This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:NOTNEWS. It was covered at the time, but not enduring, like his involvement post the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Per 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 WP:SUSTAINED) due to his ongoing accusations (e.g., Vox article title "Who is Bill Ackman and why is he so mad?"). _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Realizing I did not include Template:Edit COI, which I've added for editor review. Thanks, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that headshots are preferred, but the former image is a side profile which doesn't fully show the face and was blurrier. I've cropped the current image, which is clearer and does show the full face, into a headshot. Not sure what your neutrality concerns are. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to address some text in the Personal views section. Specifically, the following text, which is not about Bill Ackman and uses sources that do not mention him:

• Israel estimates 1,139 people were killed in Hamas's October 7th attack, including 695 Israeli civilians, 36 of whom were children, 373 members of the security forces, and 71 foreigners;^[1] between October 7th and the Post's report, the Gaza Ministry of Health estimated that IDF attacks had killed more than 35,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians.^[2]

I propose removing this text, as well as the following paragraph, which is mostly about a video call that Bill Ackman was not a part of and that was held after Bill Ackman was no longer participating in the group chat:

• Members of the 2023-2024 WhatsApp group chat also held a video call in April 2024 with New York City Mayor Eric Adams in an effort to, according to reporting by The Washington Post, "pressure Columbia’s president and trustees to permit the mayor to send police to the campus" to shut down criticism of Israel's offensive military operations in Gaza, which many campus protesters, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, civil servants, and governments around the world have alleged to be genocide.^[1] During the video call, group members discussed making political donations to Adams.^[1] A spokesperson for Ackman said he had not participated in the group chat since January 10, 2024, and that although Ackman "likes and is supportive of the Mayor," he had never spoken to Adams about the Columbia protests or donated to Adams's campaign..^[1]

I propose removal of this text, too, or at least a major trim to keep the article about the subject and not a WhatsApp group. It does not seem appropriate to lead with so much detail, only to confirm at the end that the article subject was not present.

Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Too sensitive for a COI editor. Also, the topic of the this request (the war in Gaza) is considered contentious here. Quetstar (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Francis here, representing Pershing Square Capital Management. I've introduced myself previously but some of my past requests have been archived. I find some of the recent changes to this article concerning, so I'd like to flag a few issues and share sources I think are helpful to make this page more accurate.

I'd like to start with this text: "Ackman sponsored several billboard trucks to drive near Harvard’s campus and display the names and photos of Harvard students who signed the letter. The University’s Hillel, its Jewish student organization, condemned the billboards and Ackman's attempts to intimidate pro-Palestinian students."

This is based on CNN, which does not confirm the text. The Guardian has confirmed that a group completely unrelated to Ackman took responsibility for the trucks. This source may also be helpful. I am asking editors to please remove this inaccurate text. Thank you again, FMatPSCM (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by another editor. The statements do appear to be incorrect. I've also removed another mention of the incorrect assignment of blame for the doxxing to Ackman elsewhere. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next, I would like to address the text, "Critics of Ackman have called him an oligarch, basing accusations on his use of market manipulation and use of his wealth to push for his own policy preferences, particularly with respect to Israel." Ackman is not an oligarch, by definition, and this text is biased, inaccurate and not based on quality news sources whatsoever. I would ask editors to remove this text.

Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "oligarch" as "someone who is extremely rich and powerful, especially a person from Russia who became rich after the end of the former Soviet Union". Ackman clearly meets this definition as he is rich and the article notes how he has used his influence to wield political power especially after the Israel-Hamas war. Being Russian is not necessary for this definition. In any case, both of the articles are from reliable sources and explicitly use the term, so arguing over a definition is mostly moot. If there are reliable sources that dispute the usage of the term, we would discuss the inclusion of a rebuttal, but at this point there's no need for wholesale removal of the paragraph. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Philanthropy section of this article is a bit disjointed - overly detailed in some parts and not detailed enough in other parts. I'd like to propose the following modifications to this content:

• Trim the first and second paragraphs, which focus excessively on a small selection of organizations that have received funding from Ackman's foundation at one point or another (per WP:DUE). Perhaps like this:

Ackman is a signer of The Giving Pledge, committing to give away at least 50% of his wealth by the end of his life to charitable causes.^[1]

In 2006, Ackman, and his then wife Karen, founded the Pershing Square Foundation to fund innovative organizations focused on economic development, education, healthcare, human rights, arts and urban development and more.^[2][3] Since its inception, the foundation has committed more than $750 million in grants^[4] to more than 100 organizations. Grantees have included Lincoln Center's David Geffen Hall, One Acre Fund, Saïd Business School's Oxford-Pershing Square Graduate Scholarships, Friends of the High Line, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Center for Jewish History, Innocence Project, African Parks, Rare and Recidiviz.^[5][6] Ackman and his wife, Neri Oxman, are the Foundation's co-trustees as of 2024.^[7][8]

Not done for now Mixed feelings here. This section could definitely use some cleanup, but I don't love relying just on primary sources to pick and choose which grantees to include. Ideally, we'd include either the grantees with the most independent coverage of the grant, or the grantees who received the most funding (which I don't see in the sources given). How were these particular grantees chosen, I can't tell? Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move the sentence about the 2011 "Philanthropy 50" list to its own paragraph, and add the following sentence:

Ackman appeared on the "Philanthropy 50" list again in 2021, along with Oxman.^[9]

Not done for now I don't think this needs its own paragraph or an entire sentence to them being on the list a second time. Ideally you just do something like "In 2011 and 2021, Ackamn was...", but that drops the wives, and there isn't a great way to work them in to that sentence structure. The best I've got is "In 2011 and 2021, Ackman was on The Chronicle of Philanthropy's "Philanthropy 50" list of the most generous donors, with Karen Ackman and Neri Oxman respectively.", and that's clunky as hell. Thoughts? Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the third paragraph, about Ackman being honored at a gala fundraiser, as this is not relevant.

 Done, agreed this is excess detail. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim the content about David Sabatini, currently in the final paragraph of this section, again per WP:DUE, and to center the focus for the Philanthropy section. I suggest replacing the current paragraph with:

In February 2023, Ackman announced that his foundation and an anonymous donor gave US$25 million over five years for a new research laboratory for David M. Sabatini, a biologist who was accused of sexual misconduct in what Ackman called unfair treatment.^[10][11]

 Not done Skimmng through the sources it looks like there's coverage of Ackman's funding here that frames it as "This person who was fired from his last job for sexual harassment now has a new lab Ackman is funding", not "Ackmans' funding him and by the way this person has been accused of sexual harassment", see e.g. this NYT article, CNN. I don't love the current phrasing but this strikes me as whitewashing. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging Patar knight, who has worked on this article previously. Thanks, FMatPSCM (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now. Please feel free to discuss, though. Andre🚐 08:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify the rationale behind the changes I've proposed as I reopen this request, in particular the suggestion to trim the first few paragraphs: Currently the Philanthropy section gives too much attention and weight to an arbitrary selection of organizations, presenting an inaccurate picture of Ackman's history of giving and misleadingly implying that he gave to these groups disproportionately. The suggestions I make here include dedicated sentences or paragraphs only for philanthropy that was particularly significant in the larger context of Ackman's years of philanthropic work. The consolidated list I am proposing includes some of the more prominent grantees and removes the less noteworthy details, e.g. that Ackman was honored at a gala one time for an organization he supported. FMatPSCM (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre could you explain why you declined the previous request, did you want to gain talk page consensus or was there some specific aspect you found problematic? I haven't looked at it yet in detail but am considering reviewing and want to make sure I'm taking whatever it was into account. Rusalkii (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with Andre elsewhere and have reviewed the request. For the declined request about the Sabatini thing, any thoughts from watchers of the article?

Leaving the request open for @FMatPSCM to respond to the questions for the first two points. Rusalkii (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: Thank you for your thorough review. I will do my best to address each of your questions in the same order as they appear above.

• For the trimming of the first and second paragraphs, I was able to come up with secondary sources for the majority of the list I included in my suggested text: One Acre Fund; Center for Jewish History; Innocence Project; Africa Parks; Recidiviz. (The grantees for which I couldn't find secondary coverage can be omitted from the sentence.) As for why these grantees should be included and not others, these are largely organizations that are notable in their own right and their connection to the foundation is documented in secondary RS. I also felt these are a small but good start of a representative sample of the types of organizations his foundation supports, but I recognize this is subjective and am open to other suggestions. The main thing is to shift the current content - full paragraphs or sentences on individual grantees that are highlighted for no particular reason - toward a more cohesive prose that lists a brief, balanced sampling of grantees.
• For the Philanthropy 50 part, here is one way we might be able to convey the information elegantly in a single sentence: In 2011, Bill Ackman was on The Chronicle of Philanthropy's "Philanthropy 50" list of the most generous donors; Ackman was listed again in 2021 with wife Neri Oxman.
• For the Sabatini paragraph, I certainly don't want to whitewash. But as this is the Philanthropy section of the biography of Bill Ackman, Ackman's actions in relation to Sabatini should be the primary focus of the sentence, while the contextual information about Sabatini should be secondary and limited to avoid WP:COATRACK. Maybe this compromise could make sense, to ensure the sentence doesn't downplay the background about Sabatini: In February 2023, Ackman announced that his foundation and an anonymous donor gave US$25 million over five years for a new research laboratory for David M. Sabatini, a biologist who was accused of sexual misconduct and had been fired by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, in what Ackman called unfair treatment.

Thank you again for your time and consideration, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, which organizations to highlight is always going to be subjective, but "there's independent sourcing covering this grant" is good enough for me. I'd be inclined to keep Planned Parenthood, (source, but there's probably better), since it's already in the article and while I can't find a source good enough to actually use the foundation seems to be a major donor. Could you please format it with the independent sources cited inline next to the relevant organizations? Once that's done it'll be good to go.
•  Done, with Karen added to the first one, that's much better than my attempt.
• This phrasing does preserve what I'd consider the most important information, which is that Ackman is funding him after and in sense because he got fired from his previous lab for sexual misconduct. I don't find this version fundamentally unacceptable but I think I'm going to leave this up for a bit and see if anyone else wants to weigh in.

Rusalkii (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Rusalkii for your time and attention. Here is the suggested text for trimming the first and second paragraphs formatted per your request:

Ackman is a signer of The Giving Pledge, committing to give away at least 50% of his wealth by the end of his life to charitable causes.^[1]

In 2006, Ackman, and his then wife Karen, founded the Pershing Square Foundation to fund innovative organizations focused on economic development, education, healthcare, human rights, arts and urban development and more.^[2][3] Since its inception, the foundation has committed more than $750 million in grants^[4] to more than 100 organizations. Grantees have included One Acre Fund, Saïd Business School's Oxford-Pershing Square Graduate Scholarships,^[5] Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,^[6] Center for Jewish History,^[7] Innocence Project,^[8] African Parks^[9] and Recidiviz.^[10] Ackman and his wife, Neri Oxman, are the Foundation's co-trustees as of 2024.^[11][12]

Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, replacing Recidiviz, which doesn't have an article and feels thematically similar to the Innocence Project, with Planned Parenthood. Also, removed "largest donor" claim about PP from the lead. Rusalkii (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that the "Herbalife short" section be trimmed. The current version of the section contains 10 paragraphs, which are largely misleading, overly detailed and greatly WP:UNDUE for a biography. I'd be happy to suggest two or three replacement paragraphs if other editors are open to the idea. Or perhaps it is worth considering splitting the longer Herbalife story into its own article. I welcome everyone's thoughts on the best way to trim the section to an appropriate length. FMatPSCM (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM: Feel free to suggest a replacement. Even if there is a split, a shortened version is still needed in this article. However, I feel that two paragraphs would be too short for this, considering the considerable amount of coverage this short generated, along with the fact that it lasted six years. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ARandomName123. Thank you and apologies for the delay. What you are saying about the need for more than two paragraphs makes sense. I took the time to consider my suggested language below, which is based on the Herbalife section from the Pershing Square article with additional details to reflect the focus on Ackman himself as well as give a broader picture. My suggested rewrite is in the box below.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM: Given what's presently in the article, I feel like After a persistent campaign funded by Ackman's Pershing Square is understating the lobbying and other actions done by Ackman.

I also don't like Despite multiple government regulators validating Pershing Square's claims, given the other headlines quoted in the linked source. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123: Thanks for responding. I see what you're saying: "Despite multiple government regulators..." can be removed. Open to your suggestions about the "persistent campaign" part. What might be the best way to convey the content while trimming the excessive detail? Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123: I'm including a new version of the Herbalife section below, in which - per your comments - I've removed "Despite multiple government regulators..." and expanded the "persistent campaign" part. If no one has any objections after a few days, I'll replace the current section with this proposed section.

Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARandomName123, thanks for your input on the changes I made; I appreciate the collaboration. I'd just like to make two small comments that I hope you'll consider:

*The use of the word "stalled" in relation to the FBI investigation is misleading, as it implies that there was some kind of temporary pause, when in fact nothing has happened for over a decade, with no indication that this will change, as the FBI does not always announce when it ends an investigation. If you feel it's an important section to keep, perhaps changing it to "FBI probes affecting Herbalife and Ackman both failed to find sufficient evidence and were not pursued further" is a better reflection of the situation?

*The New York Times article says that Ackman lobbied Ed Markey's office, not the senator himself, which is a non-trivial distinction. I would suggest changing to "personally lobbied Senator Linda Sánchez and the office of Senator Ed Markey..."

Thank you again for your help, FMatPSCM (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FMatPSCM: Sure, both look reasonable to me.  Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a few small changes to the lead:

• "hedge fund management company" is an odd way to describe Pershing Square Capital Management. Change to "investment management company" or just leave out the descriptor entirely.
• "His investment approach has made him an activist investor" is awkward phrasing. Change to "He has been described as an activist investor."
• The final sentence ("Ackman has expressed public support for Israel's actions in the Gaza war and has demanded the publication of the names of Harvard students involved in signing a letter condemning statements from Israeli officials") is a level of detail that is WP:UNDUE for the lead. Change to: "Ackman has expressed public support for Israel."

ARandomName123 and Rusalkii: Would either of you be able to consider these changes? Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently reviewing COI requests, but I'd like to note for the last one that in fact the entire content of the article about Israel about it in the context of the Gaza war, and dropping this seems unhelpful. No strong opinion on whether specifically the bit about Harvard should be there but leaning no, though I think just "public support for Israel's actions in the Gaza war" somewhat understates the case here, that sounds like he made a couple positive remarks about it on Twitter or something.

(Actually, not reviewing COI request aside, the activist investor bit is a trivial phrasing change, you can go ahead and do that.) Rusalkii (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: Thanks for responding. How about "Ackman has been an active supporter of Israel, particularly following the October 7 attacks"? FMatPSCM (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly better. I would need to review the coverage more closely to determine if I think it's an improvement over the current situation. Given the contentious nature of the topic and the fact that it's a high profile page I'd like to leave this open to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. Rusalkii (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rusalkii for your continued help with this. As it's been a while with no objections or other comments, would you mind proceeding with my proposed edits? I understand if you'd prefer to wait longer, though further discussion seems unlikely.

On a separate note, you and I discussed a different content issue here back in February, and you suggested a similar "wait for input" approach with respect to the paragraph about David Sabatini. Would you now consider proceeding with that change as well?

Finally - and most recently - a new subsection about Ackman's connection to tennis was added. Much of this content seems undue to me. Would you mind taking a look at that too?

I'm grateful for your attention here, especially since, as you said, you no longer spend much time on these kinds of requests. Much appreciated! FMatPSCM (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not comfortable unilaterally making a change to the lead on a very controversial topic without personally reviewing more of the sources than I currently have the time for. And for the February change, I suspect this just got lost in the noise, I suggest opening a new request and seeing what input you get there. Sorry, I know it's frustrating to have things in limbo for this long. Rusalkii (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. The level of detail in the recently added Tennis subsection is WP:UNDUE for this article. In particular, I believe the details and quotes in the (multiple) paragraphs on Ackman's Hall of Fame Open appearance would not pass WP:10YT and should be trimmed - while maintaining the key information, of course. Finally, a technical point: The sentence on the investment in the WTA Tour is factually incorrect; if you check the New York Times article on which the cited Sports Business Journal article is based, you'll see that Ackman actually had nothing to do with that investment.

Here is how I propose trimming the section:

Ackman is an amateur tennis player who played on his high school team.^[1][2] In 2015, he won the Finance Cup, an amateur tournament whose participants are bankers and investment professionals.^[3] During the 2010s, Ackman sponsored Frances Tiafoe.^[4]

He controversially commented that he could play a close and even doubles match against John McEnroe in a Bloomberg News interview with David Rubenstein in 2020.^[1] In 2023, he led a group of investors who were, at the time, seeking to take a leadership role in professional tennis through a discussed $150 million equity investment in the WTA Tour.^[5] As of July 2025, according to Ackman, he was playing "the best tennis of my life".^[6]

Ackman received a wild card slot at the Hall of Fame Open in 2025 at the age of 59, where he lost in a doubles match with Jack Sock to Omar Jasika and Bernard Tomic 6–1 in the first set.^[7][6] In the second set, according to news.com.au, Jasika and Tomic appeared to play "half-pace" and "put in minimal effort" against Ackman and Sock, winning by a narrower 7–5.^[2] Ackman's appearance in the Hall of Fame Open was criticized by tennis fans and observers.^[2][6] USA Today's Dan Wolken opined that professional tennis should "not exist for the whims of potential benefactors who have ... a delusion about how good they are at playing tennis".^[8][6] Andy Roddick also criticized the decision to award Ackman a wild card, questioning Ackman's tennis ability and describing the match as the "biggest joke I’ve ever watched in professional tennis".^[6] Ackman later challenged Roddick to a doubles match.^[9], and Tthe Hall of Fame Open subsequently issued a statement, explaining that Ackman's participation was "a learning experience that will help us make better decisions in the future".^[10] After the match, Ackman offered a $10 million endowment to the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which declined the offer. He then gave a $10 million endowment to the Junior Tennis Champions Center, which accepted the offer.^[9]

Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some of the edits to that section, but in hindsight, I agree that the level of detail is undue. On the other hand, there are some important details that need to be included here, namely 1) that many criticized the decision to allow Ackman to play in the first place, 2) that Ackman played at a notably lower level than the other players, and 3) the perception of impropriety by the Hall of Fame. Most of the coverage of the game focus on those criticisms. Otherwise, it's not clear what the criticisms are.

I removed the second paragraph from the article.

On a separate note, is the Finance Cup notable? It's an amateur tournament that's only notable for the participants in it. It's not notable as a tennis event in itself. I'd argue that it's undue.

Here's a possible rewrite of the last paragraph.

Ackman received a wild card berth at the Hall of Fame Open in 2025 at the age of 59, where he lost in a doubles match with Jack Sock to Omar Jasika and Bernard Tomic.^[1][2]

Professional tennis players and journalists, such as Andy Roddick, Martina Navratilova, and Jon Wertheim, criticized the decision to allow Ackman to play in a professional tournament as improper and noted the disparity in ability between Ackman and the other players. Roddick suggested that Ackman had made an exchange to receive the wild card, which the International Tennis Hall of Fame denied.^[3] After the match, Ackman offered a $10 million endowment to the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which declined the offer to avoid "any perception of impropriety."^[4]

Truthnope (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC) Truthnope (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthnope: I appreciate your thoughtful response and continued collaboration. I think we are aligned in terms of the general gist of this content. Regarding the sentence about Roddick's suggestion and the Hall of Fame's denial, since it was entirely speculative on Roddick's part, and the involved parties denied it, it seems misplaced in a BLP. Also, note that the "perception of impropriety" concern was specifically related to the declined $10 million endowment, rather than the tennis match itself. Given that, and its relatively minor weight in the broader context of the article, I think it would be worth taking out that sentence as well. Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about Roddick's comment, so I'll remove that. The $10 million dollar donation, however, seems notable- it was a real offer, which the Hall then declined. I can take out the quote about "perception of impropriety", making the last sentence "After the match, Ackman offered a $10 million endowment to the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which declined the offer." Truthnope (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit here, with the addition of a quote by Roddick. I'll mark this request as partially completed for now, but if you have further requests on this section, you can raise them here. Truthnope (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthnope: Thanks - I think the approach you took with the language is sensible. I would just suggest two more small things: combining the two "Hall of Fame" paragraphs into a single paragraph, as it is all about the same incident and the length of the resulting paragraph would still be reasonable; and removing the "match details" chart, which feels excessive to me. Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Truthnope (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to all to please mark COI requests as done so that we can clear up the backlog as quickly as possible. Meepmeepyeet (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused and created a new banner instead of replacing the old one. Truthnope (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange to not see much on this page about his approach to New York politics and how active he's been in sabotaging Mamdani's campaign Debman3 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesnt do WP:CSECTIONs. These might be due in a political positions sections User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Pershing Square Capital Management subsection of the Career section, significant information about Ackman's role and leadership in several of the firm's substantial transactions is missing. I am suggesting the following three new paragraphs, each to be added in its proper chronological place within the subsection:

In 2011, Pershing Square began acquiring shares of Canadian Pacific Railway, eventually becoming the railway's largest shareholder. In November of that year, citing the company's poor financial performance, Ackman initiated a proxy contest with the goal of replacing CP's CEO and multiple board members. The effort was a success; at the railway's annual meeting in May 2012, close to 90 percent of shareholder votes supported Ackman's dissident slate and much of the company's leadership was subsequently replaced. Following the successful proxy contest, The Globe and Mail's Report on Business Magazine named Ackman "CEO of the Year," stating that "no other CEO has had a bigger impact on how our publicly traded companies are steered than Ackman."^[5][6]

In 2016, Ackman began investing in Chipotle Mexican Grill, and the company was among Pershing Square's top holdings from 2017 to 2024. Ackman was credited with helping Chipotle rebound from years of losses by playing a part in hiring Brian Niccol as CEO in 2018; the company's stock increased dramatically during Niccol's tenure.^[7][8]

In 2021, Pershing Square acquired a 10 percent stake in Universal Music Group and, as of 2025, it is one of Pershing Square's largest positions. Prior to the initial investment, Ackman told Universal management that his grandfather, Herman Ackman, wrote a hit song in 1926 on Tin Pan Alley. It was later discovered that the song's recordings were owned by Universal, which then mounted and framed phonograph records and sheet music as a gift to Ackman.^[9] Ackman became a member of the company's board of directors in 2022, a position he retained until 2025.^[10][11]

In addition, the current paragraph on Valeant is overly detailed, to the point of being WP:UNDUE. I'm proposing the following trim:

On April 27, 2016, Ackman, along with Valeant Pharmaceuticals' outgoing CEO, J. Michael Pearson, and the company's former interim CEO, Howard Schiller, testified before the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging.^[12] The testifying panel answered questions related to the committee's concerns about repercussions to patients and the health care system posed by Valeant's business model and controversial pricing practices.^[12] Ackman opened his testimony saying, "As a shareholder of Valeant, I recognize my investment was an... endorsement of Valeant's strategy."^[12] Ackman sold his remaining 27.2 million share position in Valeant to the investment bank Jefferies for about $300 million in March 2017 in what constituted . It has been estimated that the total cost of the position, including direct stock purchases and 9.1 million shares that were underlying stock options traded with Nomura Global Financial Products, was $4.6 billion, leading to a substantial loss.^[13][14] In 2017, Ackman paid $290 million to settle an insider trading case with the SEC.^[15]

Finally, the current paragraph about the planned and withdrawn IPO is inaccurate. Per the sources, the IPO was meant to be for a new fund known as "Pershing Square USA," not for Pershing Square itself. I suggest editing the first sentence of that paragraph as follows:

In early 2024, Ackman aimed to raise capital to take a new fund known as Pershing Square USA public.

Truthnope, I appreciated your assistance with my last request. Would you be able to take a crack at this one? Thanks, FMatPSCM (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flak for billionaire demands billionaire boss be described in glowing terms, evidence of billionaire bosses failures be erased. Film at 11.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

with the following exceptions:

• Remove The effort was a success
• Remove the following: the company's stock increased dramatically during Niccol's tenure
• Keep the sentence which begins In 2017, Ackman...
• By largest positions do you mean largest possessions?

Please implement the changes yourself. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Arbitrarily0 for your review and response. I've implemented the changes taking into account your feedback. Note that I reworked the "In 2017..." sentence so it is now accurate per the cited source. To your question about "largest positions," this refers to positions in the sense of Position (finance).

Finally, if you have another minute, would you mind taking a look at the Tennis section? There was a lengthy discussion here a few months ago (Talk:Bill Ackman#Tennis section) where it was agreed to trim the section per WP:UNDUE and accuracy, but an editor recently undid much of the trim unilaterally. Thanks again, FMatPSCM (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose the following changes to the "Support of Israel" section (until recently known as the "Israel-Palestine conflict and antisemitism" section):

• Change the section heading from "Support of Israel" to "Israel and antisemitism," as this covers the content of the section more accurately.
• Remove the recently added last part of the first sentence ("...and called for people who disagree to lose their jobs or be expelled from their schools.") This text presumably refers to the specific incidents covered in detail in the next few paragraphs, and should not be presented this way as a generalized statement in the opening sentence.
• Trim the paragraph about the Harvard letter, which contains far too many quotes and is WP:UNDUE in its level of detail. I propose trimming as follows:

  On October 8, 2023, following the October 7 attacks, several Harvard undergraduate student groups signed a letter holding Israel "entirely responsible" for the war with Hamas and condemning statements from Israeli officials promising retaliation for the attacks, to "open the gates of hell" in Gaza, blamed Israeli apartheid for the war, and said Israel's blockade turned Gaza into an "open-air prison". The letter calledcalling on Harvard to "take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians."^[1][2] In response, Ackman asked for the publication of the names of all students involved in signing the letter so that he could ensure his company and others do not "inadvertently hire" any of the signatories. Ackman posted, "One should not be able to hide behind a corporate shield when issuing statements supporting the actions of terrorists," and the names "should be made public so their views are publicly known".^[3] Ackman's stance had support by other CEOs such as Jonathan Neman.^[4] Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers said Ackman's request for a list of names constituted McCarthyism.^[5]

• Trim the first paragraph about the WhatsApp group so it is limited to material that is directly relevant to Ackman, as follows:

  Ackman was a member ofinvolved in a long-standing WhatsApp group chat with Israeli military leaders and top US business leaders with the stated goal to "change the narrative" in favor of Israel by conveying "the atrocities committed by Hamas" and "help [Israel] win the war" on U.S. public opinion following U.S. protests against the Gaza war.^[6] Information about the WhatsApp group chat was reported by The Washington Post on May 16, 2024.^[6] Members of the group chat discussed how they received private briefings by, and worked closely with, members of the Israeli government, including former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett; Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli war cabinet; and Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Herzog.^[6] Group members, including Ackman, worked with the Israeli government to screen a film titled "Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre", which shows footage compiled by the Israeli Defense Forces portraying killings committed by Hamas on October 7.^[6] Screenings of the film were conducted in New York City and, with Ackman's help, at Harvard University, his alma mater.^[6]

• Remove the second "WhatsApp group" paragraph (about Eric Adams) entirely, as - per the source - Ackman was not involved in the group at the time and was not on the Adams call.
• Split the current fifth paragraph into two distinct paragraphs, one about Ackman's support for Elon Musk and one about his call for Claudine Gay's removal from her position.
• Remove the paragraph about Neri Oxman. This content is WP:COATRACK - it is not directly relevant to Ackman and is properly placed in the Neri Oxman article.

Arbitrarily0, would you mind giving this a quick review? Thanks, FMatPSCM (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 02:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. I understand Ackman doesn't like it the way it was and now is again. But the article is not here to serve his likes and dislikes.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• FMatPSCM: I must decline becoming involved in further requests. I think it is best when a large variety of editors handles these cases. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with some of the suggested changes, while I agree with some others. My general overview is that the extent of the article's subject involvement in this particular part of the political fray is significantly notable and deserves its due presence on the text.

The suggested change to the title of the section "Support of Israel" will turn it into something generic about "Israel and antisemitism." But this is not an article about the issue of antisemitism and how Israel is affected; it's a biography and that section is about the biography's subject involvement in that specific issue. The title should stay on as it is.

We should retain the last part of the first sentence about Ackman calling "for people who disagree to lose their jobs or be expelled from their schools" since it is an unarguably very strong expression of the person's position and deserves its verbatim, upfront presentation.

I would not disagree with a trimming of the Harvard students' letter, though we should certainly keep the strong and succinct point made there (whether accurate or not) about "McCarthyism."

I fully agree with changing "was involved in" to "was a member of" in the first para abt the WhatsApp group. But the rest of the paragraph is fine and should not be trimmed and lose its stated purpose.

I agree with the last three suggestions, i.e. to remove the second "WhatsApp group" paragraph (about Eric Adams) entirely; to split the current fifth paragraph into two paragraphs, one about the support for Elon Musk, and another about the call for Claudine Gay's removal; and to remove the paragraph about Neri Oxman.

-The Gnome (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable enough to me. It would have been better to have done more atomic edit requests especially as this intersects with WP:ARBECR User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. See WP:ARBECR but you need 500 edits to do any edit that's not a clear WP:EDITXY User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should remember that all areas of Wikipedia are under the biographiesof living persons policy, and that there are certainly more than one person named Bill or William Ackman, and that it's possible to falsify crowdfunding names. Internet rumors will be removed and editors who post them will be sanctioned. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ackman has confirmed his financial support for Jonathan Ross <redact commentary> The sources are out there . . ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[2] ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing WP:RSP, NY Post shouldn't be used. Newsweek is caution, so I feel it's too poorly sourced to meet WP:DUE. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source is an article in theintercept by Jacqueline Sweet - Jacqueline Sweet is a not a poor source, but a respected journalist. Google it. ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the sources you mentioned when I responded. I was addressing the issue of using NY Post and Newsweek, which were the cited sources at the time I removed it from the article. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/12/bill-ackman-gofundme-jonathan-ross-minnesota-renee-good/88140638007/ this less inferior source says Ackman did indeed contribute, but to an unverified GoFundMe. I'd say leave it out entirely until the authenticity of the fundraiser is resolved, but with proper sources, I don't care if it's included, or not included. It was discussed in USA Today, and the source it cites is Ackman's verified X/Twitter, so I think I'm satisfied that he did contribute to that unverified fundraiser. Graywalls (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on The Intercept [3], Newsnation [4], Forbes [5], Minnesota Star Tribune [6], among other RSs. So pretty much DUE for inclusion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add it back using these better sources, but also note that the account to which donation was an "unverified" account, I'd say that's reasonable. However, I personally think it's best to wait until it's verified authentic or verified fake. The issue I'm taking with the newish user PenguinFlippers is that he restored using unacceptable sourcing, like WP:NYPOST. Graywalls (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "unverified". Many RSs have reported on the person who started it and what cause it's fundraising for. It's only "unverified" in the sense that it's not started by the shooter/his family/his agents and possibly might be removed per GFM's TOS. Discussion of that is included in the main Killing of Renee Good article, but it's largely undue for this article, just like how Ackman's explanation for why he donated would probably be undue in the other article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

user:Graywalls has been repeatably reverting edits (and has a prior history of edit warring per his talk page). If they continue to do so, I intend to report them to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenguinFlippers (talk • contribs)

@PenguinFlippers:, I suggest you review WP:BLP, and WP:ONUS. In any case, something like this about a living person should not have been added with citation to the New York Post, but you disregarded this and restored it back using that unacceptable source. I will courtesy ping @Acroterion:, an admin, who participated in this article and see if they could explain that to you. Graywalls (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of what I wrote at the top of this thread - unsourced or poorly sourced (i.e., Daily Mail, New York Post) edits should be removed on sight Editors should insist on high-quality sources per WP:BLP. . This article is under two contentious topics regimes, and editors should not allow their enthusiasm for reporting something they see as negative to overshadow normal editorial judgment. Acroterion (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I assumed that what I restored was well sourced because it cited WP:NEWSWEEK, but I was mistaken in thinking that it was reliable. I was unaware that Newsweek became generally unreliable post 2013. PenguinFlippers (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sourcing issue (NYP is unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES) is but now that that is clarified by the man himself and reputable sources, I agree with Patar knight in that we should include the sentence with the Forbes [7] or Minnesota Star Tribune [8] reference. Shall we give it a few more days or include? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 19:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Include it now , there’s also Jacqueline Sweets article from theintercept, reliable sources abound for this. ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

https://theintercept.com/2026/01/12/ice-gofundme-bill-ackman-jonathan-ross/ ~2025-43306-02 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIND and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia article isn't news, and it's not a place to share developing news. I would say it doesn't hurt to just wait until the "unverified" status of the GoFundMe is resolved and the facts about the circumstance have settled down and stabilized. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The GoFundMe has been closed, and according to The Hill, the funds will be "placed in a trust for the family". As there are now multiple news outlets that have covered the story, including WP:THEHILL and The Intercept, which are both reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I intend to add information about his donation where it was originally contained. PenguinFlippers (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It’s significant and is reliably sourced. ~2026-53998-8 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with this entry is that it goes through a long list of financial projects, and it's difficult for anyone who's not familiar with Ackman's history to understand what's going on. "This project was successful." "This project was unsuccessful." "This project looked successful at first, then it was unsuccessful." "This project looked unsuccessful at first, then it was successful." What you need, as business editors have always told me, is a summary, so that the reader knows what the point of the story is. The Wall Street Journal (which does the best business writing I've seen), had a very good summary of his business ups and downs in this profile:

Bill Ackman Says He’s ‘Uncancelable’

The founder of Pershing Square Holdings opens up about his mistakes, his anti-DEI crusades and why he still hates to pay for parking

By Holly Peterson

Wall Street Journal

Oct. 6, 2025

https://www.wsj.com/style/bill-ackman-interview-twitter-d6be86ca

Being loud comes naturally to Ackman, the son of the commercial real estate broker Larry Ackman, who was known for being the outspoken parent at PTA meetings... Ackman credits his drive in part to his dad making it clear not to expect a penny’s inheritance from him.

... He’s seen some spectacular highs (the restructuring of mall operator General Growth Properties and Canadian Pacific Railway) and crushing lows (a hefty position in Valeant Pharmaceuticals cost him an estimated $4 billion when the stock plummeted)...

I'd like to condense this a bit (maybe the second paragraph as a quote ("according to the Wall Street Journal...") either in the Summary paragraph, or at the beginning of the "Career" section, where it would tell the reader what the following material is all about. And it gives an authoritative assessment by a reliable source, the WSJ.

I don't like to put a lot of work into an edit, if someone just comes by and deletes it. Is there a consensus on this? Any objections? Nbauman (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the article could definitely be trimmed. be the WP:bold editor you want to see in the world :) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]