biography. The text is in a section dedicated to PSCM, but not related to the company. Also, the text is partially unsourced and more about Merkin than Ackman. I propose removing.

 Done Unrelated to Pershing Square Management. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Re: "PSH reported 17.1% in returns since inception (Dec. 2012 – November 2017) under Ackman's management, 80% below the S&P 500".

• Issues: This seems outdated and the citation is a company document. I propose removing.

 Not done Is significant and appropriate in the context of the company history.Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. The section says: "Ackman started buying J. C. Penney shares in 2010, paying an average of $22 for 39 million shares or 18% of J.C. Penney's stock. In August 2013, Ackman's two-year campaign to transform the department store came to an abrupt end after he decided to step down from the board following an argument with fellow board members."

• Issues: Bill Ackman did not buy a stake personally, Pershing Square did. Again, I'm not sure this should be considered necessary detail in a personal biography when there's a separate entry for PSCM. I suggest removing.

Hoping editors will agree and update the bio on my behalf. Thanks again! FMatPSCM (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Not done Reworded this phrase to clarify as a company purchase. Moved the paragraph to get the timeline correct. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM Partially implemented as noted above. Request closed. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Though I'm still waiting for feedback on a couple requests above, I'd like to flag an issue with the "Herbalife short" section. The article says:

• At an investor conference in January 2013, the company released results of a Nielsen Research International survey showing 73% of Herbalife distributors never intended to make money by reselling the product. Instead, they wanted to buy products at a discount for personal use. To make the distinction clearer, the company announced on its June 2013 earnings call that it would begin referring to these discount buyers as "members" rather than "distributors."

The primary sources used as inline citations were published by Herbalife. The study was published by Lieberman Research, not Nielsen Research, so the text is not even factually accurate. Additionally, the FTC has disproved these claims. From the complaint:

"Since 2013 Defendants have publicly claimed or implied that a mere 27% of their Distributors are pursuing the business opportunity either full-time or part-time, and that a “substantial majority” (73%) are simply interested in buying Herbalife products for their own personal consumption. 99. Defendants’ express or implied claim that a “substantial majority” of their Distributors are not pursuing the business opportunity is based not on Distributor behavior, but on surveys commissioned by Defendants beginning in July 2012 that are flawed and unreliable"

I propose removing this text for the multiple reasons I've shared. I have some other concerns about this section but I will submit separate requests with more info for editors to consider. Thanks for reviewing. FMatPSCM (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @FMatPSCM Deleted not only for the reasons stated - even if the Herbalife claim was true, it is not a material addition to this section. Duke Gilmore (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, again! While I'm having a difficult time getting editors to review the suggested article improvements, I'd like to continue identifying issues with the "Herbalife short" section. In general, I think this section is too long and overly detailed for a personal biography. Perhaps some of the text should be trimmed or moved over to the PSCM entry, but for now I will share two specific concerns:

• I take issue with the text "to hurt the company's stock price". The U.S. News & World Report citation is clearly marked as an opinion piece and TheStreet says, "Ackman told Bloomberg TV he's spent $50 million of Pershing's limited partners' capital to research and publicize the fund's negative views on Herbalife." I propose replacing this text with something more neutral such as "to shine a light on the company's unfair business practices" or "to disseminate his research findings". Can an editor please update the text appropriately?

 Done Deleted qualitative phrase and removed citation to opinion piece. Duke Gilmore (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I also take issue with the text "choosing to build his position in United Technologies instead". The source used as a citation does not mention United Technologies. I propose removing this text to make the sentence accurate and the article more neutral.

 Done Agreed. Duke Gilmore (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking uninvolved editors to please review these suggestions and update the article on my behalf. @Go4thProsper and Ptrnext: Are either of you willing to take a look, since you've helped previously? Thanks again. FMatPSCM (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the outreach. I do not plan to re-engage on this particular article, so will leave it up to other editors on whether these suggested edits should be made to the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM Implemented edits as noted above. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

While I'm waiting for other requests to be reviewed, I'd like to submit another to address issues with the "COVID-19 response" and "Investment style" sections. @Ptrnext: I'd like to put this request on your radar since you added citations to the "Investment style" section back in July.

1. The COVID-19 section says, "In a November 2020 interview, Ackman said that he had grown concerned about COVID-19 because he had seen the film Contagion and offered qualified praise for Trump's presidency, saying that Trump has "done a lot of good. He's done some harm as well."

• • This text is unrelated to PSCM and misrepresentative of sourcing. Business Insider says the quote about Trump was "on the president's corporate tax reforms and efforts to bring manufacturing back to the US". This may be "qualified praise for Trump's presidency", but the current text implies the subject supports Trump with no other context. Can this text be removed or rewritten to be more representative of the source?

 Done The citation includes an assessment of Trump's performance, but is general and not specific to Covid. Duke Gilmore (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. The "Investment style" section starts with the unsourced sentence, "Ackman's investing style has been praised and criticized by U.S. government officials, heads of other hedge funds, various retail investors, and the general public." This claim manages to be both vague ("praised and criticized") and detailed ("U.S. government officials", etc) but offers no citation. User:Ptrnext added some citations to the next sentence, though I'm not sure the sources specifically describe these instances as the subject's "most notable market plays". Also, the sentence "From 2012 to 2018, Ackman held a US$1 billion short against the nutrition company Herbalife, a company he has claimed is a pyramid scheme designed as a multi-level marketing firm" seems unnecessary since there's an entire section dedicated to Herbalife. Can this content be trimmed or removed appropriately?

 Done Deleted first sentence (no citation). Deleted Herbalife sentence. Duke Gilmore (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. This same section says, "Ackman has said that he admires short sellers such as Carson Block of Muddy Waters Capital and Andrew Left of Citron Research." The source is an interview clip on YouTube, which is not secondary coverage. Can this be removed as well?

 Not done Seems appropriate in the context of the article and section. Duke Gilmore (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure why this article is so focused on Herbalife. I've submitted other requests to address Herbalife-related content above, if editors are able to review and assist by updating the article on my behalf. Thanks! FMatPSCM (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM See comments above. Request closed. Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I would like to submit another request, this time for the "COVID-19 response" section. Currently the paragraph starts with "Ahead of the 2020 stock market crash, Ackman hedged Pershing Square's portfolio, risking $27 million to purchase credit protection, insuring the portfolio against steep market losses." In order to make this section more accurate and neutral, I suggest adding the following as second and third sentences, per Reuters:

• Pershing Square first disclosed the hedge on March 3, 2020. According to Reuters, "Ackman said hedging was preferable to selling off his portfolio of companies whose businesses are otherwise strong."^[1]

Then, the paragraph can continue with "The hedge was effective..."

Thanks in advance for reviewing this request and updating the article appropriately on my behalf. FMatPSCM (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @FMatPSCM Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently overstates Bill Ackman's influence, with no section covering the sponsorship of the infamous Valeant Pharmaceuticals either. In addition, a large number of sources link back to statements by Bill Ackman, and yet are stated as objective facts. It is imperative to convey a more neutral tone urgently. MaleficentChimera (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello. Recently an unregistered editor changed "activist investor" to "activist shortseller" and added some additional inappropriate text to the article. User:Zhanzhao removed the "hitjob" language, but some of the problematic text remains. I request restoration of this version of the article from January 22, 2023, before these recent changes. Can Zhanzhao or another editor please take another look? I won't make changes to the page myself given my conflict of interest. Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic text has been removed. Thank you. FMatPSCM (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again. Recently an editor added some text to the article using Twitter and the New York Post (unreliable) as sources. I propose reverting the article to the version before these changes. Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as a source is acceptable in this case (for the Sabatini donation) as its an announcement by the subject himself, and clearly stated as such in the article. Exception to this case would be if its shown the twitter account is a fake. However a quick google seems to show that it's authentic. We could always just add these sources in on top of the Twitter one, or replace it.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/07/metro/new-funding-controversial-mit-whitehead-institute-scientist-david-sabatini-draws-divided-reactions/

https://www.statnews.com/2023/02/08/new-funding-for-scientist-david-sabatini-draws-divided-reactions/

https://www.science.org/content/article/sabatini-biologist-fired-sexual-misconduct-lands-millions-private-donors-start-new-lab Zhanzhao (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhanzhao: The text is not accurate, even based on the Twitter post. The Tweet says, "... we announced that we found a 50% funding partner for the new Sabatini lab." Can the text at least be updated to note that the Pershing Square Foundation funded 50% of the $25mm? FMatPSCM (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this edit. Jasonboz (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again. Recently an editor changed the number of children from 4 to 3. This is not correct. As the "Personal life" section explains, Bill Ackman has three children from his first marriage and one from his second. Can someone please correct this in the infobox?

Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Hamas terrorist attacks and ensuing Israeli incursion in the Gaza strip, some Harvard undergraduate student groups co-signed a letter condeming the Israeli attacks and attributing blame for violence to the Israeli state. Ackman called for the publication of the names (doxxing) of all students who were involved in the signing of the letter so that he would know not to hire them. Following this statement, the right-wing media watchdog "Accuracy in Media" had a truck drive around Harvard square equipied with an electronic display which showed the names and faces of involved students. These events created much political and community discourse within the Harvard College/University community and among political commentators. As a result of this, it seems that some editors, mainly day-old accounts and non-registered IP addresses, have been editting or reverting the "Controversies" section either deleting this information, modifying information about Ackman's previous comments praising Kyle Rittenhouse, or adding deeply ideological language. I have editted this section emphasizing direct quotes from Ackman and relevant news articles, dedicating details of the events to other Wikipedia pages which are more well-monitored by senior Wikipedians and watchdogs. If you intend to change or revert, please add a comment here before doing so. It is essential that these details about Ackman be widely accessible and verifiable.

Magenta.lily (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a controversy? In response to people celebrating over 1000 people getting killed in one day, hundreds of hostages taken, babies being butchered and women of all ages being raped, Bill spoke out against people who were celebrating it. It's not a controversy at all. The section should be renamed Support of Israel or Massacres during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Something like this. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already made some tweaks like removing the Accuracy in Media content that has nothing to do with Ackman. I think the section should be renamed Personal Views with a sub-section about Rittenhouse and a sub-section about the Israel comments. What do you think? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the section "Controversies" should remain as Ackman's statements on Rittenhouse and the Harvard letter have provoked backlash online and several publications. I believe that it is is essential that the public can quickly identify and view political activities of public figures. This format is relatively standard on other Wikipedia biography pages.

With respect to the naming of Harvard undergraduates, the controversy is not necessarily that he supports the Israeli response to the actions of Hamas; the controversy is that he requested the names of Harvard students to be listed publicly. This action is widely known as doxxing and is a political action because it often leads (and has in this case) to personal harassment of those who are doxxed. Ackman is widely recognized to be one of the leaders of calling for doxxing of the Harvard signatories. I believe that some mention of Accuracy in Media and the so-called "doxxing truck" in Harvard square is useful because it provides context for the entire story. I believe that a mention that the doxxing actually occurred instead of simply being requested demonstrates the complete narrative. As these are political actions, I also believe that it is important to note that Accuracy in Media is a conservative group.

With respect to the praise of Rittenhouse, the controversy is that Rittenhouse crossed state lines for the purpose of defending the property of others while armed with a semi-automatic rifle during civil unrest. Whether the killings in self-dense are justified was settled in court; however, the killings would not have occurred if Rittenhouse did not travel to Kenosha. Rittenhouse's actions have been widely criticized by many and praised by others, like Ackman. The division of opinion is what makes the issue controversial and thus should appear in a controversies section.

Ultimately, this text should remain as the political statements are indeed controversial, and Ackman is a powerful, public figure. I would appreciate your thoughts. Magenta.lily (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating everything. Hamas going on a murder rampage is controversial, college students supporting the murder of 1000+ people, rape and the taking of civilians as hostages is controversial.

Someone speaking out against this isn't controversial.

Those students should be accountable for their actions no different to if they said they were a member of the Nazi Party of the KKK. The doxxing isn't the issue here and if you think it is, put it on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page.

Adding it is a pure case of

WP:COATRACK

and simply doesn't belong on the page. Otherwise create a page for Accuracy in Media and put the content on their page.

Do you know there isn't a controversies section on Donald Trump's page?

Neither is there one on the pages of Rashida Tlaib or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Controversies should be added if there was a controversy pertaining to his work but all this applies to his personal opinions!

If it's good enough for there to be personal views section on Albert Einstein

As well as one on H. P. Lovecraft and Taqi Tabatabaei Qomi

It's good enough for Bill Ackman to have one. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I see a new Controversy section has been added to this article. I would like to flag this text as problematic to editors, and seek removal as soon as possible. If editors prefer to keep coverage in some form, then I'd like to at least offer neutral alternative wording and additional context to make the text more accurate.

A neutral summary of the Fortune article would be more along the lines of, "In 2021, Ackman supported Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense claim while the criminal trial was ongoing." A neutral article would also note that Rittenhouse was acquitted, as predicted by Ackman, per Reuters. I think text like "Ackman's prediction of an acquittal proved to be accurate" would be more neutral than what's currently presented to readers.

As for the Israel/Harvard content, the subject and PSCM have nothing to do with Accuracy in Media, and the sources used as citations do not even mention Ackman.

Since you've helped before, User:Ptrnext, would you be open to taking a look at this request? Thanks in advance for any assistance here. FMatPSCM (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Ptrnext doesn't respond, I'm happy to help here. I will update the Rittenhouse text as per your request.

As for the Israel/Harvard stuff, it belongs on the page, but it is anything but a controversy. It should be its own section. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe that the "Controversies" section should remain as the issues considered are indeed controversial (as indicated by the existence of a change-of-tone request), and Ackman is a powerful public figure whose political beliefs and statements should be easily identifiable by the public.

I have addressed why certain descriptions about Ackman's statements should remain in the talk section "Call for naming of Harvard undergraduates" in detail. I believe what Ackman's employee is proposing does not emphasize why Ackman's statements were significant. If Ackman had simply tweeted about an individual acting in self-defense, his statements would not be reported by news outlets. Ackman's statemtent was notable because Rittenhouse is indeed a controversial character; criticisms of Rittenhouse center around the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle, the travel across state lines to defend property of others, and the resulting killing of unarmed protestors. As Rittenhouse is controversial, praise of Rittenhouse may also be considered controversial. Similarly, the statements around the doxxing are also controversial and thus should be included. As for Accuracy in Media, there is no evidence or reason to believe that PSCM or Ackman are directly involved. Ackman's call for the doxxing of signatories was indeed followed by doxxing and harassment. The narrative is incomplete if it is not mentioned that the doxxing did indeed occur, so a mention of AIM and the so-called doxxing truck should be reinstated. However, I agree that it should be noted that there in no direct involvement, as the PSCM employee notes.

Any thoughts on or response to these comments are appreciated. I would like to emphasize that we should ensure that the public can easily identify the political statements and actions of public figures, and the format of a "Controversies" section is consistent with other Wikipedia biography pages. This will be my last contribution to this page; I intend to return to my usual editing and maintenance of science and mathematics pages. I would appreciate if future editors keep in mind Ackman's statement about how individuals' views should be made publicly known. Magenta.lily (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, is his call for a witchhunt of those that support the Palestinian struggle against the Israel's occupation forces just personal views? Maybe that'd be the case if a Ackman wasn't a powerful billionaire. 79.167.178.82 (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC) -- more like his call for a witchhunt for those supporting palestinian terrorism mostly because of hidden jew hatred or blindneess 37.232.70.82 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the tweet was not his Mafron11 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of Personal views reads "In 2021, Ackman supported Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense claim while the criminal trial was ongoing. Ackman's prediction of an acquittal proved to be accurate." This is confusing, because the first sentence only mentions Ackman's support of Rittenhouse, while the second sentence presumes the reader knows that Ackman predicted Rittenhouse's acquittal. I don't believe that supporting a defendant necessarily implies a prediction that the defendant wins. This could be rewritten as "In 2021, Ackman supported Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defense claim while the criminal trial was ongoing and predicted that Rittenhouse would win his case, which later proved to be accurate." 98.118.9.141 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say it "proved to be accurate" so neither the current form nor the suggestion is good. I will update it to accurately

WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, not sure it's really relevant or due. He gave his opinion on one of the top news stories at the time.

WP:BRD, will remove. Longhornsg (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not an extended confirmed editor, so posting here. I think the page should mention his accusations of plagiarism and his recent responses to accusations of plagiarism against his wife.

Edit: I believe that this topic should be included since he has become notable recently (but seems to be

Hello again. In January, the infobox image was changed from File:Valeant Pharmaceuticals' Business Model (26410186110) (cropped 2).jpg to File:Valeant Pharmaceuticals' Business Model (cropped).jpg. I would like to request a revert to the previously used image, which I believe is more neutral and does not give an unfair impression as the new photo does. Do other editors agree that a headshot might be preferable here? Thanks, FMatPSCM (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]