Talk:Forbes list of billionaires (2008)

Billionair missing on number 36 in the lust
I suggest another change. The is a member missing in there: Familie Brenninkmeijer (C&A): 18,5 miljard they are Dutch and living in the Netherlands

wikipedia source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_500 (2007 figures)

This has been the richest family in the Netherlands for years and their wealth is still growing (I have read the Quote 500 for years)

Can this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderhooijer (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake on the List headings
I am curious as to why the people's names are under a heading titled age, why the people's ages are under a heading titled Residence, why the rankings are under a heading titled 100 billion, why the amount of money each of them has is under a heading titled Citizenship, and why their citizenships and birthplaces are under a heading titled Sources of wealth. I can't fix this, but if there's someone who can, please do. 67.166.109.72 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Article or Ad for Forbes?
I question the need for this article at all. The list is available through Forbes website and it is simply Forbes opinion of wealth. For instance why count families in one ranking and not another? Why because it's Forbes's list. While I say Forbes has a right to publish a list, it is just their opinion and not a fact and if so why is there an article in the wikipedia about it. This amounts to a commerical endorsment for a magazine running a list of whom ever it chooses to include or dis-include 4.130.6.32 (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)eric

March 2008
I started work on User:Jklamo/List of billionaires (2008). Feel free to help, but do not forget to use Template:Inuse with proper parameters. --Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

uhm... so where are the druglords? 116.50.179.173 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mukesh Ambani
Only worth $20.1 billion (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_Mukesh-Ambani_NY3A.html). I just changed his article as well for the misquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.101.218 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
Jklamo, do you think this page needs semi-protection for a few days while the official Forbes list is still new? Maybe for a month, until a new issue of Forbes magazine is released. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, there were some constructive edits from anonymous IP at the beginning, but now most of them are vandalisms. --Jklamo (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous Legend
The arrows mean increased or decreased. I found this legend very ambiguous. One can interpret this increase/decrease as changes of the rank, or changes in their net worth. IMHO, changes in net worth does not always line up with the changes in ranking. Two billionaires can both increase their net worth, but one overtook the other to end up with a change in ranking too. I'd suggest clarifying the legend. I don't find it useful when no one understand what it actually mean.

The words "increased and decreased" are ambiguous when used in ranking. When rank 5 becomes rank 4, do you say the rank decrease from 5 to 4? Is 1 a higher rank than 2? So when rank "increases", should the number increase or decrease? It is simply too confusing and inappropriate to use these two words.

If the arrows are for networth, explicitly say net worth increased/decreased. If it is about the ranking, say move up or down the rank. Kowloonese (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one arrow in raning column, there is second arrow in net worth column. So i do not see problem in distiction here. If you think that formulation of legend is ambigous, feel free to edit in and improve it to be less amibous. --Jklamo (talk) 14:13, 7 March 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) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing he also has money in other investments, such as his place of residence or other property. After all, 42 billion is pretty close to 45 billion. Acastus69 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"A billion here, a billion there … " Too Old (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Who the hell is this prick Bryce Campbell? He's just vandalised this article, saying he's the richest man in the world! more like richest idiot! How gullible does he think we are, saying he got 100 billion dollars from something called 'Jurassica Productions'! Personally, I wait the day when this Bryce Campbell, if this is your real name, rolls over dead, and all others like him. Signing off, angry reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.251.202 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia is often vandalised, and if every time we became frustrated, the project would never move forward. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk  21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The guy added the person himself to the list. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, well I didn't think it necessary to check the page history on this occasion; I just thought it was someone angry about the vandalised addition, so that was the point in that message. PeterSymonds | talk  18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i will be the next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.56.186 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Who/what the bloody hell is Jean-Luc Lukunku? So I removed that name and replace it, rightfully, with Warren Buffett. 70.55.82.127 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism AGAIN. Ramennx claims to be 96 on the list. I'll be civil and ask for a revert. --165.21.155.117 (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref column
I'm unsure if there should be a ref column, especially since not everything has a ref. I believe ref's should go in the Name column. - RoyBoy 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei?
Last year Forbes estimated his wealth at 22 GUSD (1 GUSD = 10^9 US dollars) [] and rising world oil prices would probably have increased that amount as oil makes up a large proportion of his wealth, keeping him in the top twenty or even the top fifteen. For someone who I thought was considered the richest person in the world ca. 1997 in between periods of Bill Gates holding that title, it seems somewhat remiss for him to be left out, unless some qualification was added like the exclusion of royals; especially when you consider that the source list has about 1062 rankings and about 1125 entries, some of which are plural, going down as far as 1.0 GUSD []. --Thecurran (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been more than a week since I posted the previous comment but there has been no reply. As such, I will soon insert him with a very conservative 5% increase on last year's figure, given the recent boom in resources and the economies of SE Asia and Australia fed by rapid PRC development. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The list from Forbes, is supposed to be unrestricted. But Hassanal Bolkiah is not on this list, though as you say, according to Forbes (here), he had circa $22 billion in 2007, net worth I suppose. So there's a problem. Cena rium  (talk)  22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He is on the list as of the date of this article at #16, but as of March 5th, I can't find him on the list at all. What gives? Iamvered (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy to have his position moved if someone can bring up a more accurate figure. I am hesitant about having it removed outright. It just does not seem credible to me that without something dramatic like dying, his fortune could plummet by 60% or 13 million in one year. I imagine this must be an oversight on Forbes' behalf. Unless someone pushes to remove him from the page though, I am not tempted enough to actually write Forbes. :)--Thecurran (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "List of billionaires (2004)" and "List of billionaires (2005)" articles, the introduction states that the Forbes list does not include "heads of state whose wealth is tied to their position". That policy has been omitted from the more recent Wikipedia articles.  I assume that policy still stands with Forbes, and is the reason that Hassanal Bolkiah was not included.  I propose that we add a similar note to the current intro and restore the list to match Forbes.  -- Tcncv (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very good proposal but I believe it should only apply to an article with a name like "The 100 wealthiest people as listed by Forbes", "The Forbes List of the 100 wealthiest people", or "List of 100 wealthiest non-heads of state". Either way, such an article could do with a link near the top to "The Forbes list of wealthiest heads of state", which could be sourced from the link listed earlier in this convo. The article you propose would be better in that it is perfectly sourced but I disagree with it being applied to an article named "List of the 100 wealthiest people". If you wish to make this page a redirect or dab to a more aptly named one, I would also understand. :)--Thecurran (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Source of Roman Abramovichs wealth
Are you mongs really trying to claim that Chelsea FC is a source of Roman Abramovichs wealth??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.115.86 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Roman Abramovich generates no wealth at all from Chelsea. It's a play thing for him. I'll remove. Graemec2 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolled back changes
Someone was making massive (I assume good faith) changes to the article, but the intermediate results had numerous problems. I have undone the changes to restore a good copy for our users. I suggest any significant changes be made first to a temporary page, and then once the changes are complete and checked, move them to the main article. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To whoever you are, the changes you are making do not appear to be accurate or constructive, so I've rolled them back again. Please discuss them here before making any more changes.  Here are a few issues:
 * The numbers are wrong. The net worth of Lakshmi Mittal went from 45 billion USD to just under 6 billion in a matter on months.  This can't be right.  Other values are similarly off by an order of magnitude.
 * Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are not even on the revised detail list. Yes, you have their photo's above, but they should be on the list too.
 * The column previously labeled "age" is now labeled "member". This term is not defined in the present context.  Member of what?  The numbers don't help - 1, 2, 3, 7, 300?  What are these?  Apparently, they are no longer ages.
 * The net worth column used to specify "USD", but now shows "mil". I assume you mean millions USD, but by leaving out the currency, the reader cannot be sure what the column means.  The link from "mil" doesn't help either.
 * You do not state a source. Previously, this table was single sources on Forbes -  "The World's Billionaires" article.  This provided a consistent source which could be compared with similar data from prior years (such as 2007.
 * -- Tcncv (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that this list should remain primarily single sourced for consistency and should be clearly labeled as such. If other sources show drastically different data or document persons left off of the Forbes list, I think this data should be listed separately, possibly in a section labeled "Other sources". -- Tcncv (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This list is very frequently edited by IPs. I recently checked all the entries and this version, which is the current one, should be conformed to the Forbes source. If some reliable sources indicate differently, it's still possible to put them in notes or in another section indeed. Otherwise, we state that the data is from February, 12, so since Forbes is the only source for this date, the content of the list shouldn't be modified without explanation. Cena rium  (talk)  22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistake
Ernesto Bertarelli is really an italian. He was born in rome. I suggest changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanovich (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2008
 * Forbes lists his citizenship as Switzerland, both this year and last. It is likely that he has changed his citizenship. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
some son of a **** has gone and added obama to the list as #1. he deleted the #2 and made the original #1 the new #2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.9.128 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

MORE FU*KING VANDALISM!
someone changed the richest person to "vinoth" who had "$999.6 trillion. i tried editing this to warren buffet, but it's still all screwed up. i tried changing the wealth to 60 billion (an estimate), but somehow that shows up as the united kingdom. that whole row is screwed up so if someone can change that it'd be great. also i got an "edit conflict when i tried editing it the first time and when i came back that row had changed even more. i got it to change the second time, but the timing makes me think this is enough of a problem for at least semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.66.112 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article back to "List of billionaires (2008)"
This article was originally created as "List of billionaires (2008)" (currently a redirect). It was apparently renamed to "100 wealthiest people" as part of an attempt to get it to qualify for featured article status (see the featured list nomination discussion here). I don't think this article will ever achieve that goal, and its present name is inconsistent with its predecessors - "List of billionaires (2004)", "List of billionaires (2005)", "List of billionaires (2006)", and "List of billionaires (2007)".

Since the article is a snapshot of 2008, and we will eventually have to deal with the 2009 list, I propose moving the article back under its original name - "List of billionaires (2008)".

Opinions? -- Tcncv (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think that this article is an important subject that needs be be consistently updated. While list of billionaires in 2008 would also be somewhat important, this article still deserves permanence, and should change at least yearly, if not quarterly.  I would not oppose the creation of a separate article that shows the people who were billionaires in a particular year; however, the title and subject of this article continue to be important. Matt White (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing the proposal, since there seems to be one in favor (myself), one opposed (Matt White) and no other interest. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the Rockefellers listed?
I always thought that the prestegious Rockefeller family would certainly be close to the top of the list. They had their hands in the two most money making markets in the world, which are oil and banking. If someone is more knowledegable about this, I would like to know why the Rockefellers are not included in this list.Goldwings (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (I've moved this to the bottom as is customary for new topics.) See Wealthy historical figures 2008.  That list shows past wealth and adjusts for inflation.  This list only shows current wealth.  -- Tcncv (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the Rothschilds listed?
For the same reason the Rockefellers aren't. None of the most wealthiest are because they are staying under the radar, using the world as their own personal video game. They don't want you to know who they are. They are playing everyone like a fiddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.66.30 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Naguib Sawiris
Is showing twice in the list. I doubt they're two different people. Zhuravskij (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching this. I have changed the second Naguib Sawiris back to Nassef Sawiris to match the Forbes source  -- Tcncv (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks. Sorry for being too lazy to do it myslef. :)

Bill Gates?
since when did he turn korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.101.16 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR DISPARITIES
Look at Buffet's and Gates' pages--Buffet's net worth there is 62 b, making him the richest. Gates' page says he's the third richest. And this page says Gates is the richest. Let's fix these pages. Brancron (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Brancron


 * I'm not sure what you are looking at. This page shows Buffett (not Buffet) as the riches and Gates as number 3, in agreement with their individual pages.  I don't see any recent changes that affected this either.  Could your provide more specifics?  -- Tcncv (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, this page has been changed. When I wrote that comment Bill Gates was #1. Weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs) 01:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Does this need protection of some kind, it's edited a hell of a lot and It's hard to tell vandalism sometimes Pi   Talk  -  Contribs  23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the history, I would tend to agree. Looking at the last couple of hundred edits, there only appears to be a handful of constructive edits that were retained.  That makes the other 99% vandalism and other unconstructive edits that were rolled back.  Also, since this article is essentially single sourced snapshot based on Forbes, there is generally not a need for any significant changes until the next Forbes (or equivalent) list is published.


 * The questions is whether the daily activity constitutes "heavy and persistent vandalism". Persistent - yes, but whether unconstructive 20 edits per day is considered "heavy" is up to the administrator's interpretation.  The best way to find out is to ask for indefinite semi-protection and see what the response is.  But I think it would be best to give others a day or two to voice their opinions before making the request. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and submitted a request for indefinite semi=protection. Never hurts to ask.  -- Tcncv (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Persistent vandalism has resumed immediately after release of one month semi-protection. I'm requesting indefinite protection again.  -- Tcncv (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

King of Thailand
Ok now why isnt the king of thailand number 6 or 7 on the list in forbes aug 08 version of the FORBES richest royals he is worth 35 billion dollars can some please put him on the list please????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.180.237 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added "The list does not include heads of state whose wealth is tied to their position (see list of heads of government and state by net worth)" to the opening section. This qualifying text was included in earlier versions of this article, such as Editing List of billionaires (2005), but was dropped in later versions.  You will find King Bhumibol there.  I hope this clarifies things.  -- Tcncv (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ok but im just curious WHY DOESNT FORBES count them in the top of the list though? does anyone know that because have been wondering about it for sometime now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.135.1.57 (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's Aburizal Bakrie?
According the Indonesia rich list, Aburizal Bakrie has $9.2 billion. This should make him the 96th richest man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.51.70 (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Musharraf
Under Notable Mentions, it read "Allegations of heavy-misappropriations have recently sprung up against current President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf." Musharraf is now the former president. Can someone correct that? Also, why is this article locked? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have made the correction.  This page is locked because of repeated vandalism from anonymous editors.  You can still make changes yourself, but you will need to create an account, which is a simple process.  -- Tcncv (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand vandalism is a pain in the ass, but isn't it a bit un-Wikipedian to require an account? I thought the idea was that anyone could contribute, and that having an account wasn't a requirement. 98.221.133.96 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of pages are not protected, so anyone can freely edit them. It would be nice if all could be that way.   Unfortunately, some articles, such as this one, seem to attract a greater amount of vandalism or other unconstructive edits.  In order to preserve the integrity of the article, it becomes necessary to apply restrictions.  However, if there's protection in place, it is very likely that the article is being monitored by one or more registered users, who can respond to suggestions and corrections such as the one you posted here on this talk page.  -- Tcncv (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of the 103 wealthiest people!
There are several positions with more than one person on the list, so that this list contains 103 people.

Given that there are three people at number 25, shouldn't Mikhail Prokhorov be at number 28 instead of number 25?

Or perhaps, the title of this article be "List of the 103 people with the 100 largest fortunes?" cojoco (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pritzker Family?
According to the Bloomberg Markets magazine (Oct 2008), the Pritzker family has assets/shares/equity in a number of companies, especially Hyatt hotels (100% stake). These total just under US$40 billion, placing them between 6. Anil Ambani and 7. Rinat Akhmetov. Source page- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_1008_trim1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Would edit but page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is ranked based on individual wealth (such as for members of the Walton family. Do you have information on what family members own what share?  -- Tcncv (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Forbes article sorted by name here. There are eleven members of the Pritzker family with shares ranging from 1.5 to 2.3 Billion USD, as of the 11 February valuation date.  Individually, they don't make the top 100 (but I sure wouldn't mind being on their Christmas list).  -- Tcncv (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
The news tonight reported that Bill Gates is once again the richest person in the U.S.

Is he also the richest person in the world?

The list needs to be updated to show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There does not seem to be sufficient information to answer that question. The new Forbes article here shows that Bill Gates's worth has increases to USD 57B and Swasti Ranjan  from HCL worth has dropped to USD 50B, but there's no current information information for Carlos Slim Helú.  Helú's worth was valued at 60 billion USD as of 11 February, but it is very likely that this has changed due since then due to many factors.  To attempt to compare these figures either assuming no change or applying some calculated adjustment would cross the line into original research which violates one of the main content standards for Wikipedia (see WP:OR).


 * That is why this this article is primarily single sourced with a fixed date based on research performed and published by Forbes, and follows Forbes's criteria (such as excluding heads of state). Other secondary information, such as sources of wealth, has been added from other sources, but the ranking and net worth values remains a snapshot.


 * A review of other top ranked billionaires in the 17 September 400 Richest Americans] shows that there have been significant changes in the last six months within the US ranks. In my opinion, it would not be accurate to attempt to merge current wealth values into the 11 Februrary (or other dated) values for non-US billionaires.


 * In fact, several additions to this list represent heads of state or values based on a date other than 11 February. I believe these need to be cleaned up (removed).  However, I suspect that others will have different opinions, so I'm going to leave this open for discussion in the topic below.  -- Tcncv (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the news article I read and the Forbes article talk about Bill Gates being the richest American, and they say nothing about him being richest man in the world. Stevv (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey
Q: Can data from different dates be accurately merged into this table without violating WP:OR, or should we stick with the Forbes snapshot date?
 * Yes, but only if there is a reliable source and we should also avoid giving undue weight to specific persons. That is why there is no place for Vladimir Putin on this list - neither do we have a reliable source, nor is his inclusion alone representing a balanced point of view. Then better to stick with the Forbes list. Although this list is surely not infallible, it is the best list available. ??????? ????/Blue Salo (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The provenance of this article is ridiculous and the observations of those who take it seriously are risible
These ’Rich Lists’, purported to be the academic analysis of such faux worthy institutions as Forbes, are of course little more than light entertainment to sell magazines. There’s another ‘Rich List’ published by the Sunday Times newspaper in the UK. The fact is that it’s near impossible to estimate the net worth of people who operate at this level, they have a thousand ways of concealing their affairs, which of course they mostly do, with the possible exception of many of the US tycoons, who despite the assertion of living in the land of the free, actually live in one of the most regulated and overbearing economic environments in the developed world. Europeans, especially the British, Dutch and Swiss, have evolved, over generations, the most convoluted and sophisticated international business operations. The use of ‘offshore’ companies and accounts is, by the standards of the incognisant and merely presumptuous, a game that extends well beyond the trite tricks of the Nuevo Rich with their Caymen Isles and other Island havens. Washington and Brussels have pretty much squashed these tiny countries ability to provide complete discretion under threat of total economic war. However, threaten as much as they like; there are a few havens which remain utterly unassailable to Washington and Brussels. Two such havens are Liechtenstein and Dubai, impervious for reasons that belong in another article, to the clumsy oafishness of mere politicians and their functionaries. From such places dynastic family clans, many actually and perversely in European governments themselves, have built up great and hidden wealth, free from taxation or any other government interference. The true scale of these ‘businesses’ will never be revealed. It’s an interesting subject in its own right but for the purposes of this articles conceit, in attempting to draw up a list of the rich that has any credence whatsoever, it is self evident, given the existence of such havens and a number of ‘elephant in the room’ type anomalies, such as the completely missing British Merchant Fleet, which just fifty years ago represented over half of all the shipping in the world (think, flags of convenience and Lichtenstein companies that own other companies that own other companies that own other companies ad infinitem)and the strangely enduring power, even within a democratic government, of the British Lords, heirs of the original pirates who once stole a third of the world before going ‘legit’ with their City of London merchant banks and other institutions. These are the guys who have no interest whatsoever in flaunting their wealth, a trick that has been honed to perfection over centuries. Their subculture has long matured beyond even being quietly self satisfied, never mind the slightest egocentricity, it’s a birth right for them, though they do own a disproportionate percentage of the worlds super yachts, perhaps the most flaunt worthy of assets but discretely hidden from the view of those who don’t frequent the rich lists own playgrounds in the Mediterranean and Caribbean (mostly flying flags of convenience of course. The Gibraltar Red Ensign is one of their favourites as it allows them to fly something that looks close enough to the British Red Ensign)

Another anomaly that has entertained rich list authors over the years is how to assess Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and her family. At one time the Sunday Times list put her at number one but then in subsequent lists declared that her personal wealth did not include the assets of the Crown (Crown and State assets are not the same); however it is a very moot argument and not one that will ever be decided in any court of law for fear of undermining the fundamental principles of property ownership which in any event would find that the Queen does indeed own, as private property, all of the assets of the Crown. The fact is that the Crown Estates and other assets include fabulous arts and treasures collected, received and stolen from every corner of the world over the last half a millennium and vast areas of land measured in the thousands of square miles, much of it in highest value city areas but also rich farm lands,  castles, palaces the entire shoreline of the UK between low and high water and the Crown lands of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other places. By any accepted legal definition, these assets are the personal property of the Queen and would have a value in the trillions, making Her Majesty the world’s only trillionaire. The fact of it being a problematic legal conundrum is irrelevant. There are other nice legal conundrums with the Crown in that the Armed Forces of the UK and Dominions are also the legal, property of the Crown. The courts, judges and QC’s (Queens Councillors) are sworn to the Crown, as are the officers and men of the armed forces. Put a value on that! As anomalous as these precedents may seem in the modern world, it’s the way the UK separates’ power, allegedly preventing the dictatorship of government. It’s not a system a brand new nation could formulate, it took the British over a thousand years, it’s only just getting nicely bedded in now.

But apart from the issue of Queen Elizabeth, the other somewhat unignorable facts relating to Discrete International Asset Management, as some like to so delicately call it (should really be called Legacy System of Global Piracy), make it clear that most of these tycoons will have incalculable assets far from the eyes of mere journalistic business hacks. Therefore this article, in its present form, can in no way be presented as some sort of learned tract. 82.12.254.182 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
Whay on this list arn't Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? He is in some other billionares lists.


 * Most likely because this list "The list does not include heads of state whose wealth is tied to their position (see list of heads of government and state by net worth)." -- Tcncv (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Abravomich
It's listed here that he's based in Russia, but over 50% of his assets are UK based. In fact if you click on him, it explicitly states he's Uk based. As I'm not a memeber, could someone please fix this for me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.199.136 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The primary source for this article here shows a primary residence in Russia (as of the snapshot date). This page also lists Moscow as his residence, but also indicates a general "Europe & Russia" residency.  I suspect the Sunday Times Rich List picked him up as a part time resident.  Without further evidence to the contrary, I think we should retain Russia as his residence.  -- Tcncv (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Trader-Joe's is owned by Karl Albrecht and not Theo Albrecht
If someone could correct that. You may also ad that Theo Albrecht owns the compandy Aldi Nord and Karl Albrecht the company Aldi Süd. Both companies contain the same name but are legally seperated entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.12.158 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(Moved to bottom of talk page, as is customary.)


 * I have changed the Aldi references to Aldi Süd and Aldi Nord as suggested. (The currently intentionally point to redirects, in case separate articles are created in the future.)  However, several sources looked at show Trader Joe's as owned by Theo, as shown in the article.  Do you have a source that shows otherwise?  -- Tcncv (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Trader Joe's is owned by Theo. I confused that with the Aldi subsidiaries in the US. They all belong to Karl Albrechts company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.152.22 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. If you notice any other problems, feel free to make improvements.  (For some pages, such as this one, an account is needed, but account creation is fairly simple.  -- Tcncv (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohammad Asif --> Warren Buffett

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.55.232 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 December 2008
 * ✅ Reverted Cenarium  (Talk)  02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratan Tata
Shouldn't Ratan Tata CEO of the Indian Tata company be also part of this list?. According to his Wikipedia page his networth is 50.6 billion USD which makes him forth richest man in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.125.177 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for noting this discrepancy. I looked at the edit history and found these changes that were made to the Ratan Naval Tata article on 19 December by an anonymous user.  The edits added the 50.6 Billion USD figure, but did not cite a source.  They also deleted most of the remainder of the article.  I searched and cannot find any sources supporting this figure.  I did find several similar numbers, but they either referred to company revenue (not net worth), or they were in rupees, not USD.  I suspect that the edits are either a misinterpretation of the facts or are intentional misinformation.  -- Tcncv (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan
Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. I guess he would be ommitted from forbes for being the brother of a head of state. either way he is reportedly very rich, but not included on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.140 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

and for that matter; the Sheikh himself Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Page has been vandalised.
Warren Buffet should be at No.1.
 * Yes check.svg Done Leujohn  ( talk ) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article back to "List of billionaires (2008)" (again)
At present there is an ongoing deletion proposal that appears headed for a keep consensus. (Those with delete/keep opinions should direct their comments to that page.) I propose we rename this article back to the original name - List of billionaires (2008). The Current name can be left as a redirect to the most recent available list (such as List of billionaires (2009). I had proposed this before, but that proposal gathered little attention at the time.  With the Forbes 2009 list coming soon, I've decided to bring it up again.

Reasons to rename:
 * This is part of a series of similar articles which are all based on the annual Forbes list of billionaires. The other articles are all named as List of billionaires (year) such as for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
 * This article was originally named List of billionaires (2008), but was moved here in an unsuccessful attempt to achieve featured list status.
 * The current name implies that the contents are maintained and up-to-date. However I do not think is is feasible for us to keep this list dynamically updated due to changing market conditions, currency exchange rates, sales and acquisitions, gifts, deaths, inheritances, and other factors that continuously affect the standings.  Attempting to do so would raise WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns.
 * Renaming it will better reflect the snapshot nature of this list.
 * The 2009 Forbes list will likely appear in the next month or so. Replacing the 2008 content with the new data would make last year's data less-accessible, unlike 2007 and prior year data which would be preserved.

Opinions? -- Tcncv (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename, but to an undated list kept up to date. There's no harm in keeping historical snapshots of the list for every given year, but the most encyclopedic value is the list which reflects current data. The name can be List of the wealthiest people, List of billionaires, or other such title. No need to limit the list to top 100 either; the list will never be comeplete, but that's fine. Any living person who has attained notability for his or her excessive wealth should qualify for this list. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the objectives is to rename this article away from a name that implies that it is maintained and up to date (Third bullet). Other than the Forbes list, total wealth information on individuals infrequently published.  There's also the temporal issue.  Updating the wealth information for some individuals in August may make them appear to change their rank, but tha may only be due to comparison of data from two different points in time.  Due to fluctuating markets (especially in these times) and monetary exchange rates, the comparison may nor be valid.  For example, a hypothetical report today that Buffett is now only worth $40bn would make it appear that he has dropped five positions in the rankings.  However we don't know if Helú, Gates, Mittal, and the Ambani brothers have also dropped in wealth such that the standings remain unchanged or have changed in some entirely different way.
 * I would suggest that updates through the year be added to the section following the baseline list. That would allow new information to be included as it becomes available.  -- Tcncv (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike Forbes, I am not too concerned with the accurate rank at any given moment. There are 13 people on the list all between $18 and 20 billion--as you mention, how likely are those to stay in that specific order for more than a few days under the current stock market conditions? For me, the encyclopedic value comes from having a list of people in that general wealth range, say, above $2 or 3 billion, and a rough estimate of their net value and source of wealth rather than an accurate daily figure. Owen&times;  &#9742;  23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious Denomination
In addition to national identity I think it maybe interesting to add in religious denomination. This could help confront common misconceptions about religion and wealth. Sucubi (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

new rich list
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm

new rich list
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.61.198 (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In case no one has noticed, this list is now wrong...
Due to the falling economy, the list and order have changed, this is my source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7938227.stm of course, the article says it doesn't reflect any changes since 2008, but if there is no rule against fixing it, then someone with more data than I ought to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2009 list is expected out this month (if not delayed due to recent economic volatility) and this one will likely be renamed back to List of billionaires (2008).  There is insufficient information available to editors to keep this list both continuously updated and internally consistent throughout the year.  However, Wikipedia does augment the basic data with year-to-year comparisons, income source information when available, and links to articles on the individuals.  Those linked articles may contain more recent information.  -- Tcncv (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Started List of billionaires (2009)
The 2009 data is out. Work has started on the List of billionaires (2009) article. If you are interested in contributing, I suggest you coordinate efforts on that article's talk page to avoid conflicts. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)