Talk:List of members of the Forbes 400/Archives/2019

Other 380?
"List of Forbes 400" has only 20 names. Are the other 380 names copyrighted? Or is saving our eyes from a long list just more "value added" by a Wikipedia editor? Lol Jamesdowallen (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think either the remaining names should be added to this article, or it should be merged with Forbes 400 at its current form. Right now article's content is insufficient. Comments? Shalom11111 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The other 380 names are not copyrighted, so additional names can be added if someone would like to do that. Edit This statement is wrong, the list is copyrighted so the other 380 names cannot be added here. This article now has some of the past year's lists included so it is too long to be part of for the Forbes 400 article. So these should stay separate. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400&oldid=808050789  I agree it should be returned. see also. Bloomberg Billionaires Index I just haven't got around to it. GangofOne (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Serious copyright concerns remain with copying of the Forbes list. This should be discussed at the copyright noticeboard before any action is taken. On a side note, the previous version was rife with disambiguation links. If material is to be added, it should be done with greater care. bd2412  T 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GangofOne, thanks for showing us that edit - the most updated version of the list is basically ready (the disambiguation issue can be handled). I see that BD2412 brought up the matter to Copyright problems/2018 January 2, and there seems to be no consensus nor an ongoing discussion on it. (Personally I tend to believe it would be acceptable to display the full list on Wikipedia, maybe in a collapsed mode, and adequately give credit to the source which would enjoy the coverage). Anyways, please keep us updated on the subject. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The only comment that has been made at Copyright problems/2018 January 2 is to underscore the fact that this probably is a copyright violation, since Forbes uses its own proprietary methodology to determine its rankings. I am therefore now convinced that going forward with this would be a substantial problem. bd2412  T 18:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's some progress too. So for now, we can all agree the inclusion of the full list is not an option. If a reader would be interested in looking at the entire list, they could find it by going to the external link which directs to the current 400 richest Americans Forbes list. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Including the full list would be a copyright violation. Lists can be copyrighted if deciding the contents or the order of the list involves some sort of judgement from the person who put it together (see Copyright in lists). This link makes it clear that when compiling the list Forbes comes up with various estimates for the wealth of people when there is no publicly available data. This means that the contents or order of the list are based on judgements by Forbes journalists, which makes it copyrighted.  Hut 8.5  22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with what says. However, as I've already said at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, if the list is copyrighted, we can't host any part of it, per WP:TOP100, which tells us clearly that it is not acceptable to include "". The "partial listings" in the page should be removed (and revdeleted too). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the partial listing is deleted, then there is no list left, and the article should be deleted. bd2412  T 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps redirected to Forbes 400, where there is encyclopaedic content about the list? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would also be acceptable, but any infringement in the page history would still need to be revdeleted. bd2412  T 21:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that would mean pretty much the whole history to would have to be revdeleted it might be easier to just delete and recreate as a redirect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The partial list does not seem to be covered by copyright, since it is copied on other websites like Yahoo! and Business Insider. Since those two are only listing the first ten I will reduce the size of the lists. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , a substantial proportion of what we see on the internet is copyright violation – not just bittorrents and illegal content sharing, but vast amounts of what is on YouTube, people's websites that shamelessly copy from published sources, "viral" images repeatedly shared without regard for the rights of the photographer, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Wikipedia has chosen not to be a part of that, and has its own copyright policy, which is often more stringent than American law necessarily requires. Its our policy, it's what we stick to – and I think it makes us look honest, responsible and trustworthy that we do so. So what Yahoo or whatever chooses to do is their business (and for all we know is governed by some mutual back-scratching agreement with Forbes). It doesn't affect our options or choices. There seems to be consensus that this content is covered by copyright as a "creatively-compiled" list, both in law and under our copyright policy; our guidance on this specifically mentions partial recreations of such lists as unacceptable. I don't see any wiggle-room here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Could it just be that it is under fair use? With the exception of Wikipedia and some YouTube videos I rarely see a fair use rationale filled out. Obviously this would be not appropriate for our text as it is under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that the page be merged into Forbes 400. This page provides very partial and outdated lists, and the target article should cover the entire subject - people searching for Forbes 400 are naturally expecting to find the names of (at least) some of those individuals. Since the Forbes 400 article is quite short, a merge won't cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. It would be best, in my opinion, to redirect this page and merge only the 2017 chart, while providing links to past years or possibly putting them in a collapsed mode. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think its a bad idea to not merge the other years. Why do you want to exclude the historic data? Christian75 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did suggest the transfer of past lists, as long as they are displayed in a collapsed mode or in the external links section. For historical data, there is a different article, List of richest Americans in history.
 * Here's the problem: As seen at Template:Lists of people by net worth, the United States in the only country with a different article format ("List of Americans by net worth" redirects here), and content that relies on a fixed, outdated list - the latest Forbes 400 one, of 2017 - instead of the live, constantly updating official list of billionaires here. This poses an issue, because people who are rightly searching for the contemporary richest Americans are met with somewhat confusing and outdated results. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: If the article changes its name back to "List of Americans by net worth" or a similar title, and adds contemporary and updated rankings for 2018, there may be no need to merge it and create a new list of Americans by net worth, for the reasons explained above. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm guessing you have not seen the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems? There is, I believe, solid – though not unanimous – consensus there that we can't host any part of the Forbes list, for copyright reasons. Those considerations would not apply to a List of Americans by net worth compiled by Wikipedia editors from a variety of sources, and that seems to me an excellent solution. Meanwhile, I'm going to redirect this page based on that discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I have not yet requested revision deletion of the history of the page under criterion RD1, but will do so in due course. Shalom11111, if you plan to use any of the refs or running-text content from here, do please do so (or make an offline copy of it) in good time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did see that discussion and the one on this talk page, there have been mixed views about the issue in question; anyways I personally find the action you just took appropriate. I saved a copy of this article's second-to-last version, in order to soon use several names and links for the main Forbes 400 article. The article "List of Americans by net worth" should now be created, I shall give it a go if no one does. By the way, most of such lists rely solely on the Forbes website, and it has been this way without a problem for years. I'll try to incorporate the Bloomberg billionaire index into it as well. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now properly removed links to this page from other articles on Wikipedia, and re-created the article List of Americans by net worth which should meet the relevant needs. You are all invited to contribute to it. Thanks for a constructive discussion. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any opinion on whether the search term(s) "Richest American/s" should redirect to 1) List of Americans by net worth, or 2) List of richest Americans in history? The latter is the current state. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)