Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sources we can use

I did a quick Google search and found these useful Bill Gates biographies on the Internet that we can use to improve the Wikipedia article:

• Bill Gates before MS
• Bill Gates Microsoft official site
• personal history
• work history
• personal beliefs
• bill gates biography 1
• bill gates biography 2
• bill gates biography 3
• rotten.com bill gates biography

— Wackymacs 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

KBE after name considered improper Spinoza1111 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The United States Constitution in fact forbids American officials, but not citizens from accepting honors and titles from foreign princes:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

As such it is not proper at all to list Gates' KBE in this article as a way of identifying him. It is against the spirit, and if Profit is construed as being a CEO of a modern public corporation, Gates' acceptance of this bauble may be illegal.

Very little precedent exists prior to the acceptance by the convicted felon Caspar Weinberger, former US official responsible for Contra destabilitization of Nicaragua, of a knighthood. NO US official or public figure has until the 1980s willingly accepted a British knighthood to my knowledge. Today, at a minimum, one would expect that the figure would not want part of his signature.

Therefore I have removed KBE. It biases the article towards a recent Anglo American "special relationship".

Away with this bauble. It is silly. It is arrogant. It sets up a New Class of people of modest accomplishments.

That is of course only my opinion, but the article violates good NPOV style by an inappropriate foreign title.

You are quite right that the KBE does not belong in Bill Gates's name, if for no other reason than that neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft nor either the New York Times or the Washington Post use the KBE designation. There was a long discussion about this, which is now archived. –Shoaler (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 07:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Thanks for the information.

A title such as KBE, CMG (commander of the order of St Michael and St George, known waggishly as call me god), KCMG (knight commander of the order of St Michael and St. George), or GCMG (grand commander, etc., God calls me god) is only appropriate as an annunciator within a moral community that accepts the titles as central.

For example, the only people who in America follow their names, used as annunciators, with "PhD" are usually out to hornswoggle the public with liver pills or Intelligent Design, which is why we Americans say, never play cards with a man named Doc.

Er Bill Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft, as the article clearly states. Also KBE is honorary title not a title of nobility Nil Einne 11:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, he's the Chief Visionary, or something like that, and has been since around 2000. The reasoning stands. And I am well aware that when Americans receive these titles, they are qualified as "honorary" to make us forget our Constitution. This changes nothing, for they are honorary and titular for British recipients, providing no power sacred or secular, only the power to rather more lord it over the working people in a new aristocracy that has based its wealth on theft.Spinoza1111 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, these honors and titles were not accepted, or if accepted, not publicized, by Americans until the convicted felon Caspar Weinberger and the senile old fool Ronald Reagan saw fit to accept these baubles in violation of the spirit of American equalitySpinoza1111 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

>>Things like calling Ronald Reagan a "senile old fool" are the very thing that drive the credibility of Wikipedia into the toilet.71.244.163.156 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

They have been REFUSED by several noble fellows including Mr. David Bowie because they encapsulate thousands of years of unjust expropriation and bullying.Spinoza1111 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

He's the Chief Software Architect. And to be honest, I don't even get what your argument is. Are you saying anyone involved in any management position in a US company is now allowed to accept an honourary title or what? And does this mean a British citizen or a citizen from a country where titles, honourary or otherwise? are allowed can't be in any management position on a company? You seem rather confused as well. By definition, an honourary title which you yourself admit provides no power can't be considered a title of nobility. Therefore your argument that it is against the spirit of the constitution is rather silly as the constitution seems primarily to refer to titles of nobility, which provide power, not honorary titles which provide nothing. An honourary title is a recognition of achievement and there may be debate in the merits behind who they are awarded but an honourary is an award therefore more equivalent to awards such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Honorary Citizen of the United States, Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in the USA, or for that matter the awards which are provided by non govermental organisations worldwide such as the Nobel Prize. In any case, the honourary part has little to do with the US constitution, it has to do with what the British want... Also, it is not publicly known why David Bowie rejected the CBE. For all we know, he might have been offended that it was a CBE not a KBE. Or maybe he wanted it but was afraid it would effect his reputation. He himself knows, but since he has never explained (and even if he had, how could we know he was giving the real reason). BTW, the US if anything is properly the most guilty of unjust expropriation and bullying over the past few decades. Really your rant is rather silly. You sound like some rabid US conservative who probably believes the US should blow the rest of the world to hell to spread 'freedom'. In any case, we have already established that the KBE should be part of his name in Wikipedia. Nil Einne 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW I just read that Colin Powell received an honourary KCB in 1993. Yes I'm referring to the man who was secretary of state from 2000-2004. The shock the horror. Call up Bush and tell him he has violated the US constitution! Nil Einne 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion, having already added info on his KBE. It needs to be listed as this is a factual encyclopeadia. Whether or not he uses it, or whether or not he was right to be awarded it is immaterial; the event took place. Besides, many notable Americans are KBEs. I accept there is a case for not putting KBE after his name, but that fact it was awarded must be noted. Grunners 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill Gates the Inventor

• Why was the following removed?

Why don't you just let the man alone!

As of 6 December 2005, Microsoft has 32 patents [1] and Bill Gates himself is a co-inventor or asignee of the following nine patents:

1. 6,970,925 Method and system for property notification
2. 6,886,155 Method and system for implementing virtual functions of an interface
3. 6,850,978 Method and system for property notification
4. 6,734,879 Method and system for generating a user interface for distributed devices
5. 6,721,898 Method and system for tracking software components
6. 6,704,924 Method and system for implementing virtual functions of an interface
7. 6,684,246 Method and system for tracking clients
8. 6,670,934 Method and system for distributing art
9. 5,552,982 Method and system for processing fields in a document processor.[2]

• That level of detail is not required, and the list looks messy. Also, part of that information was moved into the Microsoft section if you hadn't noticed, so it wasn't all removed. Please stop adding this to the 'Early life' section, it doesn't belong there, and the level of detail isn't required either. — Wackymacs 10:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it is true that MSFT has only 32 patents to its name, how come the article states that it has "thousands" of patents? Can someone please verify the true number of patents that MSFT holds, and revise the article accordingly? I rather doubt that the company has 1000s of patents -- how long have they been in business after all? If you were talking about truly innovative, long-lasting companies like IBM or AT&T (Bell Labs), that would be a different story. Jalabi99 02:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

MS has over 5000 patents. See http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/07/microsofts-5000th-patent-spectator-mode/. Not sure why you're surprised. Software patents haven't required innovation for some time now (and it's a damn shame). Phiwum 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

CSA

Gates served as the CEO of the company until 1998 when Steve Ballmer took the position. Gates continues to serve as a chairman of the board at the company and also as a position he created for himself entitled "Chief Software Architect".

With regards to the above, my understanding is the original reason for the move is widely believed to have been in preparation for the possible split-up of Microsoft. Gates wanted to be in the company that developed Office etc not the OS company. Can anyone comment on this? Nil Einne 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe he created that position because he did not want to mess with everything that a CEO has to. Instead, he wanted to work mainly on the software part of his company (including the OS).

Bill Gates is a geek at heart (and I mean that in a good way). With challenge of running a corporation the size of Microsoft, being the CEO meant that he had very little time to guide the technology. Relinquishing the CEO position to Ballmer, and giving him the position of CSA allowed Gates to spend more time on the tehcnology strategy leaving the business strategy in depth to Ballmer. Whpq 19:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, with the recent announcement of his handing-over of the CEO post to Ballmer, and the CSA post of Ray Ozzie, and his "stepping back" from the day-to-day running of MSFT in 2008, we begin to see where he is heading. -- Jalabi99 00:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

KBE

An anonymous editor recently added "KBE" to Gates' title once again. See the archive for past discussions on the matter (KBE is not used in most of his biographies). Shawnc 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And again. The style guide says that we don't use post-nominal letters such as KBE outside Britain and Commonwealth countries. I'm going to delete it again. –Shoaler (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

See Criminal Vandal

80.58.32.171 replaced each of the individual sections with the text "see criminal". Several non-admins have attempted to reverse but it it's not totally fixed. An admin needs to revert it to the last edit before 80.58.32.171 started to vandalize.

Vandalism

The image on the page has been vandalised. I have no idea how to change it...

Just go to the image, find the last unvandalized version of the picture and click rev. It'll revert the picture back to that version.--Kross | Talk 12:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Apple?

Is it true that Bill Gates once worked for Apple? -An Annonymous User

• He didn't work for Apple as an employee, he did stuff through a contract related with BASIC for the Apple II for Apple. — Wackymacs 18:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I was quite sure he worked with Apple only in regards to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh back in 1984... -- MarkKB 09:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The first time he did work with Apple was in the 70s in regards to BASIC, and then with Apple in 1983/1984 after he visited them. Apple gave Gates a Macintosh prototype to work with so that they could release Word and Excel (then Multiplan) for the Mac in 1984 as its debut apps as well as MacPaint, MacDraw, etc. Later on Apple were making a MacBasic but Gates stopped them from doing this. — Wackymacs 11:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Gates' Income

It says at the top of the article that Bill Gates' income is just $1 million dollars. If you read further, just his property tax is more than one million dollars (see: "...the annual property tax is just over $1 million.").

He's got to be making more than just a million a year.

This is just the salary he gets from Microsoft. This does not include income from his personal investments, savings interest, etc.Anable 10:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Forbes website he sells 20 million shares a quater, MSFT stock right now is @ $27 as of 01/06 so that is about he gets $540 million plus or minus every other quarter 4 times a year I think he can manage paying his 1 million dollar property tax a year and doesn't care how much he get paid at Microsoft because he is the richest guy in the world.

Income and salary are two different things—as I'm quite sure the IRS would argue—and should not be confused. What he is paid in salary does not constitute even a fraction of his total income.—Kbolino 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and when you're a multi-billionaire, the "salary" from your official job position doesn't mean much anymore since even if you get paid $10 million, it's less than 1% of your net worth after taxes. Warren Buffett, the second richest guy and a friend of Gates, pays himself $0.1 million (but he's frugal so he can probably live on that alone). The boys behind Google pay themselves $1 per year, at which point the salary becomes just a marketing trick. Shawnc 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't even think the $540 million would entirely qualify as income. Only the capital gain would. The rest is merely a liquidation of assets. As a simple example, if I sell my house for $1 million, have I made $1 million in income? No, not unless I bought it for $0.Loomis51 11:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi protect

This page gets vandalised very frequently, therefore I think we should semi-protext it. Unless there is much objection I will do it soon. Martin 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've s-protected it now, even if you disagree, lets just see if it can actually improve enough over a week or so to remove the cleanup tag. Then we can go back to reverting if we must. Martin 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KBE

I've added KBE again, just to spite the rambling idiot Spinoza1111 who calls Ronald Reagan a "senile old fool". --65.211.7.138 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's awesome 69.114.151.176 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --65.211.7.138 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And unencyclopedic. It's been removed. Follow the damn talk page.—Kbolino 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

IQ

Any reason IQ was dropped from early life? Ya, IQ flaunting can be a bit of a pissing match but it's still on topic. Perhaps re-add in line regarding SATs. Marskell 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the man is unquestionably very intelligent and certainly gifted. However, it would be a logical fallacy to rank him up there with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein simply because of the fortune he has amassed, and the fact that he is extremely computer literate and business savvy.

He has an IQ of 160 according to who? There are many anonymous sites on the net with spurious lists of IQs. These are generally not credible sources. Now, some are based on serious studies. However, those are based on extremely well documented observations of truly profoundly and globally intellectually gifted persons.

I have read a few nebulous articles stating that Bill Gates has an IQ of 160, 165, and even 180. In one of them there was a ludicrous section on how to tell a person's IQ based on their handwriting. Unless this information is coming from a person who is a recognized authority on such matters (with an actual doctorate), it really isn't very useful for the purpose of Encyclopedia articles.

To my knowledge, no official score from a test conducted by a licensed psychologist or other such psychometric specialist on Mr. Gates indicating his IQ has been released to the public. If I were to create a web site and make a list of people that I believe (based on my own intuition) have IQ's of greater than 150 this would not be evidence.

His SATs were 1590 according to who? At the time he got into Harvard the bottom requirements were 1370 or possibly lower and let's not forget that he dropped out. When George W. Bush was admitted into Yale with his SAT score of 1206, the standard for Yale was supposed to be 1330. Both come from rich families with more than enough influence to get a person without an extraordinary academic record into Yale or Harvard.

To my knowledge, Mr. Gates' SAT scores have never officially been released to the public, although he may have stated what he recalled they were in an interview. However, it would be better to have a link to the interview where he stated what his SAT was as a reference, than a list said to be based on what he might have said to the press at some other time. Anything less than that really should be left out. There was a link provided in the article as a reference to his SAT score, but it refers to what was stated in a press inquiry. Anything less than the actual record of the SAT score isn't proof. To quote the article: "Here are a few SATs of some well-known Americans, based on their own recollections or press inquiries." The article doesn't even tell you in what publication he said what his SAT was.

Also, since about 1993 the position of organizations such as Mensa on SAT scores is that they are not a good indicator of IQ as they are more involved in academic minutia than in critical reasoning and creative problem solving. ScifiterX 04:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, IQ tests aren't generally used to measure one's alleged "intelligence"; they are designed to determine whether one needs special education services. Never has an assessment been so misinterpreted and misused by people with political axes to grind.

Gates Foundation

In the introduction, the article states the following:

Since amassing his fortune, Gates has pursued a number of philanthropic endeavours, donating huge amounts of money to various charitable organizations and scientific research programs through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, founded in 2000.

Then later in the article, under the heading "Personal life", the article states:

In 1994, Gates founded the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a charitable organization, with his wife.

When was the organization actually founded? This should be clarified and cited.—Kbolino 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Gates Foundation's own website [3], it was 2000. I'm correcting it.

Richest in last 10 years in the world

Wrong, the Brunei sultan was the richest in 1996-1997 http://www.sultanbrunei.com/

Okay, let's go over a few things here.

1. You are referencing a site with a non-authoritative name.
2. The site's name gives away a natural bias.
3. The Sultan of Brunei is a monarch.
4. The Sultan of Brunei got wealthy by extorting his own people.

Therefore, he should not be acknowledged as anything more than a wealthy despot. His personal fortune does not compare to the amassed wealth of a capitalist entrepreneur.—Kbolino 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hows this for authoritative: [4]. None of the points you gave disputes that Hassanal Bolkiah was apparently the richest man in the world at around 1997 (and I can't find anything that suggests he "extorts his own people"). I'm going to remove the "richest for the last 10 years" line from the article. Coffee 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute with Gazpacho and Request for Mediation

With a wealthy background (Gates was born with a million dollar trust fund set up by his grandfather in 1955, who was a national bank vice-president) he was able to access computers from a very early age (See:http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~an497637/project1.doc). Gates has denied having a trust fund while at Harvard in a Playboy Magazine interview but did not specifically deny being born with a trust fund.

I would note that the trust is part of the public record and has been reported in various biographies of Bill Gates

One biography that provides evidence for the Bill Gates trust fund is - www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671880748?v=glance

Let's review your basis for your edit:

• The biography you refer to, which I have not examined personally but would be willing to if the local libraries have it (very likely);
• An assertion, which you have never cited, that Gates personally admitted having a trust fund, despite saying that he didn't;
• An assertion that the trust fund is public record, which you have not sourced, I have not verified , and is suspect because you raised it rather late;
• A few random internet sources that are no better than your own say-so.

I do not deny that there is a widespread belief that Gates had a trust fund and I am not trying to remove that from the article. But his statement responding to the allegations is not specific to Harvard. He says "never had any trust funds of any kind." This is a statement directly from Gates in a magazine that, whatever else you might say about it, is not known to falsify interviews. I am determined to keep the quote in the article. I am determined to prevent any attempt to misrepresent what Gates said. Gazpacho 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to put in my two bits: trusts are technically not a matter of public record in American law, unlike wills. Trusts are usually administered privately. It is up to the beneficiaries or trustees to petition a court if there is a disagreement over the administration of the trust. Otherwise a trust will operate without court supervision, just like most private companies.

The point is that it's unlikely that Bill Gates' trust fund (assuming one exists) is actually public record unless it is involved in something where paperwork has to be filed with the government (for example, if title to real property is held in the name of the trust). --Coolcaesar 22:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Until this dispute can be resolved I think both points of view should be expressed via the inclusion of the trust fund information with the .edu source and the Playboy Magazine quote.

I would note the language claiming Bill Gates was born with a trust fund stood for quite sometime before Gazpacho decided to start editing it out based on anecdotal information. I have attempted to present both points of view to maintain neutrality.

Wikipedia guidelines say to attribute claims as specifically as possible, particularly when there is a dispute; see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Therefore, "several biographers" instead of "reportedly", and "Gates said it in Playboy in 1994" rather than "some people claim." Gazpacho 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I will concede to the "several biographers" language but I will not concede to the fact that Gates claimed to never have a trust fund period as the language is ambiguous. I believe Bill Gates is claiming he never used trust funds while at Harvard since the question he was asked was direct to that point and his sentence stipulates to funding being provided to him for attending Harvard which may have been paid for via a trust fund. I believe Bill Gates is claiming he never directly had control over any trust funds while attneding Harvard but that is not tantamount to a specific claim that his grandfather did not establish a trust fund for him.

Considering the language he used that seems to be wishful thinking on your part, but whatever. Gazpacho 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a long interview and Bill Gates did not fully elucidate what specifically he meant. Also, it is very common for celebrities to mispeak during interviews and it is my belief that the carefully researched work of several academic biographers trumps a single answer during a single interview in terms of credence. However, in the spirit of neutrality both points of view should be presented until the dispute can be fully resolved.

As promised, I checked the book you referred to. On page 5 it calls the trust fund story fiction. I'd appreciate it if in the future you provide sources that check out. A direct quote from the source would be helpful. I did not find one biographical work in two libraries, even Robert X. Cringely's, that asserted the trust fund as fact. Gazpacho 01:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It may perhaps be helpful in order to mediate this dispute to understand why in particular the issue is so important to either of you. For example, while I have absolutely no clue about the trust fund issue, I am, however, quite familiar with certain key events in Bill Gates' career that contributed to his unprecedented success. I'd be glad to share them with you, but first I'd like to know what's at the bottom of this dispute. Is it simply a case of "Bill-Gates-gets-too-much-credit-because-he-was-a-spoiled-brat-born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-mouth" vs. "Bill-Gates-is-perhaps-the-most-intelligent-and-business-savvy-person-to-ever-walk-the-Earth"? Loomis51 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

Can we please sprotect this article? — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a few weeks ago, but then it was lifted 5 days later, apparently it had been too long. Martin 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well with the history being almost all vandals, I think it's worth it :\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Political Views

Does anybody know much about Gates' political views? They seem a bit of a mystery, and something in the article would be very enlightening. Nicholasink 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a Democrat. Gazpacho 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If we can find a good source, I think it would be worth adding to the article. Nicholasink 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I had read in a Wikipedia article on him that Bill Gates contributed a few thousand dollars to the George Bush campaign in 2004. --66.81.193.127 13:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. It doesn't mean that Gates is a Republican, it means that he donates with the interests of the company in mind and he hasn't forgotten what the last Democratic administration did. Gazpacho 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, my understanding is in 2000 (not sure about 2004) he donated to both. Previously, he'd donated primarily (or exclusively) to the democracts. All this indicates to me he's a democrat but donates money with his company in mind Nil Einne 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

According to opensecrets.org, he didn't donate to either candidate in 2000, and in 2004 he donated $2,000 to both Kerry and Bush. Aranhamo 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong. If you look up his name for donations (all donations are registered and publically accessible) you will se he only donated to the Republican party. He's a Republican, Gespaccio, not a Democrat. Democrats do not give sole donations to Republicans. I don't see why this isn't listed in the writeup as most other high profile people ahve their political affiliations listed. JettaMann 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Charitable Motives?

I am just wondering how someone who has spent 1/3 of their entire life income on charity is still embroiled in controversy as to the motives of their generous nature. In the article, Bill Gates III is claimed to have spent more than $25 000 000 000 on charity. How is it that people STILL think that he has motives. It is so pathetic to see people have to pick and knaw at people who are rich, even though they donate BILLIONS of dollars to charity. Can't anyone see that Bill Gates alone has helped so many people through he and his wife's foundation? Why do people still critisize him?--138.130.220.28 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the article cited as "proof" and it is BS. It claims that he is working to help maintain a pharmaceutical monopoly and the proof is that he spend $6 billion in order to help his $200 million investment. If that makes sense to you then you really shouldn't be making contributions to Wikipedia. JettaMann 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

65.40.139.84 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC) One could easily argue that any man that spends $2000 on a door knob isn't really that serious about helping others, think of how many people could have been helped if bill lived like a normal middle class person had all the money he spent on a rich lifestyle. Real rich people to admire are those that live well below there means and actually attempt to extract the most benefit for others despite themselves, while retaining enough income to be secure. IMHO excess is in fact considered immorral, this is why rich people are constantly knawed at, in fact many rich people support wittingly or unwittingly creation of poverty through their own corporate interests, through the "musical chairs" of moving to other countries and "pump and dump" on their societies until labour gets too expensive, then onto the next country.

ummm, 25 billion to charity asshole. thats more the the US government gives in foriegn aid each year. Let him buy his 2,000 doorknob, that doorknob company has employees that benifited by that perchase. You also have to consider the fact that Bill Gates role in the computer revolution is responsible for massive economic gains of billion and billions of dollars. entire industries exist because of this man, thousands and thousands of jobs created because of him. Put down your copy of the communist manifesto and worship this man as the God that he is.

Eh, I was with you until the part about worshipping.. JettaMann 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Should we use Image:Bill Gates 2004 cr.jpg because it is free? Image:Bill Gates1.jpg seems nicer but is only fair use. Shawnc 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Free use images should always be used over fair use images. If we have a free image a fair use argument might not stand up in court (in the absence of a free alternative) . Arniep 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that's him? It just about looks like a body double to me. For example, see Steve Sires. [5] Either it's a double, or he literally had a bad hair day. Fishyfred 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

succession box

The succession box seems inappropriate for the purpose of displaying the Forbes Richest list, so it's being removed. Shawnc 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Athiest?

The category-footer of the page indicates he is an athiest. Can this be confirmed?

In a 20/20 interview of 1998, Barbara Walters asked him if he believed in God. His reply was that he had a religous upbringing. He didn't specify which religion, but certainly there was no indication of him being athiest.

Do a search for "bill gates atheist" (you're spelling it wrong). This will bring up a David Frost 1995 interview where Gates basically tries to maintain an agnostic position, but it is clear that he is of a very rationalistic / scientific evidence-based frame of mind. He sounds like an atheist who tries to maintain an agnostic public image. There is no upside to Bill Gates stating outright that he is an atheist, and a significant downside, especially in the US.

If he didn't explicitly say, "There is no god" (or something similar), then perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't claim he is an atheist. Maybe your story is correct, but it doesn't count as verification. He refused to say that he is an atheist and no one but Gates counts as an expert on his beliefs. Phiwum 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Phiwum. If he refuses to state his position on religion, then Wikipedia can only report that. It is not Wikipedia's job to speculate about what that refusal means, and indeed, getting involved in such speculation reeks too much of what happened to poor John Seigenthaler. --Coolcaesar 05:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur as well. In any case, not believing in God doesn't mean your not agnostic (although it might mean you're technically an atheist). You might want to check out the agnostic and atheist articles to better understand the meaning of each Nil Einne 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further, and say that if his position on religion has not been a notable feature of his public life, it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. YojimboSan 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Scottish-Americans?

I noticed that Bill Gates is in the "Scottish Americans" category, but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and indeed the "Gates family" page just lists Gates family members with no indication as to how they're related and says it's a disambiguation page, and the most obvious alternative for info (his father) doesn't mention anything about it. Perhaps it'd be good to include some sort of mention in the article/provide some sort of evidence? :) --ElectricSkrill 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that may be through his mother. The Manes book starts with a discussion of his family tree and might be helpful. I'm not sure we can say that Gates is more Scottish than he is anything else. Gazpacho 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical passage in intro

My reasons for my particular wording are as follows:

• Various people have accused Gates, personally, of building and maintaining his fortune by fraud, theft, copyright infringement, anticompetition, sabotage, and perjury. They're on record, even if they haven't gone to the government.
• With so many accusations, there's no reason to single out anticompetition in the intro, even though the US v. Microsoft case is a useful recent example.
• The government authorities that find against Microsoft aren't always courts. Some of them are regulatory commissions.

Gazpacho 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is very important to convey that even despite Gates' intelligence, foresight, and philanthropy, there are records of activity that was anticompetitive and limited consumer choice. Further, these accounts have been tried, appealled, retried and upheld by courts in the United States (findings of felony antitrust violations, Sherman Act 1 and 2, as well as dozens of state statutes governing competition and business practices) and similar findings in Europe and Korea. These are not accusations by competitors or individuals (to date, no court has ever ruled on a competition complaint filed by Microsoft's competitors), but accusations brought to court and tried by federal authorities at the highest levels of the US government. This is a fair and accurate account of Bill Gates' ambition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.149.13 (talk • contribs)

A court did rule in the Bristol v. Microsoft case. Gazpacho 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"world's largest software company"

I have no idea why but there was a long protracted edit war on the Microsoft page about this by various anons and users. I eventually settled with just "international", but I do wonder whether that information is correct anymore and someone knows something I don't... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill's Portfolio

From what I understand, Bill Gates owns approximately 1 billion shares of Microsoft (representing about 9.5% of the company). With the shares trading at about $27, this adds up to about $27 billion. Yet his net worth is estimated at upwards of $50 billion. Anyone out there have any idea what assets are in the other half of his portfolio? Loomis51 11:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Corbis and biotech investments are the main things, I believe. See [6]. And he's a director of Berkshire Hathaway, which implies some ownership there. Gazpacho 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would guess he also has a rather large & diverse portfolio in many many other companies, bonds etc etc Nil Einne 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Closed source

This sentence was removed earlier, as no sources are cited. Does anyone know the source for this info, so that the text can be reincorporated into the article?

Despite Microsoft's reliance on closed source, Gates has said that he collected discarded program listings at Harvard and learned programming techniques from them. Some people have accused him of being inconsistent in this regard

--Oscarthecat 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation to an Information Week article. The passage I found says:

Gates advocated some types of open-source software licenses as good teaching tools--he reminisced about rooting through a Dumpster with Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen to find discarded printouts of the operating system code for Digital Equipment's PDP-10 minicomputer in order to better find bugs in the code. "When I was first using computers, the source code was very attractive," he said. "There are many cases where having the source code out there is a fantastic thing."

I will let someone else decide whether that really supports the text in the article or whether a modification is in order. Phiwum 10:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about the "inconsistent" bit. I know Gates read discarded listings; anyone interested in programming does. But the "inconsistent" remark is weasel-worded. I'm pretty sure I wrote it myself as a tone-down of blatant POV, but I don't remember exactly what was there before.

I don't like the first two sections of this article very much. The "Early life" section is embarrassingly short (not mentioning, for example, Gates's many small-time business deals before Traf-O-Data), and there's a lot about Microsoft that has no clear connection to Gates. People have a tendency to personify Microsoft as Gates when the reality is more complicated. And many of the other sections stray off topic. Unfortunately Gates is one of those people it's hard to be neutral on. Gazpacho 19:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, MS (as do some other companies) have used open source software (especially from BSD) in their products, so it hardly seems unique. Nil Einne 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "closed source" -- a backward construction from "open source" -- is misleading, as it implies that a conscious choice was made in the false dichotomy between an "open source" model and a "closed source" model. What is termed "closed source" is the normal legal relationship between content creators and content users. Under the copyright laws normally in effect in all industrial countries (i.e., under the Berne Convention copyright treaty), this content is private property as soon as it is created. It is only through carefully written licenses that software can be made "open source." When Microsoft started selling software, it was doing so as a business. Why should it have been expected to create complex licenses to deprive itself of control over its product? -- Bob

Popular Culture - X-Files Reference

In the popular culture heading, it is said that a fictional account of Bill Gates is alluded to in an episode of the X-Files. I've seen the episode in question quite a number of times (I'm a huge X-Phile), and its by no means an account of Gates, and definitely an account of arch-nemesis, Steve Jobs. Mr. Brown 20:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Worlds Richest Discussion

There would appear to be some confusion on the term "richest". The cited Forbes list has gone through lengths to determine individual fortunes, whereas the Times list clusters people into families. The Waltons, for example, have common control over that stated block of capital - parsing out the individual intrests would leave Robson with less money than several other Waltons. I'm not sure why they chose him (his ongoing involvement in the company)? At that, there are several entries on the Times list that come right out and say "Forest and John" or "Karl and Theo" and then group the money.

My assumption is that the Forbes list is the correct indicator of individual wealth, as it can best be determined, and we should revert back to yesterday's version. Kuru ^talk 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably a gazillion ways to calculate the richest person in the world. How about we indicate that Forbes class him as richest, Times class him as second, and cite the relevant news story sites? Keeps it encyclopaedic that way, presenting the facts without insisting that one source/opinion is more reliable than another. --Oscarthecat 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Oscar, I apologize for reverting your edits but I just think that it is important to not only keep the arrow figure that states how Gates' wealth has changed in the past year, but also to indicate that Robson Walton and the rest of his family are indeed richer than Gates, but each family member alone is NOT. Please, could someone at least note the Walton's combine wealth, but still state that Gates is the richest man in the world? And could someone please put back the red arrow? Thank you!!! User:Theelectricchild 23, April 2006

Thats a good point. World's Richest Man, not head of the world's Richest Family. WookMuff 10:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of mug shot a violation of NPOV?

There should be enough fotos of the world's richest man without having to use a mug shot. If it was for an arrest that was pertinent to his professional career, that might be appropriate. Although it's not an unflattering shot (relatively speaking), I think it may be a violation of WP:NPOV.Tomcool 19:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if were really a violation, someone would have changed it. Plus, based on the shot, it doesn't look like he really cares that he got arrested, let alone people are sharing his mug shot on an online encyclopedia. 209.33.36.146 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether he cares that he got arrested is not relevant. The mug shot is indeed irrelevant to any aspect of this article and his professional career. I believe it is a violation of NPOV, so I am changing it.

No other professional figures on this encyclopedia have gratuitous mugshots posted of them. Or if they do, there is some important back story (such as the arrest being a turning point in their career). The mugshot serves no purpose here other than to advance anti-Gates agendas. Xiphoris 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If we're talking an arrest that changed his life (a la O.J. Simpson) then it may be important for the section, but it really isn't---it's trivial at best. I don't think it is a violation of NPOV, but it certainly is something that might piss him off if he saw it. Who the hell wants their record for all to see? Not me.

This is a silly change. The mugshot photo of Bill Gates is not NPOV, and does nothing to besmirch his reputation. If he was embarrassed by it, I can assure you that, as the world's richest man and owner of one of the largest photo archives on earth (Corbis), if he wanted to suppress it, he could have done so long ago. I mean, he is SMILING in the photo after all -- he took the whole arrest thing as a great joke. The arrest was tangentially pertinent to his professional career, since it was for speeding in a car he purchased with proceeds of his early years in Microsoft. As a compromise, I propose that it be re-added but in a section marked "Trivia" or something. (FTR, I am not anti-Gates; on the contrary, I am on record on various online fora as rooting for him, especially for his work with and funding of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.) -- Jalabi99 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the richest man in the country. Any arrest by the richest man is newsworthy, however minor. Please stop removing the booking photo. Every removal is strictly POV!

KBE (again)

We do not use KBE or any other post-nominal letters with Bill Gates's name since, according to the Wikipedia Style Guide, Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare. –Shoaler (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? what about Sir's? do they count for non-commonwealth citizens? WookMuff 09:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-commonwealth citizens are never entitled "Sir" or "Dame". 217.238.51.77 16:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Surley KBE should be used as it is an officialy ordained title onto someone by a head of state. When the KBE was issued the BBC covered It by adding the letters KBE after his name so it should be added to his name. its the same as someone being given an honarary doctorate they are still allowed to use the title Dr.--Lucy-marie 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kristanne

In the article it says that both, Kristanne and Libby, are Bill's younger sisters. But this article from TIME Magazine states that Kristanne is one year older while Libby is nine years younger. Can anyone verify their ages and change the article accordingly? 217.238.40.117 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's already been fixed. The new order agrees with your reference and the Bill Gates Sr article (although that might be from the same source anyway). Nil Einne 12:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for something to add...

There was an interview on The_Big_Idea_With_Donny_Deutsch that ran for like an hour a couple of days ago. Yet another source I thought I'd mention. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Green Profit and Red Loss Indicator Discussion

I have been noticing several edits by users with the sole purpose of changing the red loss indicator arrow to a green profit indicator arrow. Clearly, there is a bit of confusion on the matter. The red loss arrow does in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, indicate DEBT. I implore you to look at other well written articles such as the one on Warren Buffet, or other billionaires whose fortunes have slowly decreased over the years. The red loss indicator is shown to indicate that the individual in question has a current net worth that is lower TODAY, than it was the LAST TIME the mentioned Forbes/Fortune article indicated his or her net worth. Please leave the indicator as a red loss arrow, since Bill Gates' wealth was estimated at 51 billion dollars on the 400 richest americans list, and is now estimated at 50 billion on the world's richest people for 2006. Please post your thoughts within this discussion, or direct them to me. I wish to enforce this with a passion, due to the immense confusion it is causing with Wikipedia terminology/jargon. Thank you. --Theelectricchild 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The red arrow makes it look very much like it means he is 50 billion in debt. There is no explanation otherwise, and that is the obvious conclusion. Martin 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On Template:Loss it says "Use {{loss}} to indicate company losses." - how exactly is bill gates' worth a company loss? 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. While you are correct in that the Wikipedia definition is ambiguous, one could counter-argue your point by asking how exactly is Bill Gates' worth a company profit? (Indicated by the previously used green arrow). I will try to get furthur clarification on the definition, but more discussion is welcome. Thanks.--Theelectricchild 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

After furthur consideration, it is my belief that the profit and loss indicator definitions that you are referring to should only be used for corporation information boxes. (IE Microsoft, Boeing, etc). I would think that a more appropriate solution is to develop another alternative definition for the indicators that pertain to individuals. If we go by the fact that the loss indicator depicts debt, then we would have to make the appropriate changes to individuals such as Warren Buffet, Robson Walton, and others to a green profit arrow correct? The problem I have with this, is that it contradicts the source that we are getting our information from, which is primarily Forbes.com. The lists in Forbes use a similar "key" for net worth, with up arrows indicating a positive change from a previous estimation, and down arrows indicating a negative change from a previous estimation. As a Wikipedia administrator, would it be possible for you to bring the attention of forming a new definition or perhaps more clarification on the indicators? If you think it is trivial, then that is perfectly fine, but asking never hurts! Thanks in advance for reading my response.--Theelectricchild 21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment : note that the Template:Loss template is used for many individuals already, see [7] --Oscarthecat 21:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I could only see a handful of individuals there, but either way, Theelectricchild, your points are perfectly rational, would a good solution be that we could put a % beside the arrow, i.e. if his worth dropped by 5%, put 5% $50.0 billion USD, then it would be clearer what it is referring to. Martin 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea Martin. Hopefully, once we obtain that percentage information, we can include it in the article right away!--Theelectricchild 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There we go :] Rob.derosa 12:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually gone up. He was worh $46.5 billion according to forbes in 2005, now he is worth $50 billion by forbes in 2006. An increase of 7.5%

Dear anonymous poster: Thank you for including the percentage figure and clearing the ambiguation! --Theelectricchild 23:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article seems heavily biased aginast Bill Gates.--GorillazFan Adam 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you be specific? Gazpacho 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Within the Personal Life section, one paragraph mentions the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, and some notable donations. However, almost half of that paragraph is taken up with "Journalist Greg Palast suggests that the Gates Foundation is used to make tactical donations to hide media-sensitive humanitarian side-effects of treaties, such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which Gates has supported. TRIPS requires countries to agree to respect drug and other patents, therefore preventing the local manufacture of existing pharmaceuticals still under patent such as AIDS drugs in Africa.[23]", based on a single report made three years ago by an independent 'journalist' with an axe to grind, which does not seem appropriateSuperkemp 04:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why so much on Microsoft?

There is a huge chunk about Microsoft. Some of it is relevant, because of course Gates and Microsoft can't easily be separated. But what does stuff like:

"It has been pointed out that Microsoft often produces products that incorporate ideas developed outside Microsoft, such as GUIs, the BASIC programming language, or compressed file systems, without paying royalties to the companies that developed them." Have to do with Bill Gates? I think the Microsoft section should be roughly halved in size, this is a Bill Gates article, not a Microsoft one.

Because Gates wouldn't be on the map if it wasn't for Microsoft.

I agree that there may be a smidge too much information about Microsoft that doesn't relate to Gates' role in it. Stu 13:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A smidge? I can only assume that the volumes of information on Microsoft weren't there a month ago when you left that comment. There's an entire article on MS here outside of Bill's involvement in the company. Information on the MS Antitrust trials, etc, should only be included in the Bill Gates article if it directly relates to him; his testimony, etc. -- Xinit 20:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mugshot

I assume it's OK for this image to go; otherwise there would be a screenshot of one of the "Bomis Babes" in Jim Wales' article. Both are about as relevant, I'd say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.49.252 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that mugshot so easily equates to pornography. Dunno, maybe if Jimbo actually was a Bomis Babe at one point in life, then there would be a case for including such a picture. Gates' mugshot, on the other hand, is completely relevant, and quite famous in its own right ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Bomis babes" were summarily declared "erotic photography" or some such nonesense by the self-appointed protectors of the Wales article. In any case the only reason that mugshot is there is to perpetuate infantile chuckles from the Microsoft-bashing peanut gallery that seems to permeate Wikipedia. I fail to see how it is "relevant" - it isn't any more relevant than a screenshot of the Google cache of the Bomis porn galleries attached to Wales' biography.

Are you addressing the usage of Gates' mugshot, or your gripe with the Jimmy Wales article? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Foundation: date of establishment?

If the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was founded in 2000, how is it that it "Donated $20 million in 1998 to endow a scholarship program at Melinda Gates' alma mater, Duke University" as one reads in the article on the foundation itself? (The article on the Foundation doesn't say when it was founded, but obviously it was pre-2000 if the sentence cited is correct.) --Haruo 06:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check the Foundation article again. It looks like the content in question was there on 16th June so I guess you missed it... Anyway it appears the foundation was founded in 2000 by the merger of two other foundations. One of the other foundations must have been the one to endow the scholarship programme. You're right tho it needs clarification. Nil Einne 12:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Bill Gates the biggest software pirate that ever lived?

If you want to know what kind of person Bill Gates really is read his own words below as they appear in the court record.

I doubt my edit will remain in this article due to Bill Gate's power and wealth, but from what I've read this is the true story.

Bill Gates referred IBM to Professor Gary Kildall, the founder of Digital Research, but when they did not reach immediate agreement with him they went back to Gates, who offered to fill their need himself. He licensed a modified version of CP/M from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products for $56,000, and IBM shipped it as PC-DOS.

Seattle Computer products needed an operating system for a computer they were making that was going to use the Intel 8088 chip. They went to Gary Kildall and asked him to modify CP/M so it would run on Intel's 8088 chip. Gary Kildall told Seattle Computer Products he didn't have the time. So, Seattle Computer Products asked one of their programmers by the name of Tim Paterson to write a patch for CP/M to allow it to run on the Intel chip. Tim Paterson did so, and named "his" creation "Quick and Dirty Dos." Neither Tim Paterson nor Seattle Computer Products ever got permission from Gary Kildall to modify CP/M. Even if permission had been granted, what Tim Paterson wrote would have belonged to Seattle Computer Products not to Tim Paterson, since he created it for Seattle Computer products while he was their salaried employee. Gary Kildall could have sued Bill Gates, Microsoft and IBM, but was personally averse to litigation. Eventually, he did sue Bill Gates, Microsoft and IBM, and won a relatively modest settlement.

Michael D. Wolok 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a source for Kildall suing them all? I've not heard that story before. — Wackymacs 07:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You will find reference to the lawsuit on Gary Kildall's Wikipedia webpage. I am not absolutely certain of this fact. I will remove reference to it in the article. But it is inconceivable to me that any potential defendant was left out. When a suit like this is filed, plaintiffs must list all potential defendants.

The other part of the story that this article fails to discuss is this:

MS-DOS became the de facto standard because IBM used it in their PC. Bill Gates then refused to sell MS-DOS to any computer manufacturer that offered micro-computers with any other OS. This was a clear violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bill Gates continued this illegal practice for many years, and it enabled him to build his company to an unprecedented level. When no US Attorney General would enforce the law, more than a dozen Attorney Generals from different states filed suit against Microsoft. They won their case, but the companies that lost out were never made whole. In the early years of MS-DOS, Professor Gary Kildall, himself, came-out with a competitive product called DR DOS. Microsoft refused to sell MS-DOS to any computer manufacturer who also offered their customers DR DOS. Since no computer manufacturer could remain in business without selling MS-DOS, they all caved-in to Microsoft's demands, and Dr Dos and Gary Kildall lost out again.

I would have bought DR DOS, if I had known the truth at the time. I really feel bad for Professor Kildall. From what I understand, he was a true genius. I don't understand how we let Bill Gates get away with this.

I admire George Soros, Jim Wales (another successful trader), Steve Wazniak, Steve Jobs and all true geniuses. But it seems the real story of Bill Gates and Microsoft is a sad one, one where disregard for the law, and retalatory threats paid-off.

Michael D. Wolok 07:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The following comes from Case# 296CV 0645B in US District Court.

(lengthy exerpts from Caldera v. Microsoft, [8])

Though still the dominant operating system for personal computers, MS-DOS is a dinosaur. By not adapting to the changing needs of program developers and users, DOS has become a dead end on the evolutionary path and is headed for extinction. It's played out, unfixable, and hopelessly inadequate for supporting the applications of the 1990s.

Exhibit 14 (PC Magazine, September 29, 1987)

The above is public record.

Michael D. Wolok 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is some fantastic material for improving our articles on the history of MS-DOS, DR-DOS, PC-DOS and the Microsoft articles themselves, but if you're looking to promote a smear campaign against Bill Gates (or anyone else, for that matter), you won't get far with it on Wikipedia. Warrens 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I deeply resent your uncivil insinuation. How would you like it if I wrote: "Warren, if your desire is to molest little boys, you won't get far with it on Wikipedia." Promoting a smear campaign is the last thing I wish to do. I just want everyone to know the truth about Bill Gates, and the truth about Professor Gary Kildall. I believe the truth about Bill Gates is very unflattering and not widely known. I am sorry to rain on your holy cow.

The facts speak for themselves. It sounds to me like you want Wikipedia to sugarcoat Bill Gates' life, and you are saying Wikikpedia supports your effort. You may be right, but I certainly hope not. I have never met Bill Gates. I have no personal grudge against him, nor any reason to have a personal grudge against him. I am happy when people succeed honestly as George Soros has, as Steve Wazniak and Steve Jobs have, as Jim Wales has. I dislike it when people stomp on other people, steal their intellectual property, violate Federal law and gain from their activity.

I am amazed that people have the positive view of him that they do. I get the feeling that people admire success no matter how it is achieved. Successful people mesmerize the average citizen into believing they are idols, heros and Gods and can do no wrong. Dapper Don Gotti has a big fan following as well. Unlike Gotti, Bill Gates never killed anyone, and may never have violated a single criminal law. But in my book his conduct was far from ethical. I know today, most American believe all is fair in love, war and business, but that is not how I see things. My thought is that because the average human being tends to be selfish and unethical, they give Bill Gates a pass. You might not agree with me that the average human is selfish and unethical, and that might be true from your perspective. But I hold people, including myself, to a much higher moral standard than most people do.

Moreover, I care more about Professor Gary Kildall's loss than Bill Gates' questionable gains. Professor Kildall was a creative genius. We both owe him an immense debt. On the other hand, I saw Microsoft achieve success using strong arm tactics, and use the tactic VHS used in beating out Betamax.

I wish there was some evidence to the contrary, but all evidence seems to indicate that Bill Gates is philistine, that he never really cared to make the best product he could. His hallmark has been buying second rate products, giving them away free until they become an industry standard that kill off better products. Bill Gates knows people will buy an inferior product for the sake of compatibility, and has exploiting this piece of knowledge from the beginning.

Do you know who Philo Farnsworth is? How about Kary Mullis? How about Leo Szilard? I feel bad that Creadance Clearwater Survival lost all rights to their own music. I think they were cheated. The average person supports the popularizer, not the creative genius without whom we would be living in the stone-age. I believe we owe genius creators more, and notorious self-promoters less.

Michael D. Wolok 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promoting your view of whom people should support. It is for verifiable and neutral information. Gazpacho 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please research the difference between a "clone" and a "modification." Gazpacho 09:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People who start smear campaigns usually believe they are telling the truth. But whatever, that's not the point -- Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. It says so right in Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have information culled from verifiable, reliable sources that you feel is important to include in an article about Bill Gates, then by all means, please include it with citations. Understand that you are also responsible for providing that information in a way that conforms to a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So, check your assertions and commentary about "higher moral standards" and "philistines" at the door, and focus on writing a great encyclopedia. That's all we're here to do. Warrens 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

the Centibillionaire issue

I've restored this into the lead section:

In 1999, Gates' wealth briefly surpassed $100 billion making him America's first centibillionaire.

There is some disagreement as to whether the term "centibillionaire" refers to 100 billion, or 10 million (as "centi" typically stands for 1/100ths). Here's two reasons why it needs to stay in the article:

1. In popular media (I'm talking Forbes, Time Magazine, that kind of thing), the term "centimillionaire" has been used for a number of years to describe people with 100 million dollars or more. Indeed, Forbes published an article titled Bob Hope: Just Another Centimillionaire the week after his death. This has led to the use of the term centibillionaire when describing Bill Gates, as as extension of that term. Yes, it flies in the face of the international standard of units... darn, eh? As an encyclopedia, we are here to report what other people have said, not to try and push our own vision of accuracy.
2. One could reasonably argue that "centimillion" and "centibillion" don't adhere to SI prefix rules at all, because they're combining a prefix with a long-scale name. We'd never talk about a "terahundred" or a "kilomillionth", would we? How about a "nanobillion"? A "pictoquintillion"! Okay, I'm getting carried away here, but hopefully the point is made.

In conclusion, the "centibillionaire" comment should stay. If nobody makes a good argument for its removal that overrides the above, I will continue to push its inclusion. Warrens 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

indeed right ehm so ... hectobillionaire ?.

I don't mind keeping a mention of this, but can we really be sure that he's the world's first 100-billionaire, despite hyperinflation in other countries? Gazpacho 17:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ach, did i put "the world's" in? I'll change it back to "America's", which is at least easier to verify. Warrens 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

oops didn't notice the discussion and edited it to remove the term, the reasons i think centibillionare shouldn't be used are

1. wikipedias own article on centibillionaire clearly states that it doesn't mean $100 billion and anybody clicking on the link from bill gates article sees that the article is wrong!

2. centibillionare means what it means, use in popular media doesn't change the actually meaning of a word

3. the term centibillionare adds nothing to the article and there is no need to add confusion

--86.15.152.208 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you completely fail to understand what I wrote as justification for use of the term? "Centibillionaire" is a term being used solely by the media to describe someone with 100 billion dollars. It's not a scientific term... it's more like a word like Centenarian, which clearly means 100 years, not 1/100th of one year. I'm going to put the term back in, and if you plan on removing it again, come back with a stronger counter-argument than "it means what it means", because, frankly, that says nothing at all. Warrens 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on "centibillionaire" both notes the common usage by the media and also says the usage is incorrect. The whole argument is stupid. Why don't we just take it out and say "Bill Gates is the first American to amass a net worth over $100 billion"? Having the term "centibillionaire" in the article does not add anything, and we can easily say the same thing, ommitting that word, and eliminating any controversy. The only thing we lose by removing the word is stupid arguments on the talk page and edit wars. Aranhamo 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It adds the ability to link to the article about the subject. Gazpacho 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Being able to link to centibillionaire is more important than having an article that everybody considers accurate? Aranhamo 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chief Software Architect??

I'm confused. Is Bill Gates still CSA of Microsoft? I had edited the page without any proof of this.

Thekietstuff 04:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought he had announced his plan to leave Microsoft completely, but I don't know if he's finished disentangling himself from Microsoft yet. --Coolcaesar 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that job was handed over, he is still Chariman until 2008.<Wackymacs 06:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In 2008 he will quit Microsoft and Warren Buffet will be the new CEO. He has said that he would work for Microsoft some time as a consultant. But he will focus more on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.<Seidon 20:28, 4 July 2006 (CET)

Um?? Warren Buffet as CEO, i highly doubt it, hes more of an investor. Besides, whats your source for this?? — Wackymacs 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird phrasing regarding children

Bill Gates married Melinda French of Dallas, Texas on January 1, 1994. Melinda has given birth to three children, Jennifer Katharine Gates (1996), Rory John Gates (1999) and Phoebe Adele Gates (2002).

I understand that Bill Gates doesn't actually give birth, but the way it's written makes it sound like the kids aren't Bill's, or something. Maybe change it to "They have three children"? — Miles←☎ 03:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I made the edit as per your suggestion. Aranhamo 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates KBE

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Give me a break. You don't address a British knight as "sir" in anywhere but the inaccurate, outdated and Eurocentric Encyclopedia Britannica. This is because globally, it isn't expected or acceptable to speak English as if you were British: to say, Sir Douchebag or Lady Camilla. You do so only if you've been invited to a bunfight and you do so at the bunfight as common courtesy. But any more than "Lord" McCartney kow-towed to the emperor of China during his foolish mission of 1795, you do not, even in a honorary sense, reinforce, as the citizen of your country, pretensions beyond the norm of a foreign prince.

This is quite a rant for an issue that was settled two weeks ago. But really I don't think this anti-royalist flame has much at all to do with improving an article on Bill Gates. Perhaps you can persuade others of the correctness of your vision somewhere else? Many thanks.Phiwum 08:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)I realize that many wikipedians put on their special encyclopedia hats when posting and updating but the problem is today that "intellectuals" have been excessively house-trained as "the subordinate half of the dominant class" (Adorno) and any number of clowns here think they are under a special requirement to use intellect to reinforce thug power and not, as in the Enlightenment, to deconstruct thug power.

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)News fa lash. The greatest encyclopedians, and their cousins the makers of dictionaries (Webster and Johnson) had a political agenda and were not as it happens "neutral" little creeps, laboring under the confusion of neutrality with a nasty and curdled sex neuter-ality. As men they weren't afraid of carrying out a political mission and indeed redressing a non-neutral bias.

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Why the hell did Webster simplify "colour" to "color", and Samuel Johnson's definition of oats is well-known. The latter was a bit of an obvious joke which is allowed the harmless drudge but more broadly, Johnson made globally the neutral-but-not-neuter point that free men needed to spell and use words consistently.

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Diderot made a point of recognizing the work of the people as the source of all value and not the pretensions of the *ancien regime*.

Spinoza1111 04:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)British laugh at Americans who call Gates sir, because contemporary British people, up to and including Prince William, are heartily sick of the mummery.

Many other pages in Wikipedia list people as "Sir" who have KBE title. Two that come to mind are [[9]] and [[10]]. Indeed, Sir Paul McCartney is of a lower order in the British Empire than Sir William Gates is, so if one of the two should be listed, it should be Gates.

Other discussion on this talk page notes that accepting KBE may be unlawful in the United States. This is absolutely not relevant. He has accepted the title; it IS his title; whether he legally can accept it is not an issue for this encyclopedia. The fact stands that he already has.

The only issue for this encyclopedia is the stylistic distinction of whether the title should be displayed. If we go for consistency, we should list him as "Sir" as we do with "Sir Isaac Newton" and "Sir Paul McCartney".

If you respond to my request for commends with a negative, please clarify your stance on the "US citizens can't have titles" issue -- I don't want to get into a discussion of this because it's not relevant and not for us to decide. As an encyclopedia, we should merely recognize that he HAS the title and not engage in a stupid dispute over its legality. If someone is a lawyer then I would request he put his comments here about its legality. Otherwise, if you are not a lawyer, you are not qualified to dispense legal advise and your opinion on the legality of his title is both arbitrary and not fit to influence this document.

He has the title. That is fact. The question is why Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Paul McCartney are listed as such when Sir William Gates is not.

Xiphoris 19:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify: I am not recommending KBE at the end of his name; I am recommending we address him as "sir".

You are a bit confused about the KBE title. Luckily, there is a resource [11] on the web to help us out:

"Citizens of countries which do not recognise the Queen as head of state sometimes have honours conferred upon them, in which case the awards are "honorary" - the holders are entitled to place initials behind their name but not style themselves "Sir ...". Examples of foreigners with honorary knighthoods are Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, and Rudolph Giuliani, while Arsène Wenger and Gérard Houllier are honorary OBEs."

Gates does indeed have the "KBE" honor, but this doesn't mean he should be called "sir". Phiwum 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The question I'm asking is why other gentlemen on Wikipedia are introduced like "'Sir Isaac Newton, President of the Royal Society, was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist, chemist, inventor, and ..."

Xiphoris 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read more archived discussion on the talk page and see some good arguments both ways. Some people say that because Bill Gates himself does not use it, that we also should not. I don't see that as a compelling argument: he also calls himself Bill, but we're an encyclopedia and thus address him as William Gates in his article.

Indeed, I do consider it important to at least list his title somewhere in the passage. If not after his name, as KBE, then how?

I'd also like to point out that Paul McCartney did not refer to himself as MBE but the article page still lists it after his name on his article [12]

I just want some consistency between pages. So what's the verdict?

Xiphoris 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate guide is in the manual of style at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Bottom line (in the section on "Other non-royal names") seems to be that non-commonwealth citizens do not use the post-nominal. Isaac Newton and Paul McCartney would be commonwealth, Bill not so much. Let me know if you get a different read from that guide. Kuru ^talk 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We do state in the 3rd paragraph that Gates was awarded the KBE. But outside the Commonwealth, this is not a title but an honor. Britain cannot give a title to an American. The right to use a British title is part of British law or the laws of members of the Commonwealth which honor British titles. So Bill Gates can include anything in his name he wants — PhD, KBE, Esq., etc. — but he is not "entitled" to do so under either British law or US law. Prudently, he has eschewed the use of honorary titles such as PhD and KBE in his name, as most people do. And so should we. –Shoaler (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Those bestowed with the title KBE who are not citizens of the Queen, can accept title, but may not use the prefix "Sir". Bill gates can use the title KBE after his name, but may not use the prefix "Sir" unless he becomes a citizen of Great Britain. KBE should follow his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.65.131.202 (talk • contribs) .

The KBE given to Bill Gates was not a title, it was an honor. The USA does not have titles. The British government cannot "give" a title to a US citizen but it can honor them. Gates received a great honor by being awarded the KBE, but it wasn't a title. –Shoaler (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

However saying that being awarded an honarary docterate still entitles the use of the Dr. suffix.So how come it dose not apply In this case.--Lucy-marie 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• When one receives an honorary doctorate, they are theoretically entitled to use "Dr" or "PhD" in their name. But almost no one ever does because it's not a "real" PhD earned by hard work but an honorary one. (That's not to say it isn't a great honor.) Bill Gates has several honorary PhDs but he doesn't say "Hi, I'm Dr. Gates" and he doesn't sign his letters "Bill Gates, PhD" or "Bill Gates, PhD, KBE." We look at how Bill Gates writes his name to indicate how WikiPedia should express it. If he used the PhD or KBE regularly, then so would we. –Shoaler (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)