Jump to content

Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Chittampur (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

he received $ 100 billion revenue in 1999

 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. NiciVampireHeart 11:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

YouTube fan box

I simply don't believe the YouTuber box should be here for what I belive most will see as obvious....he's not connected to the company nor his he as social media figure definitely not a YouTuber.--Moxy 🍁 18:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Naming of the article

Bill Gates name is incorrectly worded and the space is incorrectly set.

Would someone please change it back to Bill Gates instead of the current Bill Gates since it´s incorrectly done and is incorrectly displayed on google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwittler (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

The goal is to provide 120 million women and girls in the poorest countries with high-quality contraceptive information, services, and supplies with the longer-term goal of universal access to voluntary family planning. [1] 24Mikhail (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning
 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. Is this something you want added? Where do you want it added? Please be specific when requesting edits. NiciVampireHeart 07:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Add the above text to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation section to show the goal of the foundation 24Mikhail (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Have now added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Extent of air travel

I have tried to add the following new short paragraph in the "Criticism" section. One user reverted this, arguing: "drop unbalanced attack on living person. It makes no mention that he generates far less auto pollution than 1000 ordinary Americans". I cannot really follow this argument. The paragraph is about flying, not driving cars. And even if he really drives less car than 1000 ordinary Americans (I don't know whether he does), his flights alone still caused at least 1600 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2017. This is what about 1000 Americans cause in total (flights plus other emissions) per year. How could mentioning his "auto pollution" ever make this look more balanced? Compared to Gates' flight emissions, average emissions from driving cars are tiny and, therefore, even if Gates didn't drive at all in 2017 (what we don't know), that wouldn't have changed his balance much. My paragraph as follows in italics. Flugscham (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC) A study conducted by the [[University of Lund]] revealed that, in the year 2017 alone, Gates undertook 59 flights in private jets, which translates into at least 200,000 air miles or 1,600 tonnes of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in that year. His [[jet-setting]] habits mean that he produces about 10,000 times more carbon emissions from flying than the average person. The data was mined based on his social media accounts (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook posts) and other reports.<ref>https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/these-celebrities-cause-10000-times-more-carbon-emissions-from-flying-than-the-average-person</ref> Being confronted to the fact of being a [[super-emittent]] while being committed to climate action and overcoming the [[climate crisis]], Gates referred to the extent of his air travel as a "guilty pleasure".<ref>https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-enjoying-his-guilty-pleasure-2015-4</ref>

Heliogen

With the recent press release announcing progress by Heliogen, is it time to create an article on Heliogen? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

103.53.235.117 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bill gates are very talented person

 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. aboideautalk 16:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Are they all equally talented, one wonders. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Bazos is mentioned 3 times in Bill Gates' lead

Seems better to just write the years Gates was the richest person, rather than keep mentioning specific times Bazos passed him. 80.41.36.232 (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the lead section is perfectly clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be fine with leaving Jeff in the lede, but I think its a little overly long. Perhaps something shorter along the lines of "since then, the title has passed back and forth". Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

As of November 9, 2019, Gates had a net worth of $107.1 billion, still ranked second.
As of November 17, 2019, Gates had a net worth of $110 billion, and regained number one richest man status. (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/tech/bill-gates-jeff-bezos-richest-person/index.html) Dlane2008 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the first line is how the test currently reads, and the second line is how he wants the text to read. Robman94 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

Give me permission to edit Tigerkings (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bill Gates no longer on the board for Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bill-gates-to-step-down-from-microsoft-berkshire-hathaway-boards-2020-03-13?mod=us-markets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.94.4 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Bill Gates steps down from Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway

Who adds these things to protected articles, anyway?

172.79.64.143 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Change infobox image

I think we should change the current infobox image which is from 2015 to a more recent image from 2018.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Current image from 2015
Proposed image from 2018
Image on left is the current image from 2015; Image on right is proposed image from 2018

nice its great man we like him. more information about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangtamil (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Support: We should use the latest photo. RuiyuShen 10:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Support. Arcturus (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rumours

There have been a number of notable false rumours about things Gates has allegedly said.

Probably worth a section in the article IMO. Andrewa (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Might just be giving them a platform? I don't know what the WP policy is here. Bill Gates is in the news because of a current conspiracy theory. Whether this needs to be on this page or not, I don't know. Totorotroll (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, it might be worth including that people are holding up signs in protests in Australia reading "Arrest Bill Gates," here is a reputable source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/10/ten-arrested-and-police-officer-injured-at-protest-against-victorias-covid-19-lockdown-laws that traces the origin of the "microchip" theory to the Book of Revelations and the "Arrest Bill Gates" chant to Alex Jones. Totorotroll (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
More about Alex Jones and Bill Gates: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/america-far-right-coronavirus-outbreak-trump-alex-jones Totorotroll (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think all of this is better placed here: Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Totorotroll (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Mugshots

Those mugshots of Gates serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The incident isn't even mentioned in the text. Anyone object to their removal? Arcturus (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have taken them off. Totorotroll (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks. Arcturus (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Italic textalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E03:CB00:1C8F:C512:1B0A:F93D (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Major funder of World Health Organization

Bill Gates is the second largest donor to the World Health Organization. But yet, when I search for the words 'World Health Organization', 'W.H.O.' or just 'Health' this page as it exists now does not give any information about his connections to this UN organization. Is there a reason why this info is not in this article? Jimj wpg (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the donor. The sections here cover his personal donations, and his endowment of that organization. The article for his foundation does mention WHO, along with the many other charitable activities of that group. Those activities would be too numerous to mention here; the organizational history seems to suffice. Kuru (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Add a section detailing Bill Gates relationship with Jeffrey Epstein JustOneMoreThing1 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If you believe there are sources to support such a relationship, then by all means present them and write the paragraph yourself. ValarianB (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2020 (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. And ValarianB this was a semi-protected edit request. So how is a non-(auto)confirmed user supposed to do it themself? You may want to see Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests and mandatory copyright attribution. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bill Gates isn't a philanthropist but a philanthrocapitalist

I believe it would be more accurate to describe Bill Gates as a philanthrocapitalist because it has been widely reported that his philanthropic endeavors are generally benefiting his own wealth. Because of that there is no evidence of Bill Gates "caring for someone else's needs instead of his own", to cite Wikipedia's article on philanthropist.


Most Philanthrocapitalism description use Bill Gates as an exemple for the concept.

Even Wikipedia's article on Philanthrocapitalism cites the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as an exemple.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-with-charitable-billionaires-philanthrocapitalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/mark-zuckerberg-and-the-rise-of-philanthrocapitalism https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304422X12000150 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/philanthrocapitalism-a-self-love-story/ https://www.ft.com/content/64d70736-0212-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3 https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/01/26/down-with-philanthrocapitalism-says-an-entertaining-polemic https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/giving/11MARKET.html ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barmok (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a neologism, not an actual descriptor. ValarianB (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
If there is enough coverage in the press about it then technically we can give it WP:DUEEliteArcher88 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2020

Bill gates has a YouTube channel that was formally known as gatesnotes I would like you to add the to

Video and film clips. Here it is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnEiGCE13SUI7ZvojTAVBKw Warden385 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done This appears to be within the exceptions under WP:ELNO and WP:YOUTUBE and allowed as an external link under official sites. I have added it to the External links section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

Vcorchado29 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2020 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine hogwash?

Where did all the bullshit about Bill Gates and vaccines come from? Did this exist before the Trump presidency? MightyArms (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This article] explains it well. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

New Section - Wealth

The personal life section contains information on his wealth which IMHO doesn't really belong there. Can somebody move it to a new section/subsection appropriately titled? There's already a subsection for External Business Ventures so inserting a similar subtitle for Wealth would work fine. It just really looks out of place the way it is.Bristus (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Documentary films about Gates

This "film" is from The Corbett Report, described by Media Bias/Fact Check as "a Tin Foil Hat conspiracy and Moderate pseudoscience website, based on the promotion of 9/11 conspiracies, False Flags, Chemtrails, and Deep State conspiracies." The first section of the video is titled "Part One: How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health", and tells us that "Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development.". THis isn't likely to satisfy our requirements for a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we consider that the Media Bias/Fact Check you cite is in fact funded by Bill Gates? The Corbett documentaries on Gates are very factual and references are highly sourced. This is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:180:5F0:155:290D:A645:EF44 (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 Sept 2020

Please add "Honorary Knight Commander Order Of British Empire (KBE)." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiscid (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source to tell us about this? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This is already in the article in the "Recognition" section; there is also an entry in the "FAQ" above. Kuru (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. It should be added to the section about Microsoft sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGanot (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

the co-founder of Microsoft Tgonedes (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tgonedes:  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. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated paragraphs

There are a number of paragraphs in this article that 1) do not mention Bill Gates; 2) are only tangentially related to him; and 3) are covered in other articles (such as History of Microsoft). For those reasons, I am going to remove them. Of course, any strong objections, let's discuss here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you give examples? I offhand don't see any content as being fluff or redundant. I think it's okay if something in this article is covered in a different article as well. When the article is about the founder of a company, there's bound to be some overlap between topics given the history of both the figure and company is kindred. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if you look at Steve Jobs's article, there is content that is included both in there and on the Apple company page as well as History of Apple Inc., but again, just because a story or elements of a story deal in multiple subjects, doesn't mean only one article is allowed to cover it. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Keeping info on Bill Gates's diversification in lead in reference to TerraPower nuclear power project

Hi, I would like the editor to discuss here prior to deleting the information on TerraPower the nuclear power station project mention that I added to the lead of his article. As it's been 7 years since Bill Gates stepped down as chairman of Microsoft, and if that's the only thing in the lead, it makes it quite outdated too. Thus I believe that a mention of his next generation nuclear power plants is important to keep in the lead, to show Gates's evolution as an innovator years after leaving Microsoft, and thus sets the tone better for the rest of the article too at this time. While further raising awareness among the general audience of this new type of traveling-wave reactor nuclear reactor that could potentially help to alleviate global warming. Nuclear power projects are also I believe quite notable, especially if a civilian is leading the effort across international territories. Perhaps even more potentially significant than a global software product. Death Star Central (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Flyedit32 I had perviously requested that before deleting sourced content, it is correct protocol to discuss it here in the talk section first. Thus, can you please further explain here why you believe mention of Bill Gates founding and being chairman of the TerraPower nuclear reactor development project should not be in the lead? For comparison please see the article on Elon Musk which mentions many companies that he has founded in the lead. Likewise there is much more to Bill Gates than Microsoft now. So your comment while deleting the info, that it is listed under the section "External business ventures and investments" does not suffice to as reason enough to delete this highly notable sourced content from the lead. Why can't it still be in the lead as well? I do not follow the logic. Can you please give any further reason? Also the name of this other section should be re-worded as I feel "External" wrongly implies that his article is only about the "Founder of Microsoft", when it is about Bill Gates in general. Death Star Central (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
See my changes. I think this is the proper balance. We shouldn't go in depth with all of his external business ventures when the lead is already too extensive as is. And on that point, what makes TerraPower the only one worth detailing (besides the Foundation) and not all his several other companies also doing important work? Like his former longtime partner and friend Paul Allen's lead, it's better to list them in this fashion and go into more detail in the body of the article. All those refs you used are now included in the body, as is the copy. And in the lead, it does mention his efforts to combat climate change. Now it mentions TerraPower as well. I'd like to hear other users' thoughts too, but I think that this is the right approach.... UPDATE: The lead for Thomas Edison is not much longer, it's significantly shorter! And if we're going to model Gates' lead after another figure, we should look to Paul Allen before Elon Musk. On that note though, Gates's lead as is, is still longer than Musks! We must stop the edit warring and wait for others to join the discussion. Simpler is always better for the lead though. Flyedit32 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, Thank you very much :) User:Flyedit32, for finally writing a reply here on the talk, after deleting the content multiple times before. I still don't see the rush to delete one line of text before discussing it properly here, how that serves any purpose to be honest. What I had meant was that the first paragraph of Thomas Edison's lead is longer, which it is in fact. Also I believe Elon Musk is a better compare to Bill Gates as they were both the principals and main innovators of their companies, Paul Allen was much more in a supporting role and left active duties in Microsoft as early as 1983. Sincerely, I think a one liner about a nuclear power project does merit inclusion here in the very first paragraph. Why this above all other projects, you ask? Well as it is nuclear power, that is perhaps the most important activity any civilian or government can engage in, in this era. Certain countries will even face sanctions if dealing with nuclear power. So as an Encyclopedia, I believe it is important to make the public aware as soon as possible if any body is heavily invested in nuclear power. Also this one line being in the intro helps to raise awareness of the possibility of new forms of nuclear reactors among the general audience, here specifically the traveling-wave reactor. The more people that can be made aware of potential alternatives to tackle climate change can be only be positive for the world. So I feel keeping this one line is important in the first paragraph. Also on the mention of edit warring, I believe the correct convention would have been to leave the actual line up there till we finished the discussion and had the benefit more editors expressing their view too, so the context would have been more clear. Death Star Central (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
One more thing on the subject of edit warring, I would like to reiterate, with all due respect, that it was you User:Flyedit32 that kept deleting the line from the first paragraph without wanting to a discuss it here on the talk page. I had to reinsert the line multiple times before you took the effort write any reply here, despite me mentioning it in the edit. I am for now not going to add that line back, though I really should (especially considering the nuclear nature of it all) till this debate is over actually. But you would just pre-maturely and arrogantly delete it anyway. Which I think is really wrong, impolite, generally unfair and frustrating in respect to wikipedia protocols. I don't know why you feel the rules should not apply to you, and why you feel your points to be deemed as certain right without any discussion at all, that was politely requested multiple times before? It's not just and it is not a nice feeling from my perspective. One line of text costs nothing on digital platform, to be in such a rush to delete it. Death Star Central (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I think you're completely misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and of lead sections. It has nothing to do with advancing a cause or raising awareness for something one (or many) users personally believe to be important. Personally, I don't at all disagree with your views, but that's just it, our personal views should not influence the way in which we edit a subject's article (that would be editing with bias, non-objectivity, and non-neutrality), and you have made it clear that your biases and personal opinions are influencing what you're pushing to have placed in this lead. Are his efforts with TerraPower important? Yes. But so are his efforts with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and several other companies, but none of those are mentioned in the lead paragraph (not even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation!). It doesn't matter how personally important you think any of this is, whether it's climate change, nuclear power, traveling-wave reactors, etc. Expand on Terrapower in the main body then, but a lead section should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its main contents only. For that exact matter, TerraPower isn't even covered that much in the body of the article so there is absolutely no reason it should go in the first paragraph or be given undue weight (the only reasons you've specified for its inclusion here are how essential you think the cause is, that's it. Not that the company has defined Gate's career or given him his fortune or is the company he's most well-known for in the public eye. You haven't mentioned any of that because none of it is true). I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thank you for the discussion instead of edit-warring! It is also much appreciated.... UPDATE: Not only is TerraPower and his efforts with TerraPower not covered that much in the body, it's actually not covered AT ALL, other than the one mention in the "External business ventures and investments" section. That serves as even more confirmation that it should not be placed with undue weight in the lead paragraph or anywhere in the lead section for that matter. I'm still okay with it being mentioned where it is now, but if anything is to be included in the lead, per wiki guidance, it should be a main topic of the article (not just something that is briefly mentioned in one sub section). Flyedit32 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
And I think you are completely wrong in your understudying that any digital encyclopedia should only have content that is seven years outdated in its introduction paragraph. That's just simple common sense according to me, and does not require referencing any manuals. I also suggest more than simply reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, that you try and properly digest the direction there in the cultural context of what a digital encyclopedia should be doing. It clearly says in the introduction paragraph of that wiki manual article "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I have put emphasis on the most important here, as nuclear power is the most important content in this article now. It's not just me who says nuclear power is the most important development of modern human history, it is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cuban missile crisis, Cold War, NK, Kashmir conflict etc... nothing is more important than developments in nuclear power in relation to humanity thus far. I think that's just major common sense. Hence, following the wikipedia manual you have linked too, the fact that Bill Gates is developing a nuclear reactor must be in the first paragraph. I don't know how you think that this is solely the topic of my personal bias and not the entire premises on which the United Nations itself was established. I think it does matter how editors perceive the importance of the content, as there needs to be an order of the most important content presented in the appropriate order. So I think to try and reduce the importance of a line concerning nuclear power as the bias of one editor is not fair and insensible in fact. Also I think where you have written what he is "well-known for" is not the same as most important, as is actually written in the wikipedia manual. A quality encyclopedia should have some intellectual and especially scientific editorial angle, and not just be what's the most famous thing there, once again most important is not the same as most famous. And this is where I think now you have admitted to a major flaw in your judgment, that you believe degree of fame to be the same as degree of importance. Any credible intellectual will tell you a nuclear scientist is far more important than the most popular reality star for humanity in general. Death Star Central (talk)
As Flyedit32 says, the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. The purpose of the rest of article is to summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they spend their column inches on (see WP:DUE). That is how Wikipedia editors judge which content is the 'most important' in an article. Do the majority of sources about Bill Gates spend the majority of their space writing about TerraPower? If you walked into a book store and picked up a biography of Gates, would you see 'Chairman of TerraPower' on the book jacket? - MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
MrOllie is spot on here. Thank you! Flyedit32 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
But that's exactly why it should be on wikipedia, that a printed book jacket may have missed this crucial fact, but a digital encyclopedia can be more cleverly dexterous than the print media. That is why wikipedia is so important, as it can break free from the limited agendas of the for profit print media. From my understating of WP:DUE, it says in the guidelines: that the "mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I would say simply here no technology is more important than Nuclear power in relation to the human condition, do you disagree with that? Consequently as there are sources about Nuclear power here now it must be mentioned in the introduction paragraph. Once again the Elon Musk page has him on many projects listed as the co-founder in the first paragraph and none are even as significant to humanity as nuclear power, so why cannot there be one line here in the Bill Gates article? Why are you so adamant in simply deleting sourced content about nuclear power from the intro paragraph. More about TerraPower should be developed in the article body too of course, there are plenty of sources in regards to this, but this does not also mean that it should not already be mentioned in the opening paragraph already as it is a highly important topic. Two wrongs do not make a right. Death Star Central (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Bill Gates being on the board of TerraPower is probably the 75th most notable thing about his life. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is not to editorialise about which of a subject’s accomplishments is most important to the future of humanity. Smntstatus (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry this is not nonsense and that is only your opinion that, "Bill Gates being on the board of TerraPower is probably the 75th most notable thing about his life." I strongly disagree, as for me it is the No.1 most important role in his life presently. Do you have a source for that number 75? Come on that's a nonsensical statement clearly. Besides he's not just on the board, he is the chairman of TerraPower and its founder too. In the Atomic Age, please do read this article, any serious activity in nuclear power is obviously the most important fact about a subject and this present era. Do you disagree with the global scientific consensus that nuclear technology is the most important development of our Atomic Age presently? What technology do you feel is more important than nuclear? Also TerraPower is not about the future only, that's what Bill Gates has been working on now since 2006. He has even met with the President of China to collaborate on this nuclear project, please read this article in Forbes in regards to this. The nuclear and international nature of this project makes it highly important and notable now. Importance, I reiterate is not simply a popularity contest. Importance cannot just be left for the masses and their commercial spin mass media culture to judge, this is the real role of a good wiki editor to weigh up the sources and execute editorial judgment, and not simply follow the mass sentiments by rote. Further Bill Gates does not work for Microsoft anymore! He left in 2014. So as a wikipedia editor the job is to keep the intros of articles current, not seven years outdated, along with selecting editorial direction boldly of what is important for encyclopedic value. And it the job of the wiki editor to debate that, when he/she strongly disagrees with the other editors too. Like I am doing here, and feel that your logic and statement of this arbitrary "75" number being completely ridiculous for this debate. Do you have a source for this number 75? Can you give a full table of ranking then from 1 to 75? Is this not just made up nonsensically by you? I have given you a source to the importance of atomic energy in the Atomic Age article already, and listed facts and sources to support my statements. For me this should be common sense for everybody, but I do suppose we live in a strange time of media. I am sorry to say this, but it's really frustrating as I feel I am the only one presenting actual facts to the arguments and sticking to protocol. As regardless, that sentence I wrote should not have been deleted till this debate was concluded too. Clearly I feel this is very unfair, and the replies above not logical and not based on facts, and also not in keeping with the innovative spirit of the wikipedia project. There are guidelines, but then there is also soul. Death Star Central (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

change bill gates spouse thing and make it married from 1994 to 2021 Bruhbruhindia (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Divorces are not instantaneous. There will be a long legal process. ― Tartan357 Talk 03:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Does WP have a policy regarding the causes and circumstances of a divorce? Or the extra-marital affairs that occurred during the marriage? Gates's setup with Ann Winblad seems very well documented. It would be of significance given that Gates weighs in on social, political, and moral issues. But this is not my bailiwick. Dynasteria (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
We generally go by what the reliable sources say, and there is correct pushback against sensationaised journalism. This goes into WP:BLP territory. As always err on the side of caution regarding this stuff (even on the talk page). Aircorn (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
What does "even on the talk page" mean? Which part is sensationalized?
Bill Gates is a very public figure and his personal life is not exactly private. He has not maintained absolute privacy and even though he is one of the richest and most powerful men in the world he is not sacrosanct. Dynasteria (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, the sensationalized part is you speculating that the Ann Winblad thing (which was known to everyone throughout their marriage) constitutes an "extra-marital affair". There is zero evidence that an affair occurred. And yes, WP:BLP applies to public figures and rich, powerful people. Try reading it. ― Tartan357 Talk 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I merely suggest that Bill Gates's personal lives be chronicled just as other celebrities' lives are. Tiger Woods, for example. The Gateses' divorce barely receives a whisper in the article. I didn't actually say the Ann Winblad setup was an extra-marital affair. I don't know what Gates's relationship is or has been with Ann Winblad. There's obviously no shame in maintaining an open marriage, if that's what you like. Why make a secret out of it? I'm just curious where and how you draw the line. Sending me some boilerplate form (as you did) doesn't answer my questions. Dynasteria (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line, we don't call them "divorced" until the divorce is final. As noted above, that could take years. As for Ann Winblad, that coverage is not coming from Reliable Sources; it's from tabloids like the New York Post and the Daily Mail, which we do not use as sources here. Right now the article is exactly where it needs to be: one sentence, plus a note in the infobox, saying they have announced plans to divorce. As the process proceeds, when there actual, widely-reported news - for example about the effect on their foundation - we will include that. But anyone looking for sensational stuff about their relationships has come to the wrong place. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For consistency sake, please get back to me when you've reviewed the Tiger Woods page which cites The National Enquirer. Thanks! Dynasteria (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, that's not how this works. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, did you just misrepresent a citation in a BLP? The Tiger Woods article does not cite the National Enquirer. Rather, in the context of discussing Woods' infidelity, the article mentions (sourced to Reuters) a refuted' National Enquirer story. Take more care to be accurate in your claims here, please. ValarianB (talk)
"even on the talk" means that BLP doesn't just apply to mainspace. Yes we are more lenient here, but it still pays to be careful. You were given a boilerplate, because what we can say varies and is governed by sources. If it becomes widely reported in good sources and is mentioned as a major factor in their breakup then we can probably say something. If you want to include something put together a sentence here with sources (in a new section ideally) and see what other editors think. In the end consensus decides what and how we say this kind of stuff. Aircorn (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
ValarianB: I didn't misrepresent anything. If the Reuters article refutes a claim, I don't have access to it and it does not appear in the body of the text. The citing I refer to is in the text. Most people who read an encyclopedia article don't chase down references, so if you want me to respond here you have to deal with what's in the text. Where does it say that the National Enquirer claim is conclusively refuted? Aircorn: I'm still not aware of having said or claimed anything objectionable or inflammatory. Can you show me where? The same goes for Tartan357. Please respond with a substantive argument. I can hardly respond to boilerplate. Ultimately, the point about Tiger Woods is there's a whole section on scandals and car accidents, etc. The article doesn't just stick to his golf. I'm not informed enough about Bill Gates to have an opinion, other than to think that anyone that successful and with that long a career cannot have gone without some controversy. Long ago I read that he had made a lot of enemies and screwed over a lot of people. This article is glowingly laudatory, so it strikes me as biased and one-sided. Dynasteria (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, at this point, it's not even clear what changes you're suggesting be made. Vague complaints that the article "is glowingly laudatory, so it strikes me as biased and one-sided" are not helpful. If you're seeking to add tabloid gossip speculating about the reasons behind the divorce, you should know that's not going to happen. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
You've been fine as far as I am concerned, it was merely a general reminder not meant to come across as an accusation. Aircorn (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
We can't really evaluate anything here without being provided with sources. A mention of Ann Winblad could probably be made if it is done carefully. Criticism could and should be added if it is well sourced and balanced. Aircorn (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You claimed the Tiger Woods page which cites The National Enquirer. That was not a truthful statement. ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
ValarianB, this is from the Tiger Woods page:
"Infidelity scandal and fallout
In November 2009, the National Enquirer published a story claiming that Woods had an extramarital affair with New York City nightclub manager Rachel Uchitel, who denied the claim.[213]"
Dynasteria (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, the National Enquirer is not cited there. It's just mentioned. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, Tartan357, what's the point of mentioning something if it has no validity? Your point seems largely about semantics. I would say that "mention" falls under the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "cite":
1.a. To quote or refer to (a book or author, for example) as an authority or example in making an argument.
b. Law To refer to (a previous court decision or other legal precedent), as when arguing a case.
2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
Perhaps the right answer is to mirror the Ann Winblad mention of their relationship in her article:
When Bill Gates was to marry Melinda Gates, he had an arrangement with her that he and Winblad could keep one vacation tradition alive from their dating years. Every spring, as they had done for over a decade, Gates would spend a long weekend with Winblad at her beach cottage on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where they would ride dune buggies, hang-glide, walk on the beach, and share their thoughts about the world and themselves.[12][13]
Again, Gates has taken himself out of the realm of private businessman and put himself in the socio-political arena. I think people have a right to know what he's all about. This one mention would hardly be invasive, and it seems highly relevant. As relevant to him as to Ann Winblad, who is in fact a private businesswoman. WP should treat men and women equally. Dynasteria (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree the question should be dealt with consistently for Gates and Winblad, but if "knowing what he's all about" means exposing any private matter at any time, then no. His socio-political activities do not entitle anyone to that. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Dynasteria, no, it's not about semantics. A citation has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Citations serve to verify information in an article. This is editing 101. The National Enquirer story is noteworthy in that case, and is described in a secondary reliable source, so we can talk about it. That is not at all the same as relying on the National Enquirer for the sourcing of facts. Seriously, actually go read WP:BLP. It's an important policy that many of us care about, yes, even for powerful people. Please stop with the word games and WP:OTHERCONTENT nonsense. Go to Talk:Ann Winblad and Talk:Tiger Woods to discuss those articles. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Gates article. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Whoa back. They are discussing Bill Gates with the edit above. I am not a fan of the reasoning behind including it, but it is a valid addition to discuss. The source is this times article. Aircorn (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I see this has been added with this edit. I will change it now as it is in the wrong place and ,makes it sound like this has just been revealed. Aircorn (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Integrate a source of New York Times to article

New York Times has a news article about the Bill Gates + Melinda French divorce thing. If I got this right, New York Times is almost always reliable except for medical advice, and may need some checking if articles are opinion pieces. But I would like to say that this New York Times article should be reliable, I think? I don't think it's very opinion-like.

Also, I am not sure how I would integrate that news article into the Bill Gates article when it comes to information regarding Bill and Melinda's divorce. By the way, it does have some interesting info about Bill Gates' monetary value. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is too soon to include this topic in the Wikipedia article. Let’s see how notable these allegations, which Bill Gates’s spokesperson is categorically denying, become. I would give it at least a couple to weeks to get a more accurate picture of the allegations and what actually happened. WP:SCANDAL and all that (we have had issues, for example, with the Marvin Minsky article where we made some very serious allegations which came mainly from one press article misrepresenting what was said in one person’s testimony during a disposition, testimony where the person in question could not remember any key details of their allegation). Samboy (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would advise caution ladies and gentlemen. Per WP:NOTNEWS Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Is Gates really a philanthropist? (Note: This is an unsigned edit by User:Proxima_Centauri)

The above source is not a reliable source as per WP:BLOGS, so its contents should not be used in a Wikipedia article (unless reliably sourced). Didn’t the writer of that blog get in trouble with the Atheist Ireland society for his writings? Samboy (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

When you list Bill Gates’s professions (American business magnate, software developer, investor, author, and philanthropist) my suggestion is that you add entrepreneur to the list as he has invested a lot of his own money in his businesses and many people do not think that when they think of the name Bill Gates. It would look like this,”(William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955) is an American business magnate, software developer, investor, author, philanthropist and entrepreneur.” 175.36.254.235 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That's covered by business magnate and investor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish. There's no need to put that in the lead sentence when "business magnate" and "investor" are already included there. Plus, it's also covered in the last sentence of the lead paragraph with: "He is considered one of the best known entrepreneurs of the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s." Flyedit32 (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing infobox image

Current image from 2015
Proposed image from 2018
Image on left is the current image from 2018; Image on right is proposed image from 2017

What do we think about changing the current lead image to one that, in my opinion, is higher quality and with a better background. It is not a newer photo--from 2017 vs. 2018--but I still think it's quite a bit better than the current lower-res photo with a sign in the backdrop. Please discuss. Flyedit32 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will make the change soon then. The proposed pic is also brighter and clearer when enlarged. Flyedit32 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

You should probably rename this page as he is sir Bill gates Wikiguyman123 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a purely honorary title when it's an American citizen, and in any case we don't use honorifics in titles. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Deprecating the net worth parameter?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Deprecating the net worth parameter?.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

change "Chairman Thorbjørn Jagla hoping Gates could win the Nobel Price." to "Chairman Thorbjørn Jagla hoping Gates could win the Nobel Prize."

Nobel prize is misspelled as Nobel Price Peyotetheroadrunner (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bill Gates investment in Maxwell-headed Israeli Security company removed

Why was his investment removed? --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For violating WP:SYNTH, I would surmise. The only reason for its inclusion would be to create a guilt-by-association picture that isn't actually supported by the sources. ValarianB (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If I had been topic banned from editing about Jeffrey Epstein, I'm not sure I would add a paragraph that included the words: "... the sister of Ghislaine Maxwell, which is accused of beeing Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator in trafficking child sex slaves." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple paragraphs connecting Gates to Jeffrey Epstein

Recently, there has been a lot of material added to the article linking Gates to Jeffrey Epstein. A lot of it is sourced to Business Insider, which is not always regarded as a Reliable Source, see WP:RSP. A lot of it is pure guilt by association. Some of it adds editorial commentary not found in the source, such as adding "in which some passengers had sex with minors" to a mention of the Lolita Express, even though that addition is not found in the sources. I already removed a paragraph that was pretty much pure opinion. And I removed the "sex with minors" phrase, which has no place in a biography like this. But I think that section needs a thorough evaluation - more thorough than I have time for - and trimming. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

However, the person who has been adding this stuff restored "in which some passengers had sex with minors" as if that automatically implicated Bill Gates in such activity. This is getting to be a serious BLP issue. We really need some more eyes on this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I expect, for example, that many famous people will have stayed in hotels "in which some residents had sex with minors". If the sources do not support the claims, such details should be removed. The section on Epstein does seem to be comparatively rather large. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The point is that we need to clarify why it’s at all a thing to fly with that airplane. The whole point of that airplane was that „some passengers had sex with minors on board“. Leaving this out just might leave some readers who are unaware of this circumstance surprised why it would be a thing to use an aircraft. Also these eight words do not suggest that Gates had sex with minors it just says what it is – he used a controversial aircraft and we are supposed to explain why it is controversial. By the way, the linked sources do mention that passengers had sex with minors on board. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
On board. Not on the wings, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Is this notice from 25 November 2019 about Jeffrey Epstein a valid topic ban against CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk · contribs), and if so, is it still in force? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

(I don't see how it could be construed as otherwise. Martinevans123 (talk) )
Yes, it is still in force and I have reemphasised it. Please ping me if it continues to be violated. Zerotalk 13:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So this begs the question as to whether all mention of Epstein now needs to be rolled back from this edit onwards? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If anything remains it has to obey WP:BLP to the letter. At least cut it down to a very brief report of what the best sources say. If that can't be done without it reading like smear-by-association, remove it all. Zerotalk 14:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help, Zero! I agree with cutting it way back - starting with anything sourced to Business Insider or The Cut or other questionable source. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have some reporting on their relationship that can be kept. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Offhand, looking at references #188 to 200, I think we could keep these three:
  • #188 Safdar, Emily Glazer and Khadeeja (May 9, 2021). "Melinda Gates Was Meeting With Divorce Lawyers Since 2019 to End Marriage With Bill Gates" – via www.wsj.com.
  • #191 Flitter, Emily; Goldstein, Matthew (May 16, 2021). "Long Before Divorce, Bill Gates Had Reputation for Questionable Behavior". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 22, 2021.
  • #192 Flitter, Emily; Stewart, James B. (October 12, 2019). "Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past" – via NYTimes.com.
…and remove anything sourced to the others. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed the Nobel Prize claim, whose sourcing was very, very weak, and I trimmed the plane flight to a single sentence. That's all I have time for today; the rest of you feel, free to continue trimming. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have now removed everything with weak or unreliable sourcing. I am done. Anyone else, feel free to edit the section however you feel will improve it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Turned out that the "public image" section (which was actually titled "deterioration of public image") was also a POV mess. I have completely rewritten it. It wouldn't hurt to scout through the article looking for any other areas that were contaminated by that now-blocked editor. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DONKEY.BAS?

"DONKEY.BAS, is a computer game written in 1981 and included with early versions of the PC DOS operating system distributed with the original IBM PC. It is a driving game in which the player must avoid hitting donkeys. The game was written by Gates and Neil Konzen." Apart from the fact that this should probably go in the IBM partnership instead of the BASIC section, I was wondering whether this detail should even be included in the bio? This seems like an almost trivial detail compared to the other developments and dealings described in the Microsoft section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

Change "Big Blue" to "IBM" to make it more obvious it's the same company. Reasoning: For those unaware of the nickname, it's a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.84.172 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Date for the archive bot 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not call him an 'oligarch'?

many businessmen and entrepreneurs from around the world are designated as oligarchs in their wikipedia articles. so why is this person eminently fitting that designation not called that? why the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:2380:3C95:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

sir we want to update some information about bill gates; topics that we want to edit Are his nick name net worth etc.... 45.118.156.161 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Incorrect link/data on Nyenrode honorary doctorate

Reference [235] points to the honorary doctorate for Wim Kok, not Bill Gates. Bill Gates actually got his Honory Doctorate at Nynenrode in 1996, not in 2003 as the article suggests.

Sources:

https://www.computable.nl/artikel/nieuws/ict-branche/204797/250449/gates-krijgt-eredoctoraat-nijenrode.html

https://www.futuremanageralliance.com/gec-7-neelie-kroes/ 

   ...  As chairperson of Nyenrode Business University, Kroes awarded an honorary doctorate to Microsoft founder Bill Gates in 1996.

https://web.archive.org/web/19970606195159/http://www.nijenrode.nl/nmr/ 

   Begin november 1996 werd, na afloop van de uitreiking van het eredoctoraat aan mr. William (Bill) Gates en professor Richard T. De George, de eerste editie van de Nijenrode Management Review aangeboden aan drs J.W. Ganzevoort, oud topman KPMG Management Consulting, tevens alumnus Universiteit Nijenrode. 

   Translated: Early November 1996, after Mr. William (Bill) Gates and Professor Richard T. De George, were awarded their honorary doctorate, the first edition of the Nyenrode Management Review was offered to Drs. J.W. Ganzevoort, ...


Pureivo (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pureivo: Changed as you suggested with these edits. I used the first reference. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MOEALI101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Request to edit the "marriage and divorce section" In addition to "The divorce was finalized on August 2, 2021.[204]" "After their divorce, Bill gates has acknowledged he had an affair with a Microsoft software engineer, which was one of the factors of their divorce." [1]Tralallamas (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: @Tralallamas: Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your request! Unfortunately, I see 2 issues that prevent me from completing it.
Firstly, I think we may be branching into original research. The source reports that multiple factors were part of the divorce (In a recent interview with CBS’s Gayle King, French Gates said multiple factors resulted in the couple’s high-profile divorce...) and that Bill Gates awknowledged an affair in 2021 (In 2021, Gates acknowledged that he had an affair with a Microsoft employee...), but the source does not make the connection that one of the "multiple factors" was in fact said affair. The source also fails to report that it was a software engineer the affair was had with - only that it was an employee.
Secondly, I feel adding this to the end of the named section may be giving undue weight to the fact the affair happened. Are there multiple other independent sources that report that this affair was a contributing factor to the divorce? If so, this may be something to revisit and get consensus on before including. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Bill Gates

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept Issues dealt with AIRcorn (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was listed as GA just over 10 years ago. However, since then we've got a few issues:

  • Criticism section affecting neutrality
  • Recognition section structured with bullet points and not prose
  • External business ventures and investments structured with bullet points
  • Personal life / personal donations sections with short paragraphs and doesn't flow very well
  • In media section lavishly bullet pointed with little explanation/description. Wondering how relevant it is.
  • Sources - there's a Facebook source (unreliable) and potentially other errors down there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy150 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Update from me - I've been cleaning up the article myself so this should hopefully be recovered. Phew! Just Lizzy(talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lizzy150 are you happy that this is up to standard now? AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's safe to remove this reassessment. Article is in better shape and can be brought back to GA. Thanks. Just Lizzy(talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

Proposed image
Proposed image (2)

The current lead image is roughly four years old with many images from 2017 and onward available and Wikicommons (something we should take advantage of). I found this image dating to July 2021 and I feel it would look good as a lead image. Thoughts? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the lead image, 2017 was not that long ago. On the first proposed image, he's got flakes all over his coat (no good). On the second proposed image, he looks unnatural, too rigid, like someone's asking him to take a photo. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The current image (which we got consensus for last year) is way better than both of these. Editors need to stop acting as if people look completely different in just a few years and we absolutely must have a photo from this month regardless of quality. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Change "William Henry Gates III" to "William Henry Gates III KBE" Loay Halawani (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ at the top of the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal life

The article states that he had been triple vaccinated prior to his COVID-19 diagnosis, but according to this interview, Gates seems to have received four vaccines (including two boosters) around the time he tested positive for COVID-19:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFZnuJC20S4

It may be worth mentioning his recommendation of Paxlovid as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.210 (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Mr. Gates" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mr. Gates and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Mr. Gates until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

A section should be added on the allegations of sexual harassment against Gates: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/16/business/bill-melinda-gates-divorce-epstein.html Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I would recommend adding additional reliable sources (New York Times is a reliable source, but for sensitive topics like this you will probably need more than one reliable source to back up). Since any topic about potentially controversial topics can be difficult to avoid POV views, I would personally recommend playing around with citations and wordings of the Bill Gates sexual harassment information in an offline document before putting them directly on Wikipedia. That's just my recommendation; other users here may offer better suggestions. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Why no mention of the conspiracy theories surrounding Gates?

Up front disclaimer: I KNOW it's all false.

The most frequent time I hear or see Bill Gates' name these days is in conjunction with conspiracy theories involving COVID-19, vaccines, microchips and global depopulation. We don't even mention it.

It seems to me that we should at least mention such things, with sourcing to objective sites such as this and this, pointing out that it's all nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. I added a section "Conspiracy theories proliferate" Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the section. Such allegations are exasperating but it's better if exasperation does not come across in the writing. Currently it sort of does. The text also drifts subtly from what the sources say (The BBC report says that most conspiracy theories on the whole disappear, not most BG theories), and does not give enough detail in some areas to inform an unfamiliar reader. Consider these revisions:

Gates and the projects of his foundation [the projects are real, and the focus of most theories] have been the subject of many conspiracy theories that proliferate on Facebook and elsewhere. He has been accused of attempting to depopulate the world, distributing harmful or unethical vaccines, and implanting people with privacy-violating microchips. The theories reached a new level of influence during the COVID-19 pandemic when, according to New York Times journalist Rory Smith, the uncertainties of pandemic life drove people to seek explanations from the internet.[BBC and NYT citations here] When asked about the theories, Gates has remarked that some people are tempted by the "simple explanation" that an evil person rather than biological factors are to blame, and that he does not know for what purpose anyone believes he would want to track them with microchips.[2]

Additionally, "public image" might be a better place for this than "Depictions in media," which is generally understood to mean produced media. I seem to remember that it was already covered there at one point. Did someone remove it? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't everyone rush to consider the request at once, now. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/03/melinda-french-gates-friendly-bill-gates
  2. ^ Gates, Bill (July 24, 2020). "Bill Gates' message to Covid-19 conspiracy theorists" (Interview). Interviewed by Anderson Cooper. CNNBusiness. Retrieved 2022-10-16.
 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I had updated my request above but User:HiLo48 reverted the update in the mistaken belief that I was removing other users' comments. This is the text that I had proposed before it was reverted. Again, I believe that this belongs in the "public image" section, not "depictions in media" because CTs are not a medium, produced or otherwise. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Gates and the projects of his foundation have been the subject of many conspiracy theories that proliferate on Facebook and elsewhere. He has been accused of attempting to depopulate countries, distributing harmful or unethical vaccines, and implanting people with privacy-violating microchips. The theories reached a new level of influence during the COVID-19 pandemic when, according to New York Times journalist Rory Smith, the uncertainties of pandemic life drove people to seek explanations from the internet.[BBC and NYT citations here] When asked about the theories, Gates has remarked that some are tempted by the "simple explanation" that an evil person rather than biological factors are to blame, and that he has no reason to track people with microchips.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Gates, Bill (July 24, 2020). "Bill Gates' message to Covid-19 conspiracy theorists" (Interview). Interviewed by Anderson Cooper. CNNBusiness. Retrieved 2022-10-16.
  2. ^ Sandler, Rachel (May 19, 2022). "Bill Gates Explains Why He Doesn't Own Any Cryptocurrency". Forbes. Retrieved 2022-11-06.
 Done As far as I can tell, nobody objected to this edit, so I implemented it now. I added some clarification that these theories are implausible and unfounded to accurately reflect how they are perceived by the public (as this is the Public Image section). Actualcpscm (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"Is Gates really a modern-day saint?"

There are some topics mentioned in a TV programme which possibly belong in the Controversies section.

2023 UK Channel 4 https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-billionaires-who-made-our-world/on-demand/72330-002

Channel 4's summary: "Lifting the lid on one of the world's richest men, the ruthless tech visionary who also tried to save the planet. Is Gates really a modern-day saint?"

Some things mentioned/claimed:

  • Generally, many people who know him are scared to speak out with their criticisms of Gates.
  • Covid vaccines: his influence caused a vaccine that was going to be released patent-free to be patented. This contributed to a situation where in wealthier countries people were getting their 3rd or 4t, shots and many people in Africa to have had none.
  • Gates generally had undue power and influence in relation to areas where his understanding of the area was less than he believed. He considered his expertise in those areas was greater than it actually was. For example: agriculture in Africa.
  • Also, he is probably less philanthropic than he seems, or says he is.

There is more info and issues in the programme than I have mentioned, and would probably need more/better references before being put in the article. I think these are NOT conspiracy theories.

FrankSier (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A copy-edit request

I've added a line at the end of the Bill Gates § ‎Personal donations section yesterday: DIFF. Please verify and improve it, if necessary. --CiaPan (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

modern development & u.s residence details 103.98.63.94 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2023 (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. Callmemirela 🍁 10:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

*Education update*

He just got an honorary doctorate from Northern Arizona University 2600:1011:B195:2203:287B:AFFE:8402:4969 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

*Epstein update*

93.211.216.229 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Bill Gates

Bill Gates Net Worth is 114.7 Billion USD Dhanimation (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Business magnate in first sentence

@MSincccc: terms are regularly being added to the first sentence of articles, sometimes with surprisingly little scrutiny. For example various people edited Steve Jobs's first sentence to say "philanthropist" (false and contradicts sources) and "industrial designer" (which he never was, despite his micromanagement of product development and design). Or Bezos being called an "industrialist" (which he isn't). There's a general lack of focus, and a tendency to cram vague terms regardless of relevance, and I'd like to address it across all these articles because it's bad writing ("written by committee"). Britannica does much better than us on this.

We should avoid overloading the first sentence, and subjective labels (like "magnate") should be avoided, see MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:BIO. I also think it's vague and puffery (see for example Musk happily using the term for himself). And neither "magnate" nor "billionaire" are a position, activity, or role, which are the criteria listed in MOS:FIRSTBIO.

For simplicity, I'd phrase it as "businessman and entrepreneur best known for co-founding Microsoft". "Entrepreneur" is how Britannica defines him and helps us transition to mentioning Microsoft's founding. It's what he's known for, and he's still an entrepreneur today (see TerraPower). But "businessman and entrepreneur" is redundant, so we could also say "computer programmer and entrepreneur" (also supported by Britannica), which is what this article used to say and was the formal activity/role for which he became notable. Gates, like almost every rich person, has a portfolio and hires other people to manage his investments, but that doesn't make him an investor (he's not Warren Buffett or Jim Simons), so I think that's best mentioned later in the lead as we do now, and not in the first sentence. DFlhb (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb I myself preferred "businessman" and "entrepreneur" for a long time but seeing "business magnate" being mentioned on the vast majority of well known billionaire individuals pages made me drift towards supporting "business magnate" over other terms. MSincccc (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

Please remove this phrase: 

He also made a guest appearance as himself on the TV show The Big Bang Theory. The episode on which he appeared was appropriately titled "The Gates Excitation".

and add this in its place: 

He also made a guest appearance as himself on the TV show The Big Bang Theory, in an episode entitled "The Gates Excitation".

It's shorter, it combines two short sentences into one better one, and it removes the opinionated "appropriately". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thank you, that is an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024 - Changing Incorrect Hyperlink

Change hyperlink of German newspaper Welt under Public Image section of Personal Life from the magazine WET (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_(magazine)) to the appropriate page for the German newspaper "Die Welt" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welt) MorosIntrepidus (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching this. Jamedeus (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Gates/Archive_7&oldid=1256546480"