Talk:Forbes list of billionaires (2009)

Forbes?

Is it really accurate to say the list is based on Forbes magazine when several other sources used as references in the list? --Cybercobra (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made it not say it is based on Forbes, since of course we don't deify particular sources in Wikipedia. Any reliable source can be used. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this response: I don't think the article in any way "deifies" Forbes; it is simply a fact that all of the numbers in the table, and all of the rankings, and even which alternate spelling of the people who have multiple names, all come from Forbes. To ignore this is to invite original research. UnitedStatesian (talk)

No, please read original research: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I am not suggesting that no sources be used. I am not suggesting that unsourced content go in this page. I am not suggesting that items in the list presently sourced by Forbes be unsourced. What I am suggesting is not, in any way, original research. Instead, I am saying that material in list of billionaires ought to be backed up by a reliable source and that it is not the case that it must be backed up by a single wp:rs that some people really like. How can you justify excluding a well sourced billionaire from a page called list of billionaires just because the person is not in Forbes? Can you see that this gives a special status to Forbes? Forbes is not the point of the article, it's a "list of billionaires." Please read wp:rs - it says that good sources must be used, not that only the best source may be used. ErikHaugen (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in pointing out that the citation for a statement like "Mr. X owns $y billion" does not need to be the 2009 Forbes list. However, that's not the issue here. The problem is that the list as a whole - especially the ranking - is a synthesis (by Forbes) from the individual data for each person (also by Forbes). Modifying the ranking according to other sources not only violates WP:SYNTH (a statement of the form "Mr. X is the nth richest person" is a synthesis, achieved by comparing the statements about hundreds or thousands of other persons), it also renders the list inconsistent, because other sources are based on a different calculation method than Forbes, or refer to a different point in time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand wp:synth. "The problem is that the list as a whole - especially the ranking - is a synthesis (by Forbes)" - This is not a problem, actually. We can use synthesis done in reliable sources. wp:synth says that we can not perform synthesis here - wikipedia can not be the place where this synthesis is first published, if you will. We must get the synthesis elsewhere - that is kind of the entire point of this site, in fact. If a reliable source indicates that Mr. X has a net worth of over 1B, then we can put him on a list entitled list of billionaires. WRT 'a statement of the form "Mr. X is the nth richest person" is a synthesis, achieved by comparing the statements about hundreds or thousands of other persons' - we do not need to say "Mr. X is the richest person". If we do, we can provide a wp:rs for that claim if we have one. You bring up an interesting point about other sources using different calculations. This is potentially a serious problem inherent in this list. It can be addressed in several ways. One way is to add a column to the table to clarify how that person's wealth is calculated. Another way is to delete this page, since its criteria is so arbitrary. Another is to say at the top that wealth for the purposes of this list is calculated a certain way. Or we can ignore the problem, since it is probably not really that big of a deal. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my statement about the list as a whole. Of course WP:SYNTH does not prevent us from reproducing the Forbes list or parts of it here. (There might still be copyright concerns, but that is a separate issue.) It does however prevent us from creating our own ranked list, which seems to be what you attempted to initiate here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? If I have a non-forbes billionaire from a RS, why can't I put it on the list? I'm not sure ranking using comparisons of numbers is synthesis. Even our tables (class "wikitable sortable") do this automatically. In any case, though, if ranking is synth then the solution is certainly not to discount reliable sources other than Forbes! An alternative solution which does not completely fly in the face of wikipedia guidelines would be to not "rank" the list. Again though, this is not necessary, since ranking is not synth - as long as the numbers are sourced reliably. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

who is this mian mansha? POV pushing by some contributors

His name is not mentioned in any of the standard lists.Forbes,Fortune,Sunday Times etc.The only list that mentions him as pakistan's richest man has listed Pakistan president Zardari and former PM nawz sharif etc etc as billionaires.The lis it self is confused about his worth one pace it mentions as worth 4.4 billion and other place as 2.5 billion.None of the standard list mention of any Pakistani as a billionaire.In the other source he himself claims to be worth 5 billlion dollars.To mention a man among world's 100 most richest needs a credible source and not some unknown website.Please replace him with some one appropriate from forbes or sunday times richlist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if his worth of 4.4 billion is true he is still behind Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_Mansour-bin-Zayed-Al-Nahayan_55XR.html

and many others

here:http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank_5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

- Your argument is flawed. Wikipedia takes a holistic view of referencing and Cybercobra (talk) has said that there are many other entries without a Forbes listing. The Key-torch website states that his net worth is $4.4 billion, the 2.5 billion is simply a breakdown to take into account other measures of wealth. Sansonic (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

even then he is not among top 100 of world's richest.So established lists like forbes,fortune and sunday times are discarded in favour of some unknown biased list.His name shouldn't be in top 100 even if we take that 4.4 billion.That article is from oct 2008 so it is not his 2009 worth as net worth went down in 2009 in all lists.In that article euromoney doesnt mention his worth as 5 billion he claims that"my worth is between 4 to 5bn.Any reason why a man who is suppoesd to be worth $5 bn and among the world's 100 richest but doesnt find a mention in any of the world's lists.How can some other people who have been appearing on other lists can be ignored on the basis of one interview published 18 months back and that also by a source who are not known to publish lists.sunny.......... 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

- 15/19 references in this article are from 2008. All references for Indians on the list are also from 2008. (Indian Azim Premji dosn't even have a reference). Pakistan is not included on American Forbes because it is considered to be a "failed state", therefore it should be okay to use Euromoney especially considering that so many other references were published in the same year. Finally, I don't want to have to accuse you of personal attack. So do not call me Pakistani, I am British. Sansonic (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

all Indian refrences are from forbes list of billionaires 2009,which was calculated and published on 11th march 2009.Mr Mansha doesnt finds even a mention in all the 700 of them let alone the top 100.So if all the worths are for the year 2009 why should some one's 2008 worth be considered?So Forbes includes cuban smugglers but doesnt include Pakistanis?Where does this logic comes from?What about the Sunday Times rich list?Pakistan is a major non nato ally of USA.If you read the heading of that article,it says that if no refrences are mentioned it means it was taken from Forbes list.Still to humour you here is the Indians on Forbes list

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_CountryOfCitizen_8.html

to further my argument,here is the forbes list of 100 richest indians as of nov 2009.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/18/india-100-richest-india-billionaires-09-wealth_land.html?boxes=listschannelinsidelists

I didnot called you anything,i just said some pakistani POV pushing why the assumption that i called you so?

so please find a unbiased list of 2009 that actually calculates the worth and not just based on someone's own claimed worth .editors please lock this article and protect it from further vandalism sunny.......... 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sunnyji 2k. This appears to be a dubious source probably based on his self-claimed worth. Keep it out unless better sourcing is available. Cool Hand Luke 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

- I disagree that this Euromoney source: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/2023813/Meet-Mr-Pakistan-Mian-Muhammad-Mansha-Yaha.html is dubious. You should acknowledge that in 2008 Euromoney themselfs were claiming his worth to be nearly $5 Billion. Sansonic (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

He says my worth is between 4 to 5 billion.See the heading below his photograph in that article.

http://www.euromoney.com/Article/2029382/Pakistans-richest-man-in-his-first-foreign-interview-Mian-Mansha-Nishat-group.html

That article is from 2008 and all others have their worth from march 2009 list of forbes.Why should we consider just one source when all other sources point to the fact that Mr.Mansha isnt worth that much.sunny.......... 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

- This source: http://www.keytorich.com/pakrichest/index.php says that his 2009 Net Worth is $4.4 billion. It should be considered. Sansonic (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's not in the top 100 anyway. There's a 6-way tie for 98th. Honestly, Philip Green doesn't make sense either. Cool Hand Luke 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Except Anwar Parvez no one from that list gets mentioned in any list.So much for its authenticity.I guess people need to go through the Forbes and Sunday Times List to see how the worth's are calculated and just not believe on self claimed worths or other articles which dont mention how they arrived on a certain worth.sunny.......... 08:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

- Okay well if Cool Luke is saying that $4.5 billion is not enough to enter the top 100 then we will have to leave Mr Mansha out... for the time being. I think that Mr Mansha knows how much he is worth better than anyone else. Forbes only looks at eight countries in the world and Pakistan is not included, I guess because it is a "Failed state". However, if you sunny want to know exactly why Pakistan is excluded then I would reccommend asking Forbes directly. Ask them directly, then if you get a response you can let me know what they say. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not what cool luke says 6 people are tied at 98 with 5 bn and philip green has 4.8 bn so how can Mansha enter the list.In the refrences provided,in one he himself claims to be worth 5bn in the other one the persons listed as billionaires,only one of them finds a mention in Forbes or Sunday Timesi.e Anwar Pervez because he actuallly is worth it..Forbes takes into consideration almost all countries,Pakistan doesnt gets a mention because no one is worth a billion there not because it is a failed state.Forbes have people such as cuban smugglers and even people from lebanon iceland kazakhastan etc etc and is not limited to 8 countries.Some one needs to get rid of this Pakistan has been victimised mentality.As far as some one knows how much he is worth,check Donald Trumps claims on his worth and what Forbes estimates his worth.WWE chairman Vincent Mcmohan claims to be a billionaire but he isnt on Forbes list because his known assest dont add upto that.They take in to consideration Market Cap of one's companies and then on basis of that they value the percentage of his shares,in case of not listed entities they look at the Revenues Profit debt etc of the company to have a valuation of it.If mansha was worth near 5 bn forbes or Sunday times would have noticed for sure.I guess to world reknowned lists Forbes and Sunday Times is good enough to convince me and most others that Mian Mansha isnt worth 4.5 billions.I guess you need to mail them and tell them to have a look at Mian Mansha for their latest List which will come out next month.sunny.......... 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

- I have been in contact with a senior editor at Forbes regarding the exclusion of Pakistan. They have said that their reporters are only present in nine countries. The reporter gave a very brief explanation and said that they currently in contact with Mian Muhammed Mansha and his "folks", Forbes said that they are expecting a Pakistani to make it into their 2010 list (time will tell whether they stick to their word). They thanked me for informing them of the "higher than expected" wealth of Mr Mansha.

As far as I understand The Sunday Times only publishes the wealth of people who live in the UK (Such as Sir Anwar Pervez and Lakshmi Mittal), hence no mention of Mr Mansha in there.

I hope that answers your questions Sunny. Sansonic (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we cannot treat his self-worth claims as reliable. People can and do boast. Don't re-add this unless a reliable independent source makes a credible estimate of his wealth. Looking at the history of this article, I have to agree with Sunnyji 2k that you're pushing some sort of Pakistani POV. Stop it. Cool Hand Luke 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks luke for your support. Sunday times do publish a world top 100 list,it is only different from forbes in the way that they take whole family fortunes as one and hence the list is lead by the walton family,most other people on the list are same.And no Mian Mansha on that list.Here is the link.http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/richlist2009/world3.pdf

Well goodluck if and when Forbes publishes his name and we will have an idea of his wealth then.They may have reporters in 9 countries but they track wealth of people in many countries.They will ofcourse look into your and Mr.Mansha's claim and then decide if he makes the cut or not.Peace and cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC) sunny.......... 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

- Thank You for your friendly comment Sunny. Sansonic (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Calros Helu Number 1 please reply- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/carlos-sim-helu-named-worlds-richest-by-forbes-2010-03-10?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Concerns

This list of people is either unsourced, or is a copyright violation. Per WP:NLIST and WP:Source list such lists should be sourced, and some notability established for each person, or the list deleted. Each person on this list needs to be independently researched and sourced before being returned to the article. The entire list cannot be sourced to Forbes as they have put restrictions on people reprinting their research: [1] and [2]. Copyright violations are serious and put Wikipedia into legal difficulties. SilkTork *^YES! 15:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

✁Copied list snipped for ease of discussion. ÷seresin 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the list back. I disagree that it's a copyright violation or that it is unsourced. ÷seresin 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As the contentious material has been restored I have put a copyvio notice on the article, and raised my concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 11. The information is Forbes' own research and opinion - it is not a matter of fact or public domain - [3], and Forbes do have a strict copyright policy: [4]. Under the circumstances it is wiser and safer to examine the situation carefully. SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a specialist on copyrights infringement, but I honestly do not understand why the table constitutes an infringement, while a text saying "according to Forbes these are 10 richest people in the world ... " is not an infringement. It does not look to me logical. As another editor said in a similar discussion about the 2010 list, I'm sure Forbes knows its list is being widely reproduced. Should we also remove the following paragraphs from Carlos Slim article?

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

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

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

They are all of them sourced from Forbes! So what are we doing with them?! Are we deleting them as well as copyvio?! Why is this a different case from the table in question? And what if I source the article from this Telegraph article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/4976148/Forbes-billionaires-list-2009-winners-and-losers.html? Don't I have a copyvio anymore (Forbes is no more my source!)? Is Telegraph also guilty of copyright infringement?! If yes, why isn't Forbes after the newspaper?!!!

So, let's be honest: everybody reproduces Forbes' lists! Personally, I would rename the article as "Forbes' 2009 list of billionaires (Top 10)" or something similar, and I would keep the list with the proper references of course. Or, if there are available lists of billionaires for 2009, I would add them as well naming the article "Lists of billionaires (2009)" or something similar.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Following conversation at Talk:List of billionaries, this has been replaced with the top 15, which should be defensible fair use given the scope of the list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 list seems to be up

2010 richest list from Forbes seems to be out. Probably update this in the future. 174.16.189.135 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Slim overtakes Bill Gates in world rich list (March 2010)

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8560731.stm. Mr Slim's fortune rose by $18.5bn (£12.4bn) last year to $53.5bn. That beat Microsoft founder Bill Gates ($53bn) into second place, with US investor Warren Buffett ($43bn) third. I think this Wikipedia article needs to be updated. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of list

If this page is about 2009, why is the list from 2007? Also, why don't the pictures and the list agree? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops! That's my fault completely, I'm afraid. When I was restoring the limited "fair use" version of the text, it seems somehow I copied it over from the wrong list! I've fixed it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

new research need to be done ?

Quite a bit of talk going around on the net that the Rothchilds and Rockefellers own massively more wealth than any on this list. Has anyone taken the time to determine if such has any validity or substance ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Credibility issues

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

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

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Experts-Say-Mubarak-Familys-Net-Worth-is-Billions-115489594.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Forbes specifically mentions in its annual billionaire list that it is specific to "self-made" billionaires, therefore the previous remarks and references mentioned are retracted.

File:Ingvar Kamprad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ingvar Kamprad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ingvar Kamprad.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)