Talk:Bill Gates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Gates article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4


This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Good article Bill Gates has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] FORBES MISTAKE?

I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.69.137 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of movie trivia: Shot through the head by the general in charge of the war against Canada after a computer crash in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.4.146 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] net worth

this lists bill gates as the third richest man in the world however every other article on him including Forbes still lists him as number one. this entire article is very inaccurate and completely fails to list all his troubles with the law or how he got his first interactive software from tanking apples design. i think watching pirates or silicon valley is a much better reference and everyone should ignore this entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.178.147 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That documentary is unofficial, it is full of lies, and barely cites sources. Zachary8222 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Bull Shit, hes worth 160 BILLION according to CNN, Time Magazine, New York Times, and others. 142.77.229.84 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but please do not attack the editors. Thank you! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apple

With the exception of one subhead (on Management style), this biography reads like a resume written by the Microsoft public relations department or Gates himself, rather than a balanced, encyclopedic entry on a well known historical figure.

In particular, the Windows text does not mention agreements and business dealings with Apple Computer to create word processing and spreadsheet software for the world's first commercially successful computer with a graphic user interface — the Macintosh. In fact, this Wikipedia entry glosses over the creation of Microsoft's most successful product, the Windows operating system. It does not delve into the controversy that eventually erupted after Gates was shown the Macintosh operating system by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and convinced to create business software for the new computer.

It is common knowledge that Gates also decided to copy the idea and create Windows. Microsoft has been copying key Apple products ever since.

The competition between these two Information Age titans and their enigmatic leaders is legendary and riveting. Their story harkens back to the struggles between Industrial Age steel, railroad and automotive barons of the 19th century who helped America become an economic powerhouse. The omission of this part of the Bill Gates story from this Wikipedia entry is troubling, and it reinforces criticism that Wikipedia has difficulty achieving accuracy and balance in its presentations.

Geopix (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) George Wedding

That's exactly it—we don't want to make this a huge soap opera. I'll continue to add information to the article, but keep in mind that a lot of the information you mentioned belongs in Microsoft and not here. Information here primarily concerns Gates himself, so information should be included if we are certain that he has had a direct impact on something, otherwise we'll be going down a slippery slope towards a Microsoft v. Apple rivalry. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial

Where is the controversial section? The article gravitates around his good side, but makes no mention of his wrongdoings. As a matter of fact, he has a police record (for a reason) and has been involved in a number of escandals. I believe the article does not show a clear and objetive picture of him. Wikipedia is not known to be very "forgiving" with celebrities and personalities, but somehow this article makes him look like some sort of modern business saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.217 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article strikes me as quite non-NPOV and very one-sided in praising him. It makes me distrust Wikipedia.

You mean it doesn't read like a nerd with a grudge wrote it, and is based on reliable sources rather than rantings on slashdot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.13.119 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 640k, spam & letter to hackers.

I think some of his famous quote (or misquotes should be mentioned in this article)

the 640k is a misquote but it is a famous misquote
he claimed there would be no spam by 2006, this was a fairly notable claim in tech circles
his letter to hackers is also fairly famous

this article has very little on his tech career despite him being head of Microsoft, i agree it should be about him, but he has said a lot of famous tech stuff himself.

[edit] No "Knight Commander of the British Empire" in title

Don't include that nonsense KBE title. That can be seen as POV inclining towards the English. KBE is not his name. The English give that stupid thing to all allegedly successful people to make themselves look good and royal. That is just nonsense. In this sense all people that have medals and honors will have something at the end of their name like, John Doe, "Metal of Honor.". No KBE nonsense in Bill Gates name. Keep that thing with English people, not American people. English people should stick with their English people and stop handing out crap to other people. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's British, not English. Right or wrong, the Honours System has been and continues to be a part of British culture and to say that it shouldn't be referenced because you personally find it "nonsense", "stupid" and "crap" is hardly a compelling argument.
The issue of Bill Gates' knighthood has been discussed many times in the past on these pages and the consensus was to follow WP:NCNT by mentioning the award without using the post-nominal. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous pronoun

"Gates insisted that IBM let Microsoft keep the copyright on the operating system, because he believed that other hardware vendors would clone IBM's system. They did, and the sales of MS-DOS made Microsoft a major player in the industry."

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine this morning, but does "they" refer to hardware vendors or IBM?-Wafulz (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gates Ancestry

Are Bill Gates parents of Jewish decent as some has suggested, did they change their name to Gates? His mother name was Mary Jakob Maxwell? I think it would be interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.151.191 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third richest?

But the list of richest people article has him at #1. Something is not in sync, methinks. Timneu22 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)