Talk:The World's Billionaires/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Outdated information

this website suggests that the richest person in the world is Carlos Slim Helú @ $53.5 billion -- 115.64.47.34 (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)  

Possible copyright infringement

See also: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 6 and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 11

What about the Saudi Royal Family? I guess somebody better start a discussion about this. Also 2004, 2005, 2006 (more), 2007 (more), 2008, and 2009. Facts can't be copyrighted, right? When I say Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world, I'm not violating Forbes's copyright. Comprehensive lists probably can be copyrighted, so how exactly should we list the richest billionaires in the world? Listing the top ten is hardly a copyright infringement, right? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

These are not facts. The information is Forbes' own research and opinion - it is not a matter of fact or public domain - [1], and Forbes do have a strict copyright policy: [2]. Under the circumstances it is wiser and safer to examine the situation carefully. How do you know that Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world? Have you conducted extensive research into his holdings and his debts? You say that because Forbes say so. But it's not necessarily a fact. Vladimir Putin has been assessed at being worth $40 billion - but he's not on Forbes list. Different accounting systems will achieve different results. I don't think Carlos Slim or Vladimir Putin themselves know how much they are exactly worth because it will vary by day. My finances are not as complex as theirs, yet I don't know how much I am worth because, for example, to realise the value of my investments, my pensions and my house I would need to actually cash them in, subtracting all legal costs. I could give you an approximate guess, but I couldn't give you a "fact" as I haven't actually cashed everything in. SilkTork *^YES! 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"How do you know that Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world?" We have a reference to a reliable source: {{cite web | url=http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/10/worlds-richest-people-slim-gates-buffett-billionaires-2010_land.html | title=The World's Billionaires | publisher=Forbes | author=Luisa Kroll, Matthew Miller | ...}} I don't see where Forbes says that this list is their "opinion". Is that your word? Even if Forbes did call it their opinion though, it doesn't change the fact that their opinion based on reliable research that was published by an acceptable source. Copyright infringement does apply to tables of data, so I see your point there, but we shouldn't ask how we know Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world because that answer is clear. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there other sources that quote who is the riches people in the world? Are there other financial estimates made by other companies that give roughly the same values? If so, making a tabled list of the riches persons would be fair use, no? Netsquall (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding, there are many, MANY news and business websites giving this information, it seems silly that a multiple sourced article listing the worlds richest persons cannot be made, even if the ultimate source is from Forbes' research. It'd be hard to complain of copywrite infringement unless Forbes sued every news site out there. Netsquall (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"How do you know that Carlos Slim is the richest person in the world?" According to BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8560731.stm "A spokesman for Carlos Slim refused to confirm the Forbes estimate of the Mexican tycoon's wealth, saying they did not "waste their time" on such calculations, but he welcomed the result." So, for the record, Mr. Slim does not put effort to calculate it, so, so far the numbers are based on whatever is available by the research and opinion teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.42.172 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You could write about billionaire A and say he is # x on Forbes' s list, you could write about billionaire B and reference his/her standing on the list, and so on: this is all proper and there is no copywrite infringement and everything is supported by a contemporary reference, Forbes in this case. So what can stop you from summarizing all this and placing it into one listing? Ekem (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue here! I am not a specialist on copyrights infringement, but I honestly do not understand why the table constitutes an infringement, while a text saying "accfording to Forbes these are 10 richest people in the world ... " is not an infringement. It does not look to me logical. As another editor said, I'm sure Forbes knows its list is being widely reproduced. Should we also remove the following paragraphs from Carlos Slim article?

"On March 5, 2008, Forbes ranked Slim as the world's second-richest person, behind Warren Buffett and ahead of Bill Gates.[10]

On March 11, 2009, Forbes ranked Slim as the world's third-richest person, behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and ahead of Lawrence Ellison.[6]

On March 10, 2010, Forbes once again reported that Slim had overtaken Gates as the world's richest man, with a net worth of US$53.5 billion. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett now have a net worth of US$53 billion and US$47 billion respectively.[1] "

They are all of them sourced from Forbes! So what are we doing with them?! Are we deleting them as well as copyvio?! Why is this a different case from the table in question? And what if I source the article from this NY article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/business/11forbes.html? Don't I have a copyvio anymore (Forbes is no more my source!)? Is NY also guilty of copyright infringement?! If yes, why isn't Forbes after the newspaper?!!!

So, let's be honest: everybody reproduces the list! Personally, I would rename the article as "Forbes' 2010 list of billionaires (Top 10)" or something similar, and I would keep the list with the proper references of course. Or, if there are available lists of billionaires for 2010, I would add them as well naming the article "Lists of billionaires (2010)" or something similar.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. If other media outlets are publishing the list without royalty payments or protest from Forbes, then there's no reason I can see to raise this copyvio and kill an indirect link from the main page. Has Forbes lodged a protest against the content formally listed here? Or is this just a "What if" exercise without justification or precedent, in the middle of of an event that will link tens of thousands to this copyvio notice? 92.30.3.162 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completly. I can't believe the notice has lasted for so long, with all the harm it is doing given the current "In the news" item. If consensus is that it is not copyright infringement and that the notice is inappropiate (which it seems to be: only User:SilkTork -who added the notice- has expressed concerns, 2 days ago) then I can't see why it shouldn't be removed immediately or, at most, by tomorrow. Must it be an administrator who removes it? Why hasn't an admin removed it by now? ♠TomasBat 16:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the 2004 list of billionaires (which references Forbes) was created in 2005, and there has not been an outcry from either Wikipedia or Forbes in the past five years, one would think that it would be safe to assume this is proper referencing of material, and not a copyvio - and I would argue that Forbes seems to think so as well. Halestock (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There hasn't been a precedent set of legal opposition to the reposting of these lists on wikipedia or any other news source. If it is a copyright violation, I can only assume the continued reprinting of it by everyone and their mother has blinded most to the fact. What does the user who highlighted this issue know that the Forbes-employeed lawyers don't? If they aren't reverted back or if we're not given due reasoning as to why these violation messages were added now instead of several years ago, I see no reason not to change them back ourselves.  Red157  17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright questions generally are not review by an admin for a full week after their listing at WP:CP. List articles are a pain. There have been some that have been deleted that were years old and some that have been kept (and lots of conversations; [3] has some; there have been others at WT:CP). It doesn't matter how widely they are reproduced outside of Wikipedia, since the WMF is not responsible for other people's copyright issues. The only question here is whether the lists reflect human creativity to the point that they are copyrightable expression and, if so, if our usage of them conforms to fair use. It is generally agreed that an individual reference in specific articles are not a problem. For instance, The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time lists only the top ten to remain well within fair use, but individual articles that are not top ten may make note of the ranking. Yesterday (song) says, "The song has received its fair share of acclaim in recent times as well, ranking 13th on Rolling Stone's 2004 list The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time." Consensus has been that this is okay. (For clarity of explanation, I've chosen a very straightforward example, where it is indisputable that the list is copyrightable under US law.)

The questions I see here would include the degree of creativity in compiling the list and the breadth of the entire list. A ranking list such as this is creative to the extent that its results are not obvious and foregone. If everyone compiling such a list would include the same people in the same order, it's not creative. If it is creative, a list such as this may be permissible if it is a limited sampling of a much larger pool, as The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is. If I'm reading the source correctly, there are almost 1,000 people on it. At 10 people, List of billionaires seems fair use. List of billionaires (2004) does not. So while I believe this list should be okay regardless of the creativity of the source, that will not hold true for List of billionaires (2004), List of billionaires (2005), List of billionaires (2006) 101-334, List of billionaires (2007) 102-946. Questionable in terms of extensiveness are List of billionaires (2006), List of billionaires (2007) and List of billionaires (2009).

So, for those familiar with this ranking, how creative are they? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the Forbes ranking is creative. It is something they had to investigate thoroughly. "At 10 people, List of billionaires seems fair use. List of billionaires (2004) does not." I'm all with that criteria. You believe we should crop all of the "List of billionaires (YYYY)" to ten people? After this cropping, we should suggest that people don't add back onto the list using an inline comment. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Forbes rankings are clearly creative. They are based on a thorough and exhausting research made by Forbes itself. Additionally, as you mentioned, the 2010 list is limited to the top 10. I would agree that cases where the whole lists are copied (e.g. the 100 or 1000 wealthiest people for the x year) are problematic.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how thorough and exhausti[ve] was Forbes' research. "A 'sweat of the brow' or 'industrious collection' test - which extend[s] a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves - misconstrue[s] the 1909 [Copyright] Act and eschew[s] the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas."[4] That ruling -- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service -- is pretty obviously relevant, here, y'all should read it. EvanHarper (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated above, lists of this sort are copyrightable to the extent that human creativity is involved. Does anybody what factors they consider in arriving at their "snapshot of estimated wealth"? How do they come up with these estimates? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The company paid "more than 40 reporters in 13 countries" to spend "the better part of a year valuing the assets of 1,011 billionaires" and to include "stakes in publicly traded and privately held companies, real estate, paintings, gems, yachts and planes, plus hoards of cash" and to calculate the value of privately held companies "by coupling estimates of revenues or profits to valuation metrics for similar public companies" and has looked "hard for debt" and attempted "to vet the net worths of all the individuals listed in the rankings" approaching the individuals concerned, some of whom "refuse to comment, others cooperate, often sending bank statements, accounting documents or other proof of holdings",[5]. That sounds like the list would be their intellectual property, and quite expensive property given the people and time involved. Reducing down to the top ten may be acceptable, as I note that the FT have reproduced the top ten - [6], though we could ask Forbes directly - just to be sure. SilkTork *^YES! 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how they come up with the estimates. It does not matter if they had to split the atom and send rockets to the moon to come up with the estimates. The estimates are not copyrightable.

[F]acts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. To borrow from Burrow-Giles, one who discovers a fact is not its "maker" or "originator." 111 U.S., at 58 . "The discoverer merely finds and records." Nimmer 2.03[E]. Census-takers, for example, do not "create" the population figures that emerge from their efforts; in a sense, they copy these figures from the world around them. Denicola, Copyright in Collections of Facts: A Theory for the Protection of Nonfiction Literary Works, 81 Colum.L.Rev. 516, 525 (1981) (hereinafter Denicola). Census data therefore do not trigger copyright, because these data are not "original" in the constitutional sense. Nimmer [499 U.S. 340, 348] 2.03[E]. The same is true of all facts - scientific, historical, biographical, and news of the day. "[T]hey may not be copyrighted, and are part of the public domain available to every person."[ibid]

Once more for emphasis: It does not matter how much work Forbes did to determine how much people are worth. It does not matter how clever they had to be to come up with their methodology. "Stefan Persson was the world's 18th-richest man in 2009, with a net worth of $14.5 bil" is not subject to copyright.

The only question here is whether Wikipedia's use of a similar selection and arrangement of Forbes' wealth estimates might violate Forbes' copyright. However, the originality in their arrangement is minimal at most. "Top Ten" lists in general, and "richest people" lists in specific, are traditional and commonplace. (See e.g. [7]) So I really don't see a question of infringement here. EvanHarper (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It may matter how they came up with their estimates. If their estimates are based on, for instance, how well-groomed these individuals are, then their listing is not fact but opinion, which may be partially based on fact. That is (I hope) an absurd premise for them, but there may be other factors involved in their estimates that are not fact, but conjecture. That's what I'm trying to find out. Is this list factual - that is, is it the same list that anyone would come up with given obvious quantifiable data - or is there creativity involved? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If they were simply adding the listed value of their home to the contents of their bank account or using other clearly factual items then I would say that the list wasn't copyrightable. However, this seems to involve a variety of people "estimating" worth for items that they dig up, assessing what they feel is the person's level of debt and even mentioned "vetting" net worths. While that's not creative in the way Renoir was, there's certainly some artistry involved in coming to these figures and little chance that another person, using the same methods, would arrive at the same total. Shell ^babelfish 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What I can say for sure is that I learnt a lot on copyright via this discussion, and this is extremely useful for everybody.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the 2004 list to the UK Sunday Times' listing for 2004 here (admin-only, sorry), the order of several UK billionaires as well as their estimated worth is quite noticeably different. This establishes quite clearly that such lists do not rely on purely objective and undisputed facts, but subjective and hence creative collection, amalgamation and evaluation of these facts, which are copyrightable. I'd further remind the contributors versed in the subtleties of copyright law that in the grand scheme of things, as far as our editorial policies are concerned, the real test is not whether potentially copyrighted content passes muster of current case law, but our own copyright policy, at least as long as following both the letter and the spirit of this policy does not put us and our contributors at odds with the law.

Since WP:C (and WP:NFC for that matter) has been drafted to be more stringent than current jurisprudence, and for good reason (to allow a certain margin so that evolution of case law towards harsher interpretation doesn't suddenly force us to review and potentially delete massive amounts of data), I see no room to depart from the precautionary principle that guides our review in such circumstances, and while short excerpts, for instance a top ten or citing that So-and-So ranks number X in the list are perfectly acceptable, reproducing the full list is not. Also, to preempt possible objections about the timeframe, do note that the Sunday Times' listing is published for January 2004 while Forbes is established for February. The one month difference does not account for the discrepancies in the ranking on both lists, to wit, a comparison with the 2005 listing reproduces similar discrepancies, which clearly indicates that the lists aren't based on objective criteria. MLauba (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Something which may be worth noting is that the article's title "List of billionaires" would indicate that this is a generic compilation of billionaires, as opposed to one organization's creation. Since the consensus seems to be that this is a creative, copyrightable work by Forbes, would it be better to rename this (and previous years' articles) as such, e.g. Forbes' list of billionaires? Compare for example, List of companies by revenue and the Fortune Global 500. Halestock (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use limitations

Given creativity in the list compilation, the next question is how many names are safely allowable under Wikipedia's conservative approach to Fair Use. I think when the list is upward of 750 people that we can comfortably permit 15; less than that, 10. This is in line with practices I've seen with other creative lists. I've moved forward with that assumption with List of billionaires (2009) and List of billionaires (2004). I've deleted List of billionaires (2007) 102-946 and List of billionaires (2006) 101-334 as exceeding fair use. Since they were not previously tagged, I've tagged List of billionaires (2007), List of billionaires (2006) and List of billionaires (2005) to allow time for interested contributors to weigh in on what reasonable, brief number can be incorporated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think 10, maximum as it is currently. Is it not possible though, to add information from sources other than Forbe, so that the fair use reasoning is not stretched unreasonably for older lists?

If I'm really honest though, I don't see the encyclopedic value any of these lists really have. Somebody's wealth is generally nobody's business but their own, and if it's significant enough can be discussed in that person's individual article. At the moment, it's basically copying a list from a publication that may or may not even be that reliable. Aiken ♫ 16:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the 20 billion dollars (1987 value) of gold? Is Doug Hall going to play Robin Hood in a movie like Kevin and the Australian terrorist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yotvata (talk • contribs) 10:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dab

Having trouble with the table. Could somebody please dab Stefan Persson. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And fix the appearance of the name Li Ka-shing. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

2011 List is out

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list -Abhishikt 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the Forbes list of billionaires (2010) ?

Where is the Forbes list of billionaires (2010) ? 99.112.214.205 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• 2010 list is missing, please repair David30930 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, historical stats should be retained. I'll go through the edit history to add previous years. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• 2010 list has been restored, see Forbes list of billionaires (2010). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong link on page. Needs a registered Wikipedia editor to correct

The link for David Thomson goes to a disambig page. the correct person the page should be David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet. Which, of course, could be piped to simply say David Thomson. Could a registered editor please correct. Thank you. 198.164.160.244 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And what about Bashar Al-Assad?

He has only in UK £40billion (please see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385179/Has-Syrian-tyrant-Bashar-al-Assads-wife-Asma-fled-London-3-children.html) and in Switzerland CHF3billion (you can search on SWISSINFO) and much more. thanks--160.85.2.50 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How Does the Forbes list really work?

Obviously they can't screen every asset owned by every individual on Earth. How do they decide who to screen? How do they decide which assets to screen? What about assets that can't be screened (Swiss accounts, illegal assets, etc...). Certain dictators and other heads of state have been in the news lately along with claims that they have billions of dollars of stolen and or hidden wealth. Why have these individuals never been listed by Forbes as billionaires? In short, is The Forbes List really what it claims to be and how do we know that? If not, then what is the Forbes list really a reflection of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.222.14 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Something I just learned today. It appears the Forbes list intentionally ignores dictators and royals, that's why you'll never find them listed on their list. Take Gaddafi, for instance, who is now reported to have amassed about 200 billion dollors. I don't think the Forbes list should be taken all too seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.186.160 (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why only the top 10?

The list is a bit meagre... why are only the top 10 included? I believe the top 100 would be more to it! --Krawunsel (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it would be more interesting to have more people included in this page. Even a top 25 or to 50 would be cool.Millertime246 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Due to copyright issues it's not possible to include significant portions of the list. Enivid (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Good to know.Millertime246 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of "copyright issues" would that be? I feel that "copyright issues" are used too often as a pretext to prevent information to be included in the Wikipedia. --Krawunsel (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If significant portion of the list is used it would breach Forbes' copyright. The list is their intellectual property. Similarly, full modern audio compositions can't included into the articles and fragments are used instead. For details, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Enivid (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gina Rinehart

Reportedly 29billion. which would put her not only as richest woman but in 8th place on the current list (whether it's USdollars or AU dollars, currently would not make a difference). Is the list "as of" some date, in which case one would need to wait, or an instant snapshot in which case why not update now? Reference:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-23/gina-rinerhart-worlds-richest-woman/4028686

The BRW source is BRW_(magazine) by the way which is quoted giving this analysis

Ms Rinehart has ridden Australia's resources boom like no-one else; her wealth ballooning by an unparalleled $18.87 billion in the past year. That equates to $1,077,054 every 30 minutes of every day.

The gargantuan increase flows from foreign investment in new projects, increased production and a recovery in the iron ore price over the past six months, BRW said. And much more could be on the way. "If the demand for natural resources remains strong, additional multi-billion mines are almost inevitable," BRW Rich List editor Andrew Heathcote said.

"There is a real possibility that Rinehart will become not just the richest woman in the world, but the richest person in the world....A $100 billion fortune is not out of the question for Rinehart if the resources boom continues unabated," Mr Heathcote said.

Harel (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The list is compiled by Forbes. It is rather silly to inquire about adding someone to the list here.Enivid (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is generally more civil to not call it silly when (as a small amount of thinking on your part would make clear) I clicked on the wrong link, and meant to go to wealthiest people.List of wealthiest non-inflated historical figures as well as List of people reported in the press to be billionaires seems to be the closest already existing Wikipedia page. So I will go elsewhere. Forbes will eventually get its act together and add Rinehart, one presumes, with an updated list, maybe they will even update more often, some day.

Missing such a major figure only highlights the pitfalls of over-reliance on a Forbes list and not a general list of wealthiest (with reputable references) Harel (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please add the BRW Rich 200 on the template?

Could someone please add the BRW Rich 200 on the template?

The BRW Rich 200 is a list of Australia's two hundred wealthiest individuals and families, ranked by personal net worth. The list is released annually during May in a special issue of the Business Review Weekly, published by Fairfax Media.

Thanks--189.104.102.43 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please add the Canadian Business magazine rich list on a separate topic?

Could someone please add the Canadian Business magazine rich list on a separate topic?

The Canadian Business magazine rich list is a list of Canada's one hundred wealthiest individuals and families, ranked by personal net worth. The list is released annually by the Canadian Business magazine, published by Rogers Digital Media. Thanks--189.104.102.43 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Lists of billionaires by nationality

I'm wondering if there's been any discussion about whether it's appropriate to have a series of very small content forks of this Forbes list. The articles in question are linked to from Template:Lists of billionaires. Most of these lists contain only two or three names (eg. List of Venezuelans by net worth, List of Nigerians by net worth), and some contain only one (eg. List of Norwegians by net worth). If it's absolutely essential that Wikipedia provide this information, I'd suggest merging all these pages together, with only the most extensive lists split out into separate articles. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from NItrousR, 29 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The five richest people in the world with their net worth

1. Mukesh Ambani ($63.2 billion)

2. Carlos Slim Helu ($62.2993 billion)

3. William (Bill) Gates ($62.29 billion)(Before Donating in Charity)

4. Warren Buffett ($55.9 billion)

5. Lakshmi Mittal ($50.9 billion)

Ref : http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=29448&tp=on

NItrousR (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This is the Forbes list of billionaires. All net worths in this article are according to the list that Forbes magazine publishes. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2013 list

This article claims Bill Gates is the richest based off Bloomberg's list, but shouldn't this article be based off of what Forbes (which ranks Carlos Slim as higher) says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.128.30 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

richest man

Richest man redirects here. If I want to know the current richest man, it would be Bill Gates, but the article doesnt tell me that. It says Carlos Slim. The Carlos Slim's page itself says "From 2010 to 2013, Slim was ranked as the richest person in the world,[3] but that position has been regained by Bill Gates"-Shahab (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the redirect is misleading as this article is clearly about the Forbes' proprietary list of billionaires. Enivid (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bill Gates is the richest man, I don't really know why this article says otherwise. If anything, they should clarify that Carlos Slim AND FAMILY would be in first place. Bill Gates is the SINGLE richest man. If you added his wife's net worth as well as the rest of his family's, it'd be higher of course. This whole thing is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.113.4 (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed the link the the page "Richest man". Regarding your comments here, according to Forbes, Carlos Slim is currently the richest person in world, so there's nothing misleading here. see this. The Bloomberg source says otherwise, that's why all the confusion. I'll add this source too. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Forbes concur's with Bloomberg; simply click through to Slim's profile in the link you gave. "Carlos Slim Helu holds the title of the world's second richest man (net worth $69 billion), having lost the world's richest spot to Bill Gates in May.". That's the problem with annual lists; if there are obvious and large shifts in wealth, as occured here shortly after Forbes' March list, it makes it awkward for a year, and more rapidly generated lists will mis-align.Kuru (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)\

Thanks Kuru, sorry I was misled by Forbes. I saw you reverted me on Gates and Slim's articles, I'll be more cautious next time I edit biographies, especially of living persons. Maybe I should send an email to Forbes and ask them to change, or "refresh" their billionaires list and peoples' pages, after all I had a subscription with them for a year... Earlier I put up the page Richest man for deletion, do you think you it should stay and direct to this article or was my decision just? Lastly, I don't think this article's name should be "Forbes list of billionaires". There's also a Bloomberg list of billionaires. I don't know if it was done before, but I propose that this article's name be changed to "List of billionaires", while letting both Forbes and Bloomberg be cited. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

1. 1 richest is Bill Gates

198.99.28.94 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

1. 1 richest is Bill Gates

198.99.28.94 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Apurva Jain ( 16year old) - The richest person in this world. !!!

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_billionaires says that the richest person in the world is a 16 year old called Apurva Jain. I wont really mind that if that is true, but it does not look so. Could you please check and confirm. Refer Sections: Current rankings/ Annual listing 2014,2013,2012. 1 Apurva Jain $78.0 billion Increase 16 India Jain Technology

The above error is seen on other sections also without even a reference link for Apurva Jain or the Jain Technologies. Vickypedian (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Vickypedian

That is the kind of edit we call vandalism. Its something that comes along with allowing anybody to edit wikipedia. We just have to watch articles and fix the vandalism, in order to keep open to the positive contributions such edits can bring. I have reverted it.Trackinfo (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"And Family

I am absolutely positive that this will be taken down within moments, but nothing misleading, eh? If you are going to include "and family" in this page, then you need to include the world's actual wealthiest families, these include the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Tudors, the Vanderbilts, the Duponts, the Bushes. I am absolutely abhorred by this page. Yes, it's true, none of the families I just mentioned report the net earnings that the people on your list do, because they are above that; they are not required to and furthermore their wealth is not represented in fiat currency, however, "FAMILY" is a truly relative term and can mean anything and by that definition you could call anyone "and family" the richest person in the world. If this site claims to have any true journalistic integrity, you will do one of two things... take down the "and family" entries, or do your homework and tell the truth. When I search "wealthiest families" on Wikipedia I get a bunch of nonsense results that also represent net worth. Go ahead. Delete my entry now and continue to suppress the truth. If I made a wealthiest families page you would take it down claiming I didn't have the proper resources, I'm not providing statistics based on net earnings (which I just pointed out is the problem), and whatever you could possibly do to discredit it as you have done with other pages of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, it doesn't get you off the hook by saying "we're just reporting what Forbes says." This is your internal article and you are using Forbes and your ONLY source, as if Forbes magazine is the end all be all of economics and wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are just reporting what Forbes says. This isn't actually an article about the world's richest people (we couldn't create such a list without engaging in original research), it's an article about Forbes' list. I fully understand that this may not be obvious at first glance, but that's the fact of the matter. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, and your candidness, and I know my entry was heavy handed and perhaps a little to emotional, and although I do understand it would be a large undertaking to write such an article that disseminates the truth regarding true wealth and power and all sorts of problems arise such as what is conjectured and speculated; what sources are considered reliable and what ones could fall under conspiracy, but I couldn't just not comment on this. I would undertake an article myself, I have personal essays that do as much, but I'm afraid it would just be challenged and taken down. Thank you again for your honest comments, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soco79 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Credibility issues

Since it was recently revealed that at least 2 National Leaders had many billions in wealth, and weren't on the list lends one to think that Forbes is either incompetent or deliberately omitted both Mubarak and Khaddafi from the list. In either case, the credibility of Forbes should fall into question.

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Qaddafi-Was-Worth-More-Than-siliconalley-1450562746.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Experts-Say-Mubarak-Familys-Net-Worth-is-Billions-115489594.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Forbes specifically mentions in its annual billionaire list that it is specific to "self-made" billionaires, therefore the previous remarks and references mentioned are retracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2014

Zia shahid

Ziashahid46 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2014

AZEEM SHAH US$ 15 BILLION 183.82.2.3 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2014

"Roughly two-thirds of the list were entirely self-made and only about 1 in 8 billionaires achieved their wealth through inheritance alone."

CITATION NEEDED Wvferrell (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This claim is sourced in the body of the article. Kuru (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Longer-term semiprotection?

I just had a look at the last 50 edits, and with one single exception[8], all of these consisted of edits by unregistered or new users that were later reverted (and the reverts themselves - kudos to Kuru and everyone else who is watching this article). I'm normally all for enabling contributions by unregistered users, but the ratio of useful edits seems very low here. The article has seem several semiprotections of up to three months before; I propose to semiprotect it for one year and then reevaluate. Thoughts, before filing a request at WP:RFP? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be in agreement here. Essentially this list has one source that seems to be published the first week of March every year. Once updated, there is relatively little need for changes other than typos as above. Due to the high incidence of vandalism (usually marginally literate IP idiots replacing Bill Gates name with their own), we can deal with those kinds of minor corrections through edit requests much more efficiently than 100+ vandals and reverts in a month. Trackinfo (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we see very few constructive edits apart from the March updates and lasting semi-protection would help this article. But should we take a strategic view - is this article a useful honeypot? It is well watched and vandalism is often reverted in minutes. Which said, I wouldn't object to semiprotection at all. NebY (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the request at WP:RFPP. I see the problem with this article and the constant job it is to maintain this article. At the same time we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have put Pending changes protection on the article. That means that IPs will still be able to edit, but the edits have to be accepted before it goes live. Hopefully that will stop IPs from replacing Bill Gates. Rettetast (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't working. Trackinfo (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

[9] It still isn't working. What we have are repeated cycles of IP and single purpose new accounts editing junk, mostly replacing Bill Gates' name and a revert by an established editor. This still requires active attention from well meaning watching editors, which this proves do exist, to keep reverting such changes. In most cases, I fully support IP editors--I have been sent on incredibly interesting paths by IP edits that were legitimate. This article, with its finite source, is wikipedia's perfect sting operation. Any account that attempts to change Bill Gates' name etc. should get an automatic block. It has demonstrated it is up to no good. The rare legitimate corrections to this article can be handled by established registered users from formal edit requests 51 weeks a year. Trackinfo (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's working well. Vandalism's caught at leisure without becoming generally public. Looking at this month's edits, vandalising editors aren't going on to vandalise other articles the same day, at least not with the same IPs, so they may also be gaining the impression that vandalism fails. On the face of it, we don't need to block them - which is great. NebY (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Real time net worth

Is it possible to automatically change the net worth to whatever it says here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime or can it only be done manually --88.111.129.157 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@88.111.129.157: Ask at WP:BOTREQ. (Also, please create an account.)--Anders Feder (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

People Vs Gods?

Why aren't royalty in this list? Aren't monarchs considered people? Are they less than human or more than human? Is Forbes protesting them or protecting its opportunities by not including them? Without them this is just inaccurate. There is no reason to set them apart from this list... unless you are a subject of them. 101.51.224.154 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

They generally are included on the list; their personal fortunes are often less than you think. Kuru (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Their net worth is often mixed with the states.--88.104.134.194 (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Forbes say why they don't do it.--88.104.131.9 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

David Koch

It says he is the wealthiest in NY and KS, I think that is being lazy since everyone has a primary residence. I'm sure if we included vacation homes this list would have a ton of repeats. Does anyone know the list/source we are using?--Seyoda (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the exact line you're questioning in the article? Kuru (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I could have sworn there was a wikitable broken down by state. Must be going crazy in my old age.--Seyoda (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I know the feeling... :) Kuru (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it, I knew I wasn't going senile - check out the box at the bottom of Charlie Ergen's page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Ergen --Seyoda (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, never noticed that navigation template before. There's a conversation here which questions the source. It's not this list, though. No idea why that template's title links here - will fix that. Kuru (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru --Seyoda (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sugested improvements

1. The informative short comments could be expanded to cover earlier years. In particular, the 2009 list, with the dramatic drop due to the world economic crisis of 2008, really needs a comment.

2. A graph of the listed data would be more digestible for some readers. Kdammers (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get why royalty and dictators are not rated in this list,I mean this is just inaccurate data ,in reality the wealthiest guy is probably some dictator somewhere or maybe a queen in a monarch Sir ian guru (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can write the publishers of the list at readers@forbes.com. I'm sure they are open to feedback. Kuru (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei

Iran's Supreme Leader Armaan Singh Minhas was reported by Reuters to control a business empire worth around $95 billion through petroleum exports here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/11/us-iran-setad-news-idUSBRE9AA0CY20131111

Can we place him first?

No, this is a specific list published annually by Forbes; it is not a random list of speculative personal wealth. Kuru (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect title

It is not a complete list. It is just top 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.208.230 (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You should contact Forbes; the article simply reflects the title of their work. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bill Gates

The Founder of Microsoft Bill Gates should be placed first as he is the richest man alive . Source : Forbes 2014-15 (if i am wrong please correct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolvipman6 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of wealthiest families

Family wealth seems to be quoted more and more these days when referring to global inequality. Is it time to start List of wealthiest families?

• Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Orange sandbox.

Should I move it to the mainspace? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and moved it to List of wealthiest families. I figure it is probably viable. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Useful sources

About list of the richest people from 1987 to 1999, some useful informations could be found in the links below.

• Forbes: Billionaires 25th Anniversary Timeline - the richest people since 1987 and their net worth.
• Forbes: The Original 1987 List Of International Billionaires - 10 first positions and net worth.
• Areppim Stats: World Billionaires Trends 1996-2015 - contains full lists since 1996.

Czarnybog (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Lists of people by net worth by (citizenship/country) should all be re-titled Forbes list of people by net worth. Simply because Forbes is the unique source used to make such lists on WP (e.g. List of Japanese by net worth). 47.17.27.232 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradictions

The text for 2016 does not match the data in the corresponding table. PerlMonk Athanasius (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now; someone had completely re-written the list back in august. I had reverted the change, but neglected to revert the narrative. Kuru (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Dell

His age is incorrect in the 2000 list it says he was 46- 17 years ago however he is only 52 today that would had made him only 35.2001:579:C180:36:10C:AE98:DD32:4689 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right, he was age 35 back then. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

Replace Woofypolarbear (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're specifically asking to change. Kuru (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Another page is needed

There should be an actual wikipedia page listing the richest people, not just a page about Forbes's list. Only 10 people are given in this list, whereas most Wikipedia lists are a lot more comprehensive.

Philologick (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't even imagine how you would construct such a list without it becoming pure WP:OR or a mishmash of incompatible methodologies. It's more difficult to assess someone's actual net worth than you might imagine. Kuru (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Jeff Bezos is now the richest person. Has to be changed. Kaarelv (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

Jeff Bezos has surpassed Bill Gates as richest man. 2605:6001:E816:6900:6015:DEEB:60A6:E050 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, this article is about an annual publication - not the day-to-day rankings. I'm sure that if he retains the position next year, he will have the appropriate position in the publication. Kuru (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Update

Jeff Bezos now worth US$93.9 billion, So time to update the page right? He is the wealthiest now. Aunaseef (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See the response above. Kuru (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

World's Billionaires

Jeff Bezos is currently world's richest man surpassed Bill Gates - 2017 Vijay 43 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

that was for only one day, sure they use yearly list and not real-time.2001:579:C180:36:10C:AE98:DD32:4689 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Bezos was only the richest man for a few hours but then Amazon stock dropped in value that made him lose the spot. This page is a snapshot of the Forbes List that is made in March, not real-time rankings. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No it's official. This friday Bezos got title of the richest person. You are talking about the 1 day in july. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaarelv (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

As Elon Musk's net worth has crossed over $185 billion this week, Jeff Bezos is no longer the world's wealthiest person. God of Data (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of the article, or the conversations above. Kuru (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

- Tgonedes (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeff bezos is not #1 as of now Naofumi69420Iwatani (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Saurabh jha is the world no.1 billonare person

2409:4063:2306:FEDD:F67B:F332:F4E2:A5F2 (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't Elon Musk listed?

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ list him as being the second richest person as of March 2021. Dream Focus 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not current day list of billionaires, as the article explains it's a annual ranking by Forbes of a snapshot in March. Musk wasn't in the rankings last year, and Forbes hasn't published this years ranking yet. Volteer1 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Last year he was number 31 with $24.6 Billion, and this year https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#705b2bc3d788 number 2 with $170.4 Billion. Only the top ten are listed here. My mistake. I thought surely he must've been in the top ten previously, not sure how someone can raise that fast in just a year. Dream Focus 22:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Tesla stock skyrocketed around tenfold in a year, that would probably do the trick. Volteer1 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So probably the title is very misleading Forbes opinion on who is rich list perhaps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.167.76 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It's the title of the publication, not an editorial description. You can contact Forbes with your concerns. Kuru (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

The data is inaccruate, as it has changed. 198.167.171.202 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This list needs updating

Also Elon musk is 50 not 49 Aubreywak (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk was 49 at the date of the publication for the 2021 Forbes list. This is not a real-time list.Kuru (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Don’t be lazy

Maybe instead of saying “please provide a source” literally look it up yourself to get an updated list of the worlds current billionaires it’s currently everywhere being talked about all through the media all over Facebook OML Aubreywak (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're modifying or adding material, you are required to provide reliable sources for it; "facebook" would not be a reliable source at any rate. Again, this is not a real-time list, it is a summary of a formal annual publication by Forbes. Kuru (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

My request is to add the new money of everyone on that list. 2A00:23C7:F107:DC00:F47B:C790:5E14:DDB2 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Elon musk

He is the 2 richest person in the world. 2A00:23C7:F107:DC00:F47B:C790:5E14:DDB2 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk - citizenship ("nationality")

Elon Musk holds three citizenships simultaneously (as is stated by both the Wikipedia page about him and also on the Wikipedia page with the Bloomberg list). I hereby request that you update his ″nationality″ information on this page by adding South Africa and Canada to the United States. 88.102.32.33 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the first sentence: "The World's Billionaires is an annual ranking by documented net worth of the wealthiest billionaires in the world, compiled and published in March annually by the American business magazine Forbes." That is, the article covers a specific, named annual product. The current iterations of that data point in the targeted material call it "country/territory", and we should probably mirror that. If that's not clear enough, and you still disagree, I would suggest contacting Forbes. Kuru (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading chart

The chart shows billionaire net worth growth. This is sort of misleading when the number of billionaires is not included. The average net worth of billionaires could drop by half, but if the number of new billionaires joining the he list triples, the chart would still show total growth going up.

Some other equation must be done in order to show true extent of growth. To capture an accurate picture of growth the net worth may be divided by the number of billionaires on the list, although I still feel this would leave more to be desired. 71.120.196.77 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Richest

Elon musk is now the richest man on earth at 200+ billon. Net worth 49.197.70.114 (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. No doubt Forbes will reflect this in their updated annual list in April. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Chart needs to be updated.

Chart shows “growth” with out showing number of billionaires. Number of billionaires in 2000 was 470, in 2015 it was 1826. Without this context the chart is useless. 71.120.196.77 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

Bill gates is the 2nd not the richest Omer30198 (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Change “Jeff Bezos” to “Elon Musk”

Change Jeff Bezos’ “177 billion” to Elon Musk’s “266 billion”

2A02:C7F:A924:E900:35DE:1AD1:AF6E:79A1 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See explanation of the article subject above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

text file of full list

Why is there no full listing available available here? Hurun had them available up through 2020 as an xlsx file. 174.212.236.10 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. Jklamo (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

Ummmm so Elon Musk is the richest so your wrooooooooooooooooong bro 71.64.99.164 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Such is reflected in the article. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

2016 Section missing content.

The other sections indicate how many billionaries there are and include the number of new billionaires (along with a lot of other intersting breakdowns). This information seems to be missing from the 2016 section ... if someone could add that it would be appreciated. Thank you kindly. JimScott (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

I just need to change the wealth... Ananth219 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Boy

The World's Billionaires is an annual ranking by documented net worth of the wealthiest billionaires in the world, compiled and published in March annually by the American business magazine Forbes. The list was first published in March 1987.[1] The total net worth of each individual on the list is estimated and is cited in United States dollars, based on their documented assets and accounting for debt and other factors. Royalty and dictators whose wealth comes from their positions are excluded from these lists.[3] This ranking is an index of the wealthiest documented individuals, excluding any ranking of those with wealth that is not able to be completely ascertained.[4] 2409:4070:4D16:7364:0:0:474A:6E14 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2022

2409:4063:4282:3D28:6967:5393:AC66:FC24 (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Y Junior ian.catanduva (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022

{Gautam Adani becomes 2nd richest man in the world as per Forbes

Adani Group's Chairperson Gautam Adani's wealth surged to make him the second richest man in the world on Friday, according to the Forbes' billionaire's list. While the richest man Elon Musk's net worth stood at $273.5 billion, Adani's net worth rose to $154.7 billion followed by Bernard Arnault and family's $153.8 billion and Jeff Bezos' $149.7 billion, as per Forbes.} 103.87.27.195 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this article is about the specific annual list compiled by Forbes. In the last edition of this list, Adani came second. Madeline (part of me) 11:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Rockefeller and Rothchild families

It is unclear why these two families are not included in the list, since the methodology indicated includes families as well as individuals, as can be seen for instance in the case of "Bernard Arnault & family" (no. 3 on the list).

The Rothchild's family net worth is 500 billion dollars, while the Rokefellers own 360 billion dollars. This data places them at the top of the list.

Moreover, a big part of their fortune is in cash, contrary to some of the billionaires on the list, whose value is based mostly on shares they possess. This kind of fortune cannot be turned into cash in an easy way (or sometimes not at all).

Here are some references to the above (there are more, of course): https://caknowledge.com/rockefeller-family-net-worth-forbes/ https://caknowledge.com///rothschild-net-worth-family-forbes/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/how-rich-is-the-rockefeller-family-today

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:8009:1A91:0:F691:D371:C8E9:322C (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC) 

After more research, it seems reasonable to evaluate the fortune of the Rothschilds more around 500 trillion dollar, since they have the Bank of England, the Vatican's treasury and big chunk of the Federal Researve bank, and hundreds of other banks:

https://jellyfish.news/complete-list-of-rothschild-owned-and-controlled-banks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:8009:1A91:0:31CD:6DAE:FDE0:3C73 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Bill Gates, 1995 and 1996

There seems to be some uncertainty regarding whether Bill Gates led the list in 1995 and 1996. Currently, this page lists the Walton Family as leading the list in these years, yet I've found other sources saying that Bill Gates led the list these years [10] [11]. There are even other references on this page to Bill Gates' lead beginning in 1995. I am unable to access the cited source for these years ([12]) and so cannot verify Forbes' original list. Kreidy (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am able to access cited sources, Walton family is leading, Bill Gates is listed as world's richest private individual. The list is correct. Jklamo (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the references on this page to the number of times Gates led the list should be edited then? For example, under the 2016 section, it reads: “This is the 17th time that the founder of Microsoft had claimed the top spot.” This seems misleading, as the top spot was actually claimed by the Walton family those first two years. I would think either reducing that count and others like it by two or adding the “individual” detail would be more accurate. Kreidy (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Arnault Is The Richest Now And Musk Second Adani Third

Update The List 223.191.50.73 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome: "The World's Billionaires is an annual ranking". It will be adjusted when they next publish. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Kinyanjui wa Gathirimo was the wealthiest man in East Africa before colonialism.

This list is biased of Africans. Land in Nairobi is more costly than same land In Manhattan. We need to review how we view this list. Find more about Kenyan Royal families. David Githanga Kinyanjui (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. This is a summary of the annual Forbes publication. I'm sure you can write the editor there and they can adjust the list. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Change 'his' to 'his or her' in the line "(his net worth will not be combined with family members')" BlueBazooka (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Titanic

A few days ago a submarine went down to the Titanic. It was destroyed. On board the submarine was a British billionaire ( and other rich people ). Should the article be changed? The number of billionaires should be lowered now. 49.178.158.133 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No. This is an article about a formal, annual publication; not a real-time list that monitors the health and count of billionaires. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Picture of Billionaire Wealth Growth

The growth is shown going from 1 trillion to 7 trillion, as if the number has stayed the same. It fails to mention that there was only 470 billionaires in 2000, and 1826 in 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.105.230 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This list is not accurate. It does not mention the Waltons and many others. There are no Arabians in this list either abd they are richer than Bezos and Musk. Mikki0915 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Nationality" column contradicting other Wikipedia articles and sources

The Nationality category of certain persons on the list contradicts other Wikipedia articles and sources (example: Elon Musk and the Wikipedia article about him and the Bloomberg Index which states three nationalities (South Africa, Canada and the US) in his case). I understand that the data is taken from Forbes "as is" but it needs to be clearly stated - preferably in the introductory section of this article - and I also request that notes be added to the information contradicting other sources and Wikipedia articles. Various articles of an encyclopedia should not contradict each other. (Since the Article is semi-proteced I am unable to do anything about it myself.)92.63.48.182 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sara Blakely 2012

The paragraph for the 2012 list describes Sara Blakely as the youngest woman on the list, at 27 years old. The article cited says very clearly that she was 41, and that she started her business at age 27. 173.76.235.142 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I made the correction. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Update October 2023

As of october 10th, elon musk with an estimated personal networks of $262bn ist the worlds richest person leading the runner up by quite a large margin, frenchman arnault with just over $191bn.

https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#2078c4203d78 2003:F2:9F2B:C600:60F6:6AB7:4D14:E164 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ambani is richer than Musk.84.54.72.17 (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia does not use daily rates. See this article by Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

Next year's list may line up with the daily estimates, but it remains to be seen. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

105.66.4.189 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)walid largab $157B

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)