Talk:Bill Gates/Archive 5

Bill Gates Timeline
Can someone with the proper authority please add this link to the bottom? It gives a great chronology of Gates' career: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-06/st_billgates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.151.52 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

U2 are alternative?
Somebody edit that. Unless of course mainstream means alternative now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.51.85 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you're popular does not mean you're not alternative. Their style of music is quite unique so on that level they are alternative. SamanthaG (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FORBES MISTAKE?
I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.69.137 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of movie trivia: Shot through the head by the general in charge of the war against Canada after a computer crash in South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158983/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.4.146 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

net worth
this lists Victor Hugo Vargas as the third richest man in the world at one point in history, however every other article on him including Forbes still lists him as number one. this entire article is very inaccurate and completely fails to list all his troubles with the law or how he got his first interactive software from tanking apples design. i think watching pirates or silicon valley is a much better reference and everyone should ignore this entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.178.147 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That documentary is unofficial, it is full of lies, and barely cites sources. Zachary8222 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bull Shit, hes worth 160 BILLION according to CNN, Time Magazine, New York Times, and others. 142.77.229.84 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC. Bill Gates ir rich.


 * Excuse me, but please do not attack the editors. Thank you!   CWii ( Talk  22:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

apple
With the exception of one subhead (on Management style), this biography reads like a resume written by the Microsoft public relations department or Gates himself, rather than a balanced, encyclopedic entry on a well known historical figure.

In particular, the Windows text does not mention agreements and business dealings with Apple Computer to create word processing and spreadsheet software for the world's first commercially successful computer with a graphic user interface — the Macintosh. In fact, this Wikipedia entry glosses over the creation of Microsoft's most successful product, the Windows operating system. It does not delve into the controversy that eventually erupted after Gates was shown the Macintosh operating system by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and convinced to create business software for the new computer.

It is common knowledge that Gates also decided to copy the idea and create Windows. Microsoft has been copying key Apple products ever since.

The competition between these two Information Age titans and their enigmatic leaders is legendary and riveting. Their story harkens back to the struggles between Industrial Age steel, railroad and automotive barons of the 19th century who helped America become an economic powerhouse. The omission of this part of the Bill Gates story from this Wikipedia entry is troubling, and it reinforces criticism that Wikipedia has difficulty achieving accuracy and balance in its presentations.

Geopix (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) George Wedding
 * That's exactly it&mdash;we don't want to make this a huge soap opera. I'll continue to add information to the article, but keep in mind that a lot of the information you mentioned belongs in Microsoft and not here. Information here primarily concerns Gates himself, so information should be included if we are certain that he has had a direct impact on something, otherwise we'll be going down a slippery slope towards a Microsoft v. Apple rivalry. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial
Where is the controversial section? The article gravitates around his good side, but makes no mention of his wrongdoings. As a matter of fact, he has a police record (for a reason) and has been involved in a number of escandals. I believe the article does not show a clear and objetive picture of him. Wikipedia is not known to be very "forgiving" with celebrities and personalities, but somehow this article makes him look like some sort of modern business saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.217 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article strikes me as quite non-NPOV and very one-sided in praising him. It makes me distrust Wikipedia.

You mean it doesn't read like a nerd with a grudge wrote it, and is based on reliable sources rather than rantings on slashdot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.13.119 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are approaching this from the wrong point of view. It doesn't matter if a nerd with a grudge wrote it; what matters is that it's right.  I don't have the time or impetus, but if there are FACTS out there that would constitute a helpful "Controversy" section, there's no reason to suggest that it shouldn't exist. Max (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons are (1) there are already articles on Microsoft and Criticism of Microsoft, for describing controversies involving Microsoft's business, and (2) a lot of people just "know" things about Bill Gates that aren't backed by reliable sources. 67.170.75.217 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

640k, spam & letter to hackers.
I think some of his famous quote (or misquotes should be mentioned in this article)
 * the 640k is a misquote but it is a famous misquote
 * he claimed there would be no spam by 2006, this was a fairly notable claim in tech circles
 * his letter to hackers is also fairly famous

this article has very little on his tech career despite him being head of Microsoft, i agree it should be about him, but he has said a lot of famous tech stuff himself.

No "Knight Commander of the British Empire" in title
Don't include that nonsense KBE title. That can be seen as POV inclining towards the English. KBE is not his name. The English give that stupid thing to all allegedly successful people to make themselves look good and royal. That is just nonsense. In this sense all people that have medals and honors will have something at the end of their name like, John Doe, "Metal of Honor.". No KBE nonsense in Bill Gates name. Keep that thing with English people, not American people. English people should stick with their English people and stop handing out crap to other people. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's British, not English. Right or wrong, the Honours System has been and continues to be a part of British culture and to say that it shouldn't be referenced because you personally find it "nonsense", "stupid" and "crap" is hardly a compelling argument.


 * The issue of Bill Gates' knighthood has been discussed many times in the past on these pages and the consensus was to follow WP:NCNT by mentioning the award without using the post-nominal. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "English people should stick with their English people and stop handing out crap to other people." - Take your pathetic anti-English bile somewhere else. What a pathetic child. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am Australian and I think the British Honours System is crap. Thank God we got rid of it. I have nothing against such honours being given to Brits, but they should not be awarded to anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.198.91 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Every honour granted, whether to a Briton or a non-Briton, is granted with the consent of the person honoured. If you ever do anything worthy of being honoured you can of course decline any honour offered to you. But to expect others to do the same when they don't share your opinions is just childish. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I am Australian and I think the British Honours System is crap. Thank God we got rid of it."
 * .... and then implemented one of your own. Order of Australia.  David T Tokyo (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Australia has the Order of Australia, and they got rid of the rank Knight/Dame. This system is much fairer. Unlike the Order of the Garter/Thistle etc, it is far less restricted so that people who deserve it don't have to wait for someone to die. Sure, there are restrictions placed on the numbers in the top divisions of the Order, but these start from scratch every year, so people can be recognisd for their achievements rather than having to wait for someone to die. The British system is too old and outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.198.91 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Gates has been awarded a KBE and his name should reflect that. Personal opinion on whether the decoration should be given out is irrelevant. That fact remains that he is a KBE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.9.65 (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who cares about him having KBE? What is the purpose? He is American, not English. Second, this would be POV. Every person that have KBE will have it. Why not having Gates having the Order of the Aztec Eagle, Time person of the year, philanthropist of the year next to his name?. Why is KBE so special that it only need to have there? What is the purpose? That is nonsense medal that has no purpose in this article. Strongly oppose it on three grounds. 1) POV 2). every medal should be listed next to his name 3) he is not British. Onetwo1 (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's not British has nothing to do with it; it can be awarded to non-citizens. Calling the listing POV is ridiculous, as it's a fact, not a point of view; indeed others (Bob Geldof for example) have their awards listed. It is a legitimate post nominal; and contrary to the commentary above it's not limited by having to wait for people to die, that's hereditary peerages. I'm not even sure WP:NCNT comes into play; that's mainly for the title/page name of the article and does not mention post nominals at all. You might as well start removing Dr. from people's titles, or military medal nominals and so on. --Blowdart | talk 08:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not answering my question? If KBE is British custom, then fine, but don't force that medal on everyone's name that have it. It is not like Jr. Sr.. This is obviously point of view towards the English. Why don't we just put order of the aztec eagle like "Bill Gates, Order of the Aztec Eagle."? How does that look? It is the same thing if we put KBE next to his name? Why is KBE so special. I know it is British culture, but don't force honors to be next to people's name. It is an honor, not a name. It is obviously point of view. Create a different section and list the medals on the bottom of the article. If KBE is listed next to his name, then "Order of the Aztec Eagle" (he received one) must be listed next to it. Period. Or don't list any. That's the bottom line. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, and I don't think it should be there myself; but it's arguable that by taking the honour there is an implicit agreement to use the post-nominal. Your Aztec Order example is bordering on a straw man as I cannot see if it confers a post nominal. I guess it's like a doctorate, by taking (and passing) the course you can be referred to as Dr Anonymous American, Phd. That is your full title. Now whether you use it or not is optional of course. However if we go down the route of making any post-nominal optional then where does it stop? Do we remove the post-nominals on Stephen Hawking because The Royal Society is a UK only organisation? Is the problem here that it's a UK honour inferred on a US citizen? If so then why does Bob Geldof have it? It's ok becuase he's Irish? Personally I don't honestly care, it's mentioned in the body of the text and that's good enough for me; however if we're arguing that all post-nominals should go (as seems to be the justification) then that's a far wider issue. --Blowdart | talk 12:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki's style guide says that we shouldn't use post-nominal letters such as KBE outside Britain and Commonwealth countries. As it stands, the page is correct - it's not used as part of his title.  It is mentioned in the "recognition" section - which is perfectly valid. Gates himself described the award as "a great honour".  David T Tokyo (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected your link for you; but remember when the guidelines talk about titles it's page title; not the page text; although text is mentioned in this case. --Blowdart | talk 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous pronoun
"Gates insisted that IBM let Microsoft keep the copyright on the operating system, because he believed that other hardware vendors would clone IBM's system. They did, and the sales of MS-DOS made Microsoft a major player in the industry."

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine this morning, but does "they" refer to hardware vendors or IBM?-Wafulz (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Third richest?
But the list of richest people article has him at #1. Something is not in sync, methinks. Timneu22 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion: the introduction should mention that he was the world's richest person for 13 years, as this is what he is most famous for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.176.108 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC?!
Could someone please delete the false section about Bill Gates working for the BBC. jees 86.26.203.236 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Frank  |  talk  21:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Misread reference
Reference 33 which the article claims has a mention of what Bill Gates says when coders are procrastinating says nothing of the sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.143.79 (talk) 16:57, June 24, 2008 (UTC)


 * Use your web browser's "find" function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.13.64 (talk) 06:49, June 25, 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates
Very interesting. I did not know his name was really William Henry Gates III. I am a big fan of Microsoft. I am a fan of Bill Gates and Paul Allen as well. My mom actually talked to Bill's father a long time ago.

TechGurl762 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by: TehGurl762

Not Richest
Bill Gates is not the richest man in the world anymore. It is this other guy or whatever. I don't think Bill is richer than Oprah Winfrey. But it doesn't matter.

TechGurl762 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by: TechGurl762

?
I thought Bill retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.7 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And? WillOakland (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... He left his day-to-day role at Microsoft on June 30, 2008. He is still chairman of the Microsoft board of directors and the company's largest shareholder. Bill retired from Microsoft as Chief Executive Officer in 2000. 213.89.174.32 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote sourcing
I'm concerned about the sourcing of articles--I've been following some, and finding that there is definite misconstruing of sources.

That is not appropriate in any circumstance. I'm going to continue working on it, but would appreciate any help (just follow the source and see if it supports the statement its sourced to. If not, tag it with a citecheck or, even better, fix it!

Walker9010 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the sourcing in the section you tagged. Could you be more specific? WillOakland (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Gates pie
The license given for this image (Image:BillGatesPie.jpg) is invalid. It is not a work of the United States Federal Government - the pie incident took place in Brussels, Belgium (as the article already correctly states). My brother is a Belgian Microsoft employee on the Microsoft Office product division. I'm going to ask him about the status of this image, to find out if it is ok to use on Wikipedia. 213.89.174.32 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Management style
This section of the article is a mess, mainly the latter part discussing how he shouts at employees. If you actually read the sources that are given, you can see that the Wikipedia article is actually incorrect. Please can someone fix this? (86.152.246.38 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm still waiting for someone to explain how that part of the article is inaccurate, and on what authority vs. people like Tom Evslin, Rob Glaser and Barbara Walters who saw it firsthand. WillOakland (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Alma Mater
Would anyone object if we got rid of this from the info box? It looks overly sensational (Shocking news - Bill did NOT graduate!). Personally I think its rightful place is as part of the main content on the page.

As an aside, I noticed that there is no mention within their info boxes for two other well-known programmers who also dropped out - Paul Allen and Steve Jobs. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the "dropped out/honorary degree" bit because there was a bit of back and forth between two other editors who kept changing it between "graduated" and "did not graduate", which were both partially right. Still, I don't think it's "overly sensational", it's simply not straightforward so it takes up a bit more space than normal.  It's factual and interesting, so it shouldn't be entirely removed, but I don't have a problem if it's moved into the body of the article. --  Hi  Ev  19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Education
The articles states : "He did not have a definite study plan while a student at Harvard, and eventually took a leave of absence in 1975". But then you don't say what happened next. A "leave of absence"? Did he go back? Was this his last formal education? etcetera.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.184.110 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought he was a Harvard drop out SamanthaG (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Views on religion not allowed?
I'm just curious to know why there can't be a section on Gates' views on religion. I think this adds a necessary human dimension to the Personal life section. If anything, this section should be expanded rather than deleted. In fact, I'd like to see a section on Bill Gates' overall views, including his political views and philosophy (if any). Rather than revert the edit, I thought I would post here for discussion. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kww said that he removed it because, "views on religion: not relevant to Bill Gates's notability, shown to have an impact on his career, or on his public perception: deleted as irrelevant". However, Notability says, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.  Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."  In other words, the reasoning Kww gave is not a valid reason for removal.  I kind of liked the section, so I don't see a problem with putting it back in.  Some might disagree, so be prepared to defend its return if you put it back. --  Hi  Ev  19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly allowed, just as I am allowed to remove it. Notability may not directly limit the contents of articles, but it certainly influences it. Bill Gates has views on many things: whether IHOP or Village Inn has better pancakes, whether we should have withdrawn from Vietnam, whether people that put ketchup on scrambled eggs are completely sane, as well as others. What makes his views on religion important? Why are they included, but his views on other topics not? It's notability that guides these decisions. His religious views haven't had any impact that I can detect, so I don't think they are notable enough to include. Feel free to provide reasons that they are notable enough to include, but certainly notability is a factor in deciding whether material is included. Kww (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, a persons religious and political beliefs are not akin to their pancake or scrambled egg preferences, thus obviating your entire comment. Furthermore, WP:NOTE does not in any way limit the content of articles.  It has been discussed many many times, and the consensus is clearly and unanimously against that interpretation of policy.  My point is that the article says very little about Gates's personal life, his beliefs, etc., despite having a section entitled "Personal life".  There is a TIME magazine article In search of the real Bill Gates which may provide some initial material towards developing such a section, but removing material on his religious beliefs instead of expanding it is definitely a step in the wrong direction here, and the reason for deletion has no basis whatsoever in policy.  siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a person's religious beliefs are generally of no consequence. They tend to mimic the beliefs of one or both parents. They serve as a social lubricant, and tend to make an individual behave in ways that are considered acceptable in whatever society he is in. That's about it. In some cases, they are of vast importance: I don't think you could reasonably discuss Billy Graham or Madalyn Murray O'Hare without making reference to their religious beliefs. There are many political figures that have solicited support from various religious groups and from people with specific religious beliefs: again, in those cases, some discussion of the religious beliefs of the person are warranted. Bill Gates doesn't fall into any of the categories ... his religious beliefs seem inconsequential, much akin to his taste in pancakes. Read WP:UNDUE, and try to determine what prominence his religious beliefs deserve in an article about him based on that. To give them weight, you need to be able to demonstrate that they have had some effect. Kww (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote from WP:UNDUE:An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.. So, what are your arguments that Gates's religious beliefs are significant enough to warrant a subsection? Kww (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are important enough to warrant a subsection. But I think that information like this is important enough to be mentioned in the article rather than just deleted whilst citing WP:NOTE (which is the wrong guideline, as I'm glad you have finally agreed).   I also think you may be missing the big picture here, that the "Personal life" section is clearly missing something to give the subject a human dimension, such as "Personal beliefs/philosophy/whatever".  I think a constructive direction, rather than wikilawyer over the meaning of various policies, would be to discuss such a direction for a possible addition to the article.  siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly Rabbit: You refer to multiple sources but if I search online I can only see four answers from Bill Gates (taken from two different interviews) on the subject of God and Religion.  Both of these interviews are over 12 years old and in no way is the topic discussed in depth - do you have something more current and meaningful? David T Tokyo (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To what are you referring exactly? siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit on the main page at 13:07 today. You refer to multiple sources and list three sources which, after you follow them through, refer back to a David Frost interview (1995) and a Time magazine article (Jan 13 1996).  From what I can see, these are the only two articles in which Bill Gates has ever commented on God or Religion.  I can't refer to the Maury Klein Book as I don't have a copy - I'd be grateful if you could summarise the section within the book, and any other sources you may have, that back up the assertion that Bill Gates is agnostic. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The section of the book in question contains a comparative discussion of the religious views of various entrepreneurs. It says of Gates, ...Gates too became an agnostic "Loyal to no church other than a binary one."  The source for the quotation is the book by Manes and Andrews, "Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented Industry" (which I don't have access to).  I was considering referencing the Frost interview directly, but I couldn't find a transcript at a reliable source online.  If you know of one, please add it.  siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 16:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rabbit. I also don't have a reliable source for the interviews but I did find one page where the various quotes have been listed http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649. Whether this is complete or not, I have no idea.  I suspect (without any proof) that any statements that Bill Gates might have made that in any way reflected negatively on God or Religion would definitely be in the public domain so I'm tempted to think that these few statements amount to everything he's said on the subject but, as I say, I have no proof of that.  My concern is not so much whether we list Bill Gates as an agnostic or not but whether the case for calling him an agnostic, based on (what seems like) very limited and old evidence, is correct.     David T Tokyo (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] I am strongly opposed to labeling Gates an agnostic on the current evidence. The evidence is, apparently, Unless Klein actually quotes Gates as saying that he is an agnostic, we can't take this text as a reliable source on this matter. So, when it comes down to it, the only argument we really have is the Frost and Time interviews (both reported second-hand, but let's ignore that). Does this give clear proof that Gates considers himself an agnostic? I would prefer a clearer statement to this effect. I don't think we should go interpreting his claims as evidence of a particular religious viewpoint. Phiwum (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NNDB, a non-authoritative source which refers to the Frost interview,
 * Celebatheists, which refers to the same interview (and quotes it) and also the Time interviews,
 * The Klein text.

I have removed the category per the following editing guideline.
 * Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Phiwum (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of further discussion, here are the three references that had been given (prior to your deletion of the material in question) for the statement of agnosticism:


 * http://www.nndb.com/people/435/000022369/
 * http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Bill_Gates

Granted the first two are not very solid references, and I am still in the "discovery" process of finding more references. The complete TIME interview is here:


 * http://www.time.com/time/gates/gates2.html

in which Gates more or less explicitly self-identifies as an agnostic, albeit falling just short of actually using the term. I submit as additional evidence that the biographical-historical book by Maury also draws the conclusion (which is quite inescapable based on reading the interview) that Gates is an agnostic. I suggest that if the biographical text by Manes and Andrews confirms this assessment, then it should be restored to the article. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk ) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for copying the references. Sorry for deleting them during my recent edit.  I should have copied them here.
 * Let's focus on the Time interview and the Klein book, then. I looked at the Time interview.  | Here's part of what I found.
 * Melinda is Catholic, goes to church and wants to raise Jennifer that way. "But she offered me a deal," Gates says. "If I start going to church--my family was Congregationalist--then Jennifer could be raised in whatever religion I choose." Gates admits that he is tempted, because he would prefer she have a religion that "has less theology and all" than Catholicism, but he has not yet taken up the offer. "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient," he explains. "There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
 * I would not describe that as "more or less explicitly self-identifies as an agnostic." In fact, to the extent that he seriously considers the offer, he is not an agnostic.  Did you have another passage in mind?
 * Klein's conclusion is utterly irrelevant and so would Manes and Andrews's. According to the editorial guideline quoted above, we need Gates saying that Gates is agnostic (not "more or less", but reasonably clearly). Phiwum (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would put that closer to self-identifying as Christian. You notice that he isn't considering Hinduism, and I suspect that his Catholic spouse knows that she doesn't have to worry about that. Kww (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Silly Rabbit meant this passage:
 * Might there be some greater meaning to the universe? When engaged or amused, he is voluble, waving his hands and speaking loudly enough to fill the restaurant. "It's possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me." It's a mix of Descartes' metaphysics and Tom Stoppard's humor. "If so," he jokes, "it's sure going well for me, I must admit." He laughs; his eyes sparkle. Here's something machines can't do (I don't think): giggle about their plight in the cosmos, crack themselves up, have fun.
 * Right? Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul? His face suddenly becomes expressionless, his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at Microsoft that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis. Finally, as if from an automaton, comes the answer: "I don't have any evidence on that." Rock, rock, rock. "I don't have any evidence on that."
 * Again, not explicit enough to count as self-identification as an agnostic in my book. Surely suggestive, but not good enough for WP:BLP. Phiwum (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article now says non-religious instead of agnostic. I would rather it say "non-religious, raised Congregationalist", but rather than press ahead with what looks like may be another unpopular edit, I thought I would pool the talk page before making the change. siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 03:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, non-religious seems much closer to what he says in the Time article. Personally, I'm satisfied that this is consistent with the first condition of [Wikipedia:Categorization of people]], namely
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question.
 * The second condition?
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
 * Considerably less obvious. Not sure I care enough to fight the infobox entry, but don't be too surprised if someone else removes non-religious on grounds of irrelevancy.  Phiwum (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems very clear to me but maybe I'm reading the editing guideline incorrectly. Unless someone can provide evidence of a reliable source saying that Bill Gates' views on God and Religion are a relevant part of his career or public life, we shouldn't be including any reference to Bill Gates beliefs. If that's what the rule says then that's what has to happen. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that only applies to placing people into a WP:CATEGORY, not to whether information may otherwise be added to the article. siℓℓy rabbit  ( talk ) 13:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies - you're absolutely right.  David T Tokyo (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't know what happened in the latest round of edits by User:Contribut and User:Haru24. A great deal of text appears to have been introduced and then removed, and then a little more was removed than had originally been in the article. Contribut's edit summary was "added the other side". Anyway, at least one reference has been broken. I don't know if this is the only issue with this string of edits. Some further explanation would be helpful. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism once again
WillOakland seems determined to add the American Agnostics category to this page. This is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Personally, I'm unimpressed with the evidence that Gates is an agnostic. The Frost interview is suggestive but inconclusive, while the Time interview suggests that Gates has a certain openness to Christianity and nowhere has he explicitly said that he is an agnostic. Nonetheless, I've decided that the evidence is sufficient enough to label him an agnostic in the info box.

But the category is clearly inapplicable. From WP:BLP:
 * Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Call me a pedant if you wish, but the criteria are clear and Gates satisfies neither of them. Phiwum (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say, I am still stunned that people think the following sentence is sufficient proof of religious identification:
 * "I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."
 * That is very little comment to conclude what Gates believes. I'm still dubious that the info-box should list agnosticism on such flimsy grounds.  Phiwum (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather odd policy since the purpose of categories was traditionally to enable readers to find the people in them. The info-box entry was never my idea in the first place but was, if I remember correctly, added to placate you. WillOakland (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely it was not added to placate me! At one point, we had reached a compromise and described Gates as "non-religious".  That seems plainly evident in all of his comments on religion.  A later editor changed it to "agnostic" and I finally decided not to fight it any more.  There is something of an agnostic spirit in his Frost statement, but it is also a fairly short and indirect comment, not enough to justify claiming a particular religious belief on his part.
 * It is the category that is indisputable. Including this category is a violation of WP:BLP.  Maybe you don't think it should be, but it is. Phiwum (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources is the killer. Gate's religious beliefs are of no significance in his notable activities, public life, or even public perception. Thus, they don't merit a category.Kww (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill gates mugshot photo
what happened to it? its important because it shows HE WAS A CRIMINAL. and its funny. but it should be on uncyclopedia. either way, its a pretty important aspect of his life. It's the only time he committed a crime. plus, isnt he going back to university to FINALLY complete his education? D e v r i t 00:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * mug shot photos tend to be in the public domain and for that reason are quite popular in wikipedia. SamanthaG (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Richest American?
How come right now Bill G is listed as the third richest person in the world, but the richest American? Warren buffet is not American now? I think he would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.208.12 (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Buffet was the richest man in March 2008 with a net worth of $62 billion. According to September figures, Buffet is now only worth $50 billion. He's obviously not the richest man in the world any more and Gates must be second, or maybe even first again. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The list of the richest Americans is published every September. The list of the world's richest people is published in I believe every March so the rankings can change a lot from Marach to September. SamanthaG (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears because of the financial crisis he's lost ground  Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wealth of family of origin
The article described his family of origin as very wealthy. That sounded a bit over the top and POV so I changed it to "upper middle class" SamanthaG (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Management style
When someone removes a citation based on an incorrect belief that it doesn't support the text, and then someone else comes in and removes the text because it isn't supported by the remaining citations, that isn't very helpful. WillOakland (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill the richest american again
According to forbes. In the economic crisis he lost the least of them all so he's number 1 again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.66.104 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually...  Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Picking on One Charity?
unlike other major charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust.[53][54]

Is this particularly relevant? If so should there not be others here as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.9.140 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The ads
Is it really so notable to Bill Gates' character and background that it has it's own big, fully-detailed section? Really? We spend more space talking about that than his childhood. 129.120.177.60 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't think Bill seriously plans to invent edible computers, as Wikipedia suggests in this article. lol! 129.120.177.60 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in net worth
article do others generally have conflict with and need more supporting evidence? Is all the vandalism because of Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.180.26 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold text
Bill Gates.

STOP RELEASING SHIT AND WASTING PEOPLES TIME WITH HALF FINISHED CRAP

Insert non-formatted text here ''' during early childhood. We would all agree, however, that any such high score on a SAT He Got 300% test reflects great achievement earned through hard work and study, the behavioral key to success more than any innate factor.[[User:Tom Cod|Tom 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting a change to the article? That is what this page is for; not a discussion of Gates' intelligence. (Also, please don't remove other comments on the page; the one you displaced is probably not important, but in general you should edit below the existing sections.) Frank  |  talk  18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think his suggestion is clear. It is silly to translate SAT scores to IQ scores in a Wikipedia article.  The only source given is from a High-IQ society's 1998 annual report, which states that a correlation was reported in a book ("The g Factor").  It's not obvious to me that the citation supports the claim that a 1590 score "translates" to an IQ of 170, and the report includes caveats regarding the correlation.
 * It seems to me that the reference to IQ needs some work. The fact that the IQ of 170 was reported in the  press justifies the reference in the article, I think, but the claim that "an SAT score of 1590 was equivalent to an IQ of about 170" is surely much too strong, no?  I'll defer to someone who's statistics background is stronger than mine (this would include most anyone).  Phiwum (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we do need to stick with what citations from reliable sources say. Frank  |  talk  21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, but I'll defer to others to re-write the claim so that it is accurate. Any takers? Phiwum (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for the 1590 = about 170 is a chart published in the reference that converts many different test scores to IQ equivalents. It's not in the SAT section. Slackergeneration (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates' IQ is 165, not 170. According to this source, which is from a 'safe source.' http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Q&A/Q&A.htm - Brady 14:15, 23 February 2009
 * That's not a reliable source. That's just a wild guess on someone's part.  There's no data to back it up. Slackergeneration (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence. I've done academic work in the area of standardized testing score validity, and correlating IQ to SAT is just silly. For those who consider test scores important, the point is made simply by stating his SAT score. Decafdyke (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not silly at all. The old version of the SAT measured vocabulary, reading comprehension, math aptitude, and other fundamental skills that are highly correlated with intelligence.  In fact SAT scores correlate as well with IQ scores as different IQ scores correlate with one another.  Slackergeneration (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't be sure it's a reliable source, but the person who wrote the webpage clearly knows a LOT about IQ. When he says "safe source" we can't just assume it's an arbitrary number pulled out of nowhere. 1592 could mean that Bill got lucky on a few questions, his IQ range is probably between 160 and 170. At the 1550+ range, the SAT, we can say that a person's IQ is around 160 or higher - but due to ceiling effects, a 1590 doesn't necessarily imply 170. 170 is an extremely rare score. It means that you are smarter than pretty much everybody in the world...Bill Gates is a smart man, but he's publicly stated that he met people at Harvard who were smarter than him in his autobiographies. A 170 IQ pretty much lowers you're going to be THE smartest guy no matter what...trust me. Every IQ test (including the SAT, which I agree is essentially an IQ test) has a ceiling, and Bill's score is too close to the top to extrapolate the general trend and conclusively state his IQ is 170. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.201.66 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That is bogus. The links that purport to state his SAT are broken, the correlation discussion comes from a pseudo-scientific paper from an organization of outstanding test takers, and even if the links weren't broken I would be willing to bet that the stories are based on some apocryphal tale. This is the same for the IQ estimates of "great" thinkers of the past. Just because a person does something great doesn't mean they have some ridiculously high 170/180 IQ. You see this all the time with successful people. They try to redact their personal history so that it "makes sense" why they are on top. The only thing this proves is that the people who believe in these "stories" are in fact morons.99.33.94.134 (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honorary knighthood, "sir", and other irrelevant trappings of British aristocracy
I think the case should be made here why it is relevant to attach the initials KBE to Gates's name in the first sentence. Please explain here how this is notable for the current article. It doesn't seem like any other Gates biographies (including the official one) even mention his honorary knighthood. So for our article to emphasize it in the first sentence would seem to assign WP:UNDUE weight to it. Of course, the article rightly mentions the award later on. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC), BPhil, PhD, FRS, KFC


 * Also, in MOS:BIO, one finds the following style guideline regarding post-nominal letters:
 * "Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead."
 * Since, as indicated above, Gates seems not to have a particularly close association with Great Britain, inclusion of the initials seems improper. <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look back to Archive 5 for a full discussion on this. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The MoS link provided in the archive is better than the one I gave above. Thanks, <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Gates is not a British citizen, he does not receive the title "Sir" in front of his name for being a knight, but it is necessary to have the initials KBE behind his name to make that note. This is not a title, it is just to show the recognition of the honorable award he recieved. -(Tarheelz123) 12:45, 21 January 2009


 * See the discussion in /Archive 5, and the style guide. Specifically, "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare."  <font color="#c00000">siℓℓy rabbit  ( <font color="#c00000">talk ) 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion on Most vandalized pages
Hi, I help maintain the above page, on which Bill Gates is currently included. I've reviewed the history log of the article and it seems that there has not been significant vandalism in the past month, so I'm taking the article off the list. If vandalism becomes a problem again, please do not hesitate to put it back on the list. Hadrian89 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Katharine
Alert: There is a hoax going around the internet that show exclusive pictures of Jennifer Katharine (Bill's eldest daughter). These pictures are actually of actress Rachael Leigh Cook, who was born in 1979 as oppose to Jennifer who was born in 1996. Expect to see edits and vandalism added to this article related to this hoax. Clerks. (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spouses
Melina Gates (1964 - Present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt199407 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture
why is the main picture of gates a mugshot from his teens? that seems inappropriate to me. how about a normal recent photograph like we have for everyone else (when available)? Roadnottaken (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill Gates uses the exact same picture on his identication card in this TV commercial. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Roadnottaken. Not only is that just an advertisement, but it's only a joke ID card within that ad. It really should be changed, there must be plently of free images of Bill Gates available. DonutGuy (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It got me confused. I think we should keep it simple. Or put it in the middle of the article. Khullah (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle2600, what the heck? Don't fool around in articles, especially in biographies. The next user that uses the mugshot on the infobox gets very long holidays from the website. Seriously, that particular biography is sensitive enough without having to deal with that mugshot. -- lucasbfr  talk 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you threaten to suspend me? Wikipedia is supposed to be about free speech. Also, Be bold says, "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages." Why does every article have to have a bland, generic picture in the main info box? What's wrong with having some diversity in the types of pictures that are used? Why would you threaten to suspend me for posting a public domain picture? What about free speech? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about Free content, not free speech. Wikipedia's aim is to be neutral and balanced, and that is most important in biographies. Using a mugshot on someone's bio when the article is not around him being a criminal is not neutral, and ultimately is not responsible: this article is seen by 12 000 people per day, that means that 6000 people were served a biased picture instead of the correct one. I'm sorry but that is not acceptable, especially when Wikipedia is under intense scrutiny from the media due to its biographical content. -- lucasbfr  talk 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Grundle2600 - shame on you for invoking something as noble as freedom of speech in your reply. Your intentions here are plain to see - you'd like to embarrass or belittle Bill Gates by showing a mugshot, rather than a regular picture.  It's got nothing to do with free speech.   David T Tokyo (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to embarrass or humiliate anyone. Gates had a sense of humor to use that photo in the ad. I appreacite humor like that. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I'm a libertarian, and I think Bill Gates is a hero of entrepreneurship, capitalism, wealth creation, job creation, and private charity. I think it's ridiculous that the government has accused him of anti-trust, when people are perfecty free to use alternatives like Apple, Linux, Unix, etc. It's also ridicluous that the government thinks it's wrong that he gives his web browser away for free, when all the other companies that give their web browsers away for free, such as Firefox, don't get criticized for it. I don't have anything against Bill Gates at all. I think he's a great guy, and I wish there were thousands more entrepreneurs who were like him. I put the mugshot there as a joke, and nothing more. There was no ill will intended. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :) -- lucasbfr  talk 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary image links
editsemiprotected On Bill Gates' wiki entry there are unnecessary links that read: "http:// i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn128/girltickling/sally_black_large.jpg" and lead to some girl in a black suit. Please remove these image links.

Larogoth (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been removed. Thanks! -- lucasbfr  talk 07:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft keeping copyright on DOS
"Gates insisted that IBM let Microsoft keep the copyright on the operating system, because he believed that other hardware vendors would clone IBM's system"

While it was very prescient of Bill Gates keeping copyright on DOS, he could hardly have foreseen the cloning of the IBM PC. That Columbia Data Products and Compaq managed to clean room a version owes more to an accident of history. Unless someone can actually come up with a verifiable historical quote from Bill Gates. emacsuser (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gates had all the necessary information to reach that conclusion.
 * There had already been one wave of cloning in the personal computer industry: The Altair "S-100" design had been cloned by IMSAI, North Star and other companies.
 * Histories of the IBM PC are clear that the decision to outsource the components was made early on, in order to meet cost and time to market requirements. I think Fire in the Valley goes into this. The only proprietary aspects of the hardware were the circuitboard and the BIOS, and the BIOS was based on those that were used to make Altair clones run CP/M.
 * IBM, in particular, was routinely cloned. Gates mentions this here in discussing the licensing of DOS, and T. J. Watson Jr. mentions it in his memoir when discussing US v. IBM.
 * When Microsoft committed to deliver DOS for the PC, it made an agreement with Seattle Computer Products to be the exclusive outside distributor for DOS. At that point SCP still owned the system. So when Microsoft promised to deliver DOS, it didn't even have the authority to transfer the copyright. Only later, just before the PC shipped, did Microsoft actually buy the system for itself.

The cloning of the IBM PC was no "accident" but something that engineers and companies purposely set out to do, as they had with the Altair and several earlier IBM systems. It was a rather easy prediction for someone in Gates's position to make.

If the sentence in the article is inaccurate, it is inaccurate about Gates "insisting," and not about whether Gates expected the PC to be cloned. WillOakland (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Altair
The emulator they made ran on a mainframe, not a microcomputer. It just made the hefty mainframe run like the Altair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.134.158 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The emulator did not run on a mainframe or a microcomputer. It ran on a minicomputer, as the article says. WillOakland (talk) 06:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Altair BASIC was developed on a PDP-10 mainframe. File:Altair Basic Sign.jpg First at Harvard's Aiken Computer Center, then MITS rented time from the Albuquerque school district.




 * Page 208. About the PDP-10: "It was large–even DEC's own literature called it a mainframe. It had a 36-bit word length. A full system cost around a half million dollars and took up a room on it own."


 * Page 235. "When he was writing BASIC for the Altair, Gates was at Harvard. He did not have access to an 8080-based system, but he did have access to a PDP-10 at Harvard's computing center (named after Howard Aiken)."




 * Page 81: "Gates returned to the Aiken Computer Center, while Allen went back to work at Honeywell. But Gates soon faced a problem that could not be solved with his programming wizardry. Harvard officials had found out that he and Allen had been making extensive use of the university's PDP-10 to develop a commercial product. The officials were not pleased."




 * Page 83: "MITS would supply the computer time necessary for development–the computer time the Paul had worked out with the Albuquerque schools."


 * Page 88: "A DECwriter printing terminal was installed right there in the living room and linked by phone to the Albuquerque school district's PDP-10."

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

philantropy
there is a bit of mention of philanthropy here

is it still philanthropy if one is only nice to some charities, and deforming to others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecam (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially if he is widely regard as a philanthropist. It's not our job to editorialize about his effectiveness. If there's actually a controversy, there should be section that covers it. The introduction isn't the place to bring it up. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 13:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Donating to some organizations and not others makes him different from other philanthropists, how? WillOakland (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the controversy? That he can't donate to every charitable cause?  David T Tokyo (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction
Need to correct improper English:

Current: His 66,000 sq feet compound has a 60-foot swimming pool with an underwater music system, 2500 sq feet gym and a 1000 sq feet dining room.

Corrected: His 66,000 sq ft compound has a 60-foot swimming pool with an underwater music system, 2500 sq ft gym and a 1000 sq ft dining room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franclt (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)