Talk:Jeff Bezos/Archive 2

Life extensionist?
You recently added "Category:Life extensionists" to this article. I removed the category because I don't find anything in the article about Bezos having an interest or activity in this field, but you restored it. You also added this category to the articles about Paul Allen and Bill Maris. This does seem appropriate for Bill Maris, based on his article, but I find nothing in the Paul Allen article showing interest or activity in this area. Could you please explain your reason for including Bezos and Allen in this category? We would have to add sourced information to the articles to support its inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice your edit summary when you restored it. Categories don't require citations, but they DO require something in the article to show why we are putting the subject in that category. I'll take a look at your link http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/31/google-co-founders-and-silicon-valley-billionaires-try-to-live-forever and see what we can add. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I added something. And I'll take a look at the Allen article. Sorry to bother you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I couldn't find anything about Allen. If you are talking about the Allen Institute for Cell Science, I find it is described as studying cells to fight disease; I don't find anything about life extension. Same for the Instititute for Brain Science. Do you have a link or something to tie him to the Life Extension area? --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Paul Allen. I accept he's an edge-case however http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2015/10/billionaire-philanthropists-funding-anti-aging-research/page-01 Deku-shrub (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. That probably isn't a strong enough link; it appears to be the life-extension people, putting their own interpretation on his activities to conclude that his institutes are indirectly related to their subject. "Allen donated $100 million to establish the Allen Institute for Cell Science, which models the complex mechanisms of living cells. Predictive models of the cell could accelerate the development of treatments for age-related diseases, and, conceivably, for aging itself. Allen is not the only billionaire whose donations might—at least indirectly—affect life span. But such philanthropists are extremely rare." (my emphasis) If you don't mind I am going to remove the category from the Paul Allen article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Childhood ranch
Is anyone able to find reliable third-party sources to know whether he grew up on the NRHP-listed Cotulla Ranch or another ranch please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Approved Amazon to meet with Dictator?
There's a story out that Amazon will be meeting with Dictator Prayuth Chan-Ocha of Thailand in November.Whether he directly approved it or not, he is responsible for the meeting occurring as he is still CEO of Amazon. If this goes through, it should be noted in Jeff Bezos profile that he is willing to put human rights aside to talk business with dictators. NaturalEquality (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017
jeff bezos is the world's richest man, with net worth of 90.3 billion dollars surpassing Bill gates(89.3 billion dollars). 157.50.14.151 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus  05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeff Bezos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727225745/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0int-1 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0int-1
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65rP9SPPk?url=http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727231249/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0int-6 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0int-6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150909064605/http://techland.time.com/2011/03/09/five-rich-tech-titans-and-what-theyve-given-to-charity/slide/jeff-bezos/ to http://techland.time.com/2011/03/09/five-rich-tech-titans-and-what-theyve-given-to-charity/slide/jeff-bezos

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeff Bezos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812163149/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085661_1_washington-post-co-jeff-bezos-graham to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-05/national/41085661_1_washington-post-co-jeff-bezos-graham

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wealth subsection with data and chart
I created the subsection from the 'Recognition' section and added figures and a chart. I did this because, being the richest person on Earth, I felt it warranted. The figures were taken from previous versions of this article. All figures were sourced in those versions using mainly Forbes, so likely accurate. I hope this is seen as good new content which visitors will be happy to see. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017
Typo: Under section - recognition, subsection - wealth, the first line reads "...Bezos' weath has increased..." Change "weath" to "wealth" 2601:601:1900:C8D0:CC40:7373:5C2E:3DDD (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done shiv am (t) 17:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Typo in Section Politics
moment --> Movement (I can't edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.34.156 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

wealth update
is there a way of linking that wealth figure with a real time chart ? the wealth figure needs an update again, it stands at $103 billion as of january 5th 2018. source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:B44:D60:8D02:95AD:A60B:10BB (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Just updated wealth. ThaiTee (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, not a mention of his religious beliefs or lack of them?
Please add some detail about what his religious values are or why he has no religion. It's amazing this page avoids that completely. These pages are not tailored to personal wishes. They should be objective providing the same information/topics for all persons. 1.10.192.102 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We include information on our biographical subjects that is widely reported in published, reliable sources. Do you have such sources in mind for Bezos' religious values or affiliation? And can you explain why you think it is a defining characteristic of Bezos relevant to the reasons for his notability?  We are not constructing a catalog of religious and/or irreligious people here; to mention someone's religious views, they must a) be well sourced and b) have some relevance to the reasons for the existence of the biographical article. Contrary to your assertion, it is not appropriate to mention the subject's religion or religious views in every biographical article here, and we do not attempt to do so.  General Ization  Talk  22:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. Almost every article about a person who is notable contains a "blurb" about their religion.  Especially Jewish persons.  Almost every article about famous people I can think of contains words on their religious beliefs.  This is an extreme exception.  When responding to other's complaints, please stick to the facts and the truth.  To say "we do not attempt to do so" is wrong, and untrue.  It is easily proven otherwise.  98.194.39.86 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet you have not been able to prove so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Especially Jewish persons." why is this important?  also not every notable person has a religion section or information, since that info is not always publicly available with reputable sources.  if you find good sources with info on that please add it to the personal life bit.  do it yourself or don't complain about it!  wikipedians are not servants to make wiki fit anyone elses view, we are just supposed to add facts and take away non-facts. 82.9.94.243 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent gains subsection
Removed in this edit as unsourced. Are you also thinking original research? Trivia? Perhaps.

If, at another article, sources said "Mary started with 10 acres, and, using her farming profits, ended up with 20...", we could then paraphrase to "Mary originally had 10 acres. She eventually doubled that with her farming profits...", yes? That would not be unsourced nor original research.

Normally, I might call such Bezos content trivia. However, the amounts are so non-trivial. If we have sources that show his wealth was x and now is y, can we write about it somehow? We do have sources for the figures.

These are extraordinary recent gains, unprecedented in the world. They seem notable and worthy as content.

Thoughts?

Ping MelanieN.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , I do just want to point out that you mentioned in this revision to remove if deemed too trivial. I think the phrasing, combined with the lack of a citation, not the facts, is what is causing the issue. I would agree that this is unprecedented, and notable, but in its most recent format (including its own subsection) it does read like unnecessary trivia. Just my 2 cents... - Mformatt(So it goes.) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, Mformatt. Do you have any suggestion of what may make it work? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not sure how to avoid any WP:NOR issues. Even with current listed sources, it approaches WP:SYNTH, so I'm tempted to leave it out without a source specifically mentioning this. I wasn't ready to delete it myself while still published, but I also can't argue too strongly for its inclusion. - Mformatt(So it goes.) 18:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Mformatt. All things considered, I think MelanieN had good cause to remove the content. Thank you kindly for the thoughtful input. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it's OR but more fundamentally, it is trivia. It's not as if tens of billions of enterprise value can be instantaneously converted to greenbacks for a shopping spree. These extrapolations from the current share price are really kind of silly.  SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image
I found a picture of Bezos in 2016 (a year more recent than the current one which is 2015) that is permissible for upload. Should I update or is the current one okay? ThaiTee (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arpanet / Internet methodology was specified by Paul Baran at RAND Corp. in 1962. Bezos article says 1970.
By 1966 Arapanet was functional at dial up speeds within defense community. Please see references on RAND.ORG

2601:1C0:CB00:4A0:6804:DC0F:57B3:DE12 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Andy Clark

https://www.rand.org/about/history/baran-list.html  (formal papers from time period.) https://www.rand.org/about/history/baran.html

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018
It is stated that Jeff Bezos is a philanthropist, this is plainly not the case. Please revise this. 216.169.239.29 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is listed in the lede as one of several labels, and is supported with a section in the body. Maybe I'm missing something in this request. Kuru   (talk)  23:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Increase/Decrease Symbols for Net Worths are Bad: An Essay
A net worth is "the value of all assets, minus the total of all liabilities”. Take for example Warren Buffett. His net worth changes when the value of his assets change. The value changes when the market re-values them. This happens 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Its constant. Even when the stock market is not open, his net worth changes. Because of this his net worth is constantly increasing and decreasing. One second its $80.2 billion, another its $80.91 billion. In an hour it might be $79.0 billion. Over the course of a year it might change by a matter of tens of billions of dollars. We can’t add the or  symbol because we have nothing to compare it to. When did it decrease? By how much? From which value? It can not be done on a interval scale because there is no interval. Time is a constant. Value is always decreasing and increasing.

But why do companies have the shiny green symbols in their infobox? Because they’re companies. The and  symbols are usually tacked on to static intervals that don’t change. Year after year, the fiscal year is more or less the same. Their assets ether rise or decrease in that span of time. Their operating income, revenue, or assets under management change from one point to another and so on. You can track it. These parameters change annually, sometimes, biannually, either on a fiscal or tax level. Take for example Warren Buffet’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. Its infobox looks something like this:
 * Revenue: $200 billion (2017)  … Revenue: $300 billion  (2018)
 * Operating income: $20 billion (2017) …  Operating income: $10 billion  (2018)
 * Net income: $40 billion (2017) … Net income: $44 billion  (2018)

But hold on one second. Why do the net worths of people like Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Carlos Slim on The World's Billionaires list, have the symbols. Because they are measured on an statistic interval. Their net worths are measured every year on March 23. Thats an interval. We have no such measure for live human being’s net worth. We can’t even put the symbols in the infobox when their dead because of inflation.

Lets do a cross comparative analysis of discussions undertaken on Bill Gates talk page archives. One of the most prolific discussions occurred on 15 May 2006. Users debated whether or not the symbols were good. After Bill Gate’s net worth decreased by a couple of billion a user added this symbol to create: US$50 billion. Do you see the problem? It looks like Bill Gates is in debt $50 billion dollars. Thats a problem. Its ambiguity is probably why it is not included in Template:Infobox person and included on Template:Infobox company.

Lets take a look at a usage comparison on the decrease and increase templates:
 * For : "either increase, gain, or profit" (for the symbol in use). Its usage in infoboxs is mostly on |those of cities, companies, and governments.
 * For : "should be used to indicate company losses". Its usage in infoboxs is mostly on those of |a states' economy, political parties, and companies.

In short, you can have it in the article, perhaps |like this, but its not good in the infobox. Does it look good? Yeah. Green and red are vibrant colors that really catch your eye. However, its ability to be act as eye candy is not what Wikipedia is about. It adds nothing to the article and is not an improvement. These symbols are added ad nauseam by both unexperienced and experienced editors who just want to see a green symbol in the infobox. Its not present in the articles of Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates for a reason. Policies are enforced much more uniformly on those articles. Furthermore, just because a template does not explicitly rule something out, doesn't mean its okay to use. Having increase and decrease symbols is misleading and not helpful in conveying critical information. Let me detail another example to illustrate my point. I love Beyoncé. On Wikimedia Commons, there are |a lot of photos of Beyonce. There are a lot of photos that I think look good. But all of the photos I think look good aren't necessarily good for her infobox picture. I could say, "well gee, I love this photo of her because its 'eye candy'. Many people think so too." There are no rules that say I can't put this photo of her in her infobox, but I still don't. Why? Because it does nothing to improve the quality of her article. Many people have tried to put many photos of Beyoncé in her infobox. They are reverted time and time again–just like the and  symbols are–all in the hopes of improving the article. As for Jeff Bezos and other über wealthy subjects on Wikipedia the following links will be of help to guide your contributions to their infoboxes:


 * Template:Infobox person
 * Manual of Style/Biographies
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Manual of Style
 * MOS:CURRENCY
 * WP:COMMONMATH
 * MOS:UNITSYMBOLS
 * MOS:LARGENUM

In conclusion, I hope the following has explained the anti- and anti- camp well. In summation, these symbols are bad in the infobox because: 1) there is no time interval 2) because of reason 1, it is too difficult to pin its value as increasing or decreasing 3) its not mentioned on Infobox person, 4) according to the data most of the pages that use the symbols are not articles about people, 5) the symbols are misleading e.g. = debt? ∴  ≃ positive net worth? 6) the templates themselves (although weakly) warrant a concrete scale 7) most wealthy high profilers don't have it in their inboxes 9) the arguments for them are weak 10) Beyoncé and 11) there is plenty of good alternatives (e.g. detailing increase/decrease in a table in the article or writing a paragraph of a net worth's movement under an appropriate header). LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reasoned essay, and while iconographic symbols are in common usage as an indicator of movement, I don't see how you get past point #1 to debate the rest. Without a defined and constant interval, the delta is pointless. I assume all of these were here in when Forbes only did the annual ranking. Now, as people update them randomly according to whatever is in the real-time estimate, they just seem decorative. Kuru   (talk)  01:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This might just be the most detailed and most comprehensive response I have ever been given in a dispute (and such a minor one at that). Your reasoning is valid and excluding the mark does seem logical to me now, so thanks for this. Consider publishing the essay in Wikispace as a link-to policy . Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)