Talk:List of the 100 wealthiest people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mistake

Ernesto Bertarelli is really an italian. He was born in rome. I suggest changes.

Former FLC List of the 100 wealthiest people is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
April 15, 2008 Featured list candidate Not promoted
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Mistake on the List headings

I am curious as to why the people's names are under a heading titled age, why the people's ages are under a heading titled Residence, why the rankings are under a heading titled 100 billion, why the amount of money each of them has is under a heading titled Citizenship, and why their citizenships and birthplaces are under a heading titled Sources of wealth. I can't fix this, but if there's someone who can, please do. 67.166.109.72 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article or Ad for Forbes?

I question the need for this article at all. The list is available through Forbes website and it is simply Forbes opinion of wealth. For instance why count families in one ranking and not another? Why because it's Forbes's list. While I say Forbes has a right to publish a list, it is just their opinion and not a fact and if so why is there an article in the wikipedia about it. This amounts to a commerical endorsment for a magazine running a list of whom ever it chooses to include or dis-include 4.130.6.32 (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)eric

[edit] March 2008

I started work on User:Jklamo/List of billionaires (2008). Feel free to help, but do not forget to use Template:Inuse with proper parameters. --Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Mukesh Ambani

Only worth $20.1 billion (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_Mukesh-Ambani_NY3A.html). I just changed his article as well for the misquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.101.218 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection?

Jklamo, do you think this page needs semi-protection for a few days while the official Forbes list is still new? Maybe for a month, until a new issue of Forbes magazine is released. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, there were some constructive edits from anonymous IP at the beginning, but now most of them are vandalisms. --Jklamo (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous Legend

The arrows mean increased or decreased. I found this legend very ambiguous. One can interpret this increase/decrease as changes of the rank, or changes in their net worth. IMHO, changes in net worth does not always line up with the changes in ranking. Two billionaires can both increase their net worth, but one overtook the other to end up with a change in ranking too. I'd suggest clarifying the legend. I don't find it useful when no one understand what it actually mean.

The words "increased and decreased" are ambiguous when used in ranking. When rank 5 becomes rank 4, do you say the rank decrease from 5 to 4? Is 1 a higher rank than 2? So when rank "increases", should the number increase or decrease? It is simply too confusing and inappropriate to use these two words.

If the arrows are for networth, explicitly say net worth increased/decreased. If it is about the ranking, say move up or down the rank. Kowloonese (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one arrow in raning column, there is second arrow in net worth column. So i do not see problem in distiction here. If you think that formulation of legend is ambigous, feel free to edit in and improve it to be less amibous. --Jklamo (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[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) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he also has money in other investments, such as his place of residence or other property. After all, 42 billion is pretty close to 45 billion. Acastus69 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Who the hell is this prick Bryce Campbell? He's just vandalised this article, saying he's the richest man in the world! more like richest idiot! How gullible does he think we are, saying he got 100 billion dollars from something called 'Jurassica Productions'! Personally, I wait the day when this Bryce Campbell, if this is your real name, rolls over dead, and all others like him. Signing off, angry reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.251.202 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia is often vandalised, and if every time we became frustrated, the project would never move forward. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The guy added the person himself to the list. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well I didn't think it necessary to check the page history on this occasion; I just thought it was someone angry about the vandalised addition, so that was the point in that message. PeterSymonds | talk 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i will be the next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.56.186 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who/what the bloody hell is Jean-Luc Lukunku? So I removed that name and replace it, rightfully, with Warren Buffett. 70.55.82.127 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism AGAIN. Ramennx claims to be 96 on the list. I'll be civil and ask for a revert. --165.21.155.117 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref column

I'm unsure if there should be a ref column, especially since not everything has a ref. I believe ref's should go in the Name column. - RoyBoy 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei?

Last year Forbes estimated his wealth at 22 GUSD (1 GUSD = 10^9 US dollars) [[1]] and rising world oil prices would probably have increased that amount as oil makes up a large proportion of his wealth, keeping him in the top twenty or even the top fifteen. For someone who I thought was considered the richest person in the world ca. 1997 in between periods of Bill Gates holding that title, it seems somewhat remiss for him to be left out, unless some qualification was added like the exclusion of royals; especially when you consider that the source list has about 1062 rankings and about 1125 entries, some of which are plural, going down as far as 1.0 GUSD [[2]]. --Thecurran (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been more than a week since I posted the previous comment but there has been no reply. As such, I will soon insert him with a very conservative 5% increase on last year's figure, given the recent boom in resources and the economies of SE Asia and Australia fed by rapid PRC development. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Roman Abramovichs wealth

Are you mongs really trying to claim that Chelsea FC is a source of Roman Abramovichs wealth??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.115.86 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Roman Abramovich generates no wealth at all from Chelsea. It's a play thing for him. I'll remove. Graemec2 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)