Talk:Warren Buffett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Historical Timeline

I like the information found here, I am just wondering if anyone knows of a cleaner way to present the data. --Tylerdmace (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Warren Buffett entry being "dumbed down"

Looking back at the article content from 2006 and 2007, it seems to me that significant important content has been edited out of the Warren Buffett article possibly to keep is short for some reason or in order to add political and other commentary.AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Particularly severe content loss has occured to the Overview, Management Style and Investment Approach sections. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See also the "Article layout" discussion at the bottom of this page. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Andrew Carnegie" article a suitable template for the "Warren Buffett" article?

Around Feb 16, 2008 the Philanthopy section was removed. I feel that important and significantly definitive biographical information was also lost, so I've replaced it. In viewing the Andrew Carnegie page I see that his philanthropy merited its own section so in light of Buffett's record breaking donation, I feel that such a sub-section would also be equally useful for the Warren Buffett page. (Hopefully it's not a case of two errors...) In fact, due to the general parallels, the Carnegie page might be a suitably objective content template for the Warren Buffett page since time has provided a distance from much of the personal or subjective opinion likely held of him in his own time.

As noted below, I've also returned the Writings page after viewing the edits. Simply refering to Berkshire Hathaway articles or links is insufficient. This article should be able to stand on its own as a balanced representation of a famous individual that has written and spoken many critical and influential commentaries. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffet sold all of his PetroChina stake recently

http://www.foxbusiness.com/latest-news/article/buffett-tells-fox-hes-sold-petrochina-stake_324677_1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.48.148 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No Linking To Berkshire Hathaway Without Written Permission?

Read the disclaimer on the Berkshire Hathaway website:

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/disclaimer.html

Note the boldfaced portion towards the end, the relevant portion of which reads:

"...linking to this website without written permission is prohibited."

To safeguard Wikipedia from potential liability, should the links to their website be removed? If not, why not, and what is the legal basis for flouting their stipulation?

216.164.159.128 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because they claim something is prohibited, doesn't mean it's against the law to do it without their permission. If there's no law being broken, there's nothing they can do. KonradG 23:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with linking to the site, but to be polite, I just sent them an email asking for permission. --Zippy 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My first reaction was along the lines of... "these people truly are backward st*pid f*cks who don't get the way the web works." But then, that's part of the charm! :-) I guess we'll see if they grant us "permission" to link to their site.

216.164.159.128 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The boldface section at the end no longer indicates that linking to the website without permission is prohibited. It now prohibits unauthorized reproduction and distributions, which seems like a more legitimate request. Besides that, legally, you can link to any site you want to. There is no legal liability in doing so. Rray 05:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is their reponse to my email :) --Zippy 17:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good outcome! 216.164.159.128 19:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit: Hmm... on second glance, the wording in bold is still there. Weird. 216.164.159.128 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a dated website. vlad§inger ^tlk 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Silver price?

Minor point, but how much did Buffett pay for the 130 million ounces of silver that he bought? This article says around $6/oz., while the Silver as an investment article says $4.40/oz.

Buffett's buying forced the silver price up from $4 to $7 per Troy ounce.

I don't recall that his buying affected the price. Instead, the price rose sometime after his purchases became public knowledge. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First Investment?

How does someone earn $1200 from a paper run in 1944???? Surely there is more to this than what is there. He must have inherited a large sum of money at that time, 1200 dollars at this time was a great deal of money.Nick

Agreed. Added citation needed tag. I think he did a paper route, used the money to buy a pinball machine, used the revenue from the machine to buy two more ... basically traded up to the $1200. yes, here it is. In "The New Buffettology", Mary Buffett (ex-wife of Warren's son Peter) writes "At six, he entered into his first business operation by buying bottles of Coca-Cola, six for a quarter and selling them for five cents apiece to fellow vacationers at Lake Okoboji, Iowa. He memorized the book A thousand ways to make $1,000 and began saving most of what he made delivering the Washington Post and running a pinball business....[He] made his first stock market investment at eleven (three shares of Cities Service) and by the time he had graduation from high school, at seventeen, had amassed $6,000."

While this doesn't contradict the "$1,200 from paper route" claim, it does say he had other revenue and investments before, during, and after the route. --Zippy 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read many Buffett books and I recall reading one which stated that he had five paper routes with 500 customers (apartment complexes, I believe) and he was very creative at upselling magazines as well as tough on collections. I also recall a chapter on Richard Rainwater in a book by John Train which corroborated Buffett having multiple routes. In fact, if I remember correctly, it mentioned that Rainwater did Buffett one better because he never physically did routes but received commissions off other workers!

Timeline

The following was removed from the talk page by 66.198.139.189. [1]

I don't like the timeline. This is supposed to be an encylopedia, right? Such a timeline doesn't belong here. [Unsigned comment]

Warning: the Timeline section was evidently copied from "Warren Buffett Timeline" by Joshua Kennon:

- http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/warrenbuffett/a/aawarrentimeln.htm Shawnc 06:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the majority of the timeline, both because of the copyright violations mentioned above and as part of a general cleanup of the article. KonradG 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is great. It keeps adjectives out, and focuses on factual numbers. How much money did Warren Buffett have back in the 1950s and 1960s? Exactly how much was his net worth each year?

I like the timeline, how does it continue?--Jerryseinfeld 16:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

As users harvest more facts, the timeline will grow. But for now it is focused on the beginning of his investment partnerships, the area in which the most myths are found.

The timeline is designed to set the record straight.

I enjoyed the timeline too, but it seems as though they're filled with uncited "legends" though. Unless there are concrete citations on some of the claims (like making $175 / month in 1945 at the age of 15), can we really regard it as more than an interesting read? Is it truly a "fact"?

Aw I loved that timeline. It was a rare gem. Some meanie had to spoil the fun. --Tilmitt 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a great deal of the timeline was copied from another website. However, it did contain a lot of valuable info, so it might make sense to see what can be salvaged from it. If you feel like doing it, you could cut out or summarize the copyrighted parts and make the entire timeline a sub-article of this one. That way it can be as detailed as necessary without detracting from the main article.KonradG 20:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"This is supposed to be an encylopedia, right? Such a timeline doesn't belong here." Copyright issues aside, I'll have to look up Encyclopædia to see what what does belong. I see that Britannica uses them.

My opinion: I don't think Wikipedia style is to do biographies this way, especially the inclusion of empty headers for non-noteworthy years. Rather, it should be written as prose. I added a cleanup tag to this effect. I'm not saying any information should be removed (though everything should cite a source. Absolutely everything). But please take care not to just adapt it by removing the bullet points and saying "In 1963, he...". This is proseline and worse than a list. What is needed is writing proper prose to put things in context. Notinasnaid 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the empty years bizarre and inconsistent, apparently randomly added for some years but not others (one was added today). I deleted all the blank years here [2]. Notinasnaid 12:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Warren Buffett's views on earnings smoothing

Warren has pointed out that auto insurance is earnings smoothing. You make several small payments (insurance premiums) to avoid one large loss (vehicle damage).

There is nothing unethical about earnings smoothing.

But it is unethical to intentionally distort or manipulate earnings.

Warren Buffett's views on Taxes

Warren Buffett is firmly in favor of higher taxes for the rich and lower taxes for the not-so-rich.

Is that so? His actual income as opposed to his wealth is not exception, so his tax bill is not so high. His friend John Kerry also pays very low taxes in relation to his wealth.58.162.6.52 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

He used his own properties to illustrate an example.

His home in Omaha, Nebraska is valued at about $0.6 million and recent annual property tax was $14,401.

His home in Laguna Beach, California is valued at $4.0 million and recent annual property tax was $2,264.

Buffett said in the Wall Street Journal interview that taxes on his Nebraska home grew by $1,920 this year, while those on the California home rose by only $23, thanks to limitations on increases in property tax established by Proposition 13.

"In effect, it makes no sense," Buffett told the Wall Street Journal, in reference to large differences in tax assessments by region.

His views on taxes, however, came into question when he accepted a 20 year property tax break from the Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS in order to place his "Nebraska Furniture Mart" in Kansas City.

If it turns out to be true, it might be reasonable to say that Berkshire Hathaway subsidiaries do not necessarily follow Buffett's beliefs about taxes, but it would be unreasonable to say that the actions of an independent, relatively small subsidiary of a conglomerate automatically call Buffett's beliefs "into question." --Zippy 01:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In the 2003 annual report he provided a stat that his company paid 2% of total taxes paid to uncle sam. He mentioned that if 540 companies paid the same amount of tax then no one else, busines, individual or estate has to pay any kind of tax to the government.70.29.95.31 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)sami

Buffett told The New York Times that the inheritance tax played a "critical role" in promoting economic growth by helping create a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance. Repealing the estate tax, he said, would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." Does this make sense??

Not really, but some editors are determined to make this article a hagiography. His views on dividend taxes totally ignore the ethical problem of double taxation, avoided in Australia's dividend imputation scheme.58.162.6.52 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The ethical problem of double taxation?

Schwarzenegger campaign

What was Buffer's relation to Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for CA governor? --NeuronExMachina 02:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

picture is located on http://www.nndb.com/people/445/000022379/ Buffett was an economic advisor to Schwarzenegger during his campaign. He was involved in some controversy surrounding property taxes.

Jeff Albro

I can verify this. When Schwartzenegger was first campaigning for the governership, he asked Warren Buffett to be an economic advisor. Buffett made a public statement that California's Prop 13 tax limits were bad for California. This is true, but is politically a very unpopular statement to make as it implies that the candidate will raise taxes.

--Zippy 21:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correct. "Schwarzenegger told Buffett he would have to do 500 push-ups if he mentioned property taxes again." [3] Schwarzenegger rejected Buffett's advice and has instead resorted to a $15 billion bond issue, leaving the problem for future Governors to work out. JamesMLane 10:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Facts and myths

I snipped the following from the articles. Unless somebody can prove it.

Also he is a huge fan of The Coca Cola Company and he drinks about 15 cans of Coke each day.

Well. Buffett has stated many times that he's a big fan of the company (he owns an enormous chunk of it - see his website) and their product. I believe he's also said that he buys Coca-Cola by the pallet, but whether this is because he consumes an enormous amount, or simply wants to buy it at the lowest unit price, I don't know.

So, the "Buffett is an enormous fan of the company and its soda" are true. If he does consume 15 cans a day, it should be easy to find support for this, as it means he'd be a chain-drinker; 15 cans a day is one can per waking hour.

--Zippy 18:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In his 1991 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Buffett says he drinks five cans of Cherry Coke every day --Zippy 18:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if he likes the new cherry-vanilla cokes? Wish I could be in Ohmah this weekend to ask. --Dragon695 20:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please change "He is regarded as one of the world's greatest stock market investors" to "He is regarded as the world's greatest stock market investor of all time". There is no-one else who could even be compared to him. This fence sitting is ridiculous and unnecessary. Why can't we just be accurate?

At the speech he gave at the U of F in 1999 I think he told the audience that he chugs about 5 of 'em every day.--Ewiger Besserwisser (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

'Buffett : Hero or Zero ?'

I have a real issue buy yet profound admiration for Buffett and still undecided about him. (What does what you think about Warren Buffett have to do with what gets written about him in Wikipedia? These are supposed to be non-opinionated statements about his history. - JettaMann)

On one hand he is the 2nd richest person on the planet, but I see little contribution to Charity, trusts, or legacy from this enormous wealth. In contrast to his good friend Bill Gates, there is no active trust for good causes. I much prefer and admire the Andrew Carnegie principal of giving back one's money to the betterment of society through his own actively managed and directed charities and ideals. Like hundreds of millions, I have benefited from the Carnie wealth through use of libraries and his setting up the library as a essential prerequisite of a just and civilized society.

As an insurance man, Buffett is patently aware that his own personal mortality is fast approaching and so far I only see, with no plan other than to take his money to the grave and be known as the richest dead man. It is as if it were the pure desire for money as an end in itself, rather than the attaining the positive things that money can give to an individual or society. Whilst admiring and agreeing with his philosophy that too many rich men flaunt their wealth, it also seems that, like many, he is unable to personally enjoy his money and get pleasure from others benefiting from his huge wealth. Whilst not arguing that he should just tip his money into the bottomless pit of a plethora of charities, were he could not direct and control the spend, surely there are enough good causes, close to his heart, that he would personally like his name and/or money associated with ? This ideally would be a big idea or programmes.

For example:

Female literacy campaign. As a numbers man, Buffett willl be aawre of the proven link between female literacy and number of births per female. More education, less births. In assisting perhaps the biggets macro problem facing the earth today - Population control. Millions of women suffer very painful deaths in Africa/Asia from premature pregnancies at very early ages, bad hygiene and would choose not to be pregnant if they had the right sex education. Every life should be cherished and every new life welcomed and chosen. But highly contentious in an America whose large Catholic community are guided by a principal that does not allow condoms in an Aids ravaged world. Sorry to be so contentious.

Financial education - Buffett has rightly popularised share ownership and value investing yet millions of Americans cannot read or write or have any financial literacy at all. Even more have no idea about personal finance. Like many my Buffet books take pride of place on my book shelves, this man has to much to teach the world and such an example to give. If Presidents followed the Sage's advice we would not have this crippling debt crisis looming ever larger ahead of every American. Likewise, this campaign could go WW. Clean Water - Hundreds of millions in the world do not have the access to clean water that can be easily obtained through a simple well. A simple human essential. Environmental - he could buy huge swathe of land for public Parks WW and to be kept in pertuity as environmental havens. Food - Millions of American go to bed hungry every day, his setting up and supporting a charity would publisice and help solve this terrible fact.

The list is endless, surely, a life leaving behind so much good would be much better than just being known and dying as the man who made just made billions. Perhaps he does donate anonymously, but a high profile demonstration of giving, sends very strong examples to the rest of us WW.

Secondly, to not hand over without a clear succession plan is perhaps the ultimate, demonstration of a giant ego ? "I die my companies success may well die with me". Personally I do not think this, as this man has been hands off for some years, the power of his simple approach guides just guides the company - like a true Sage.

Other than that his success and our admiration for him counter all of the above, we all just need another Carnegie. World Wide the millions of millionaires need a guiding example to help make this a better and more just world. It would be such a fitting perpetual symbol for the Sage to now set up this legacy now whilst he has the opportunity.

UPDATE! Go ahead and take your foot out of your mouth. Buffet has planned to give away his fortune for along time, and now he's found a good way to do it.

Looks to me like you got your wish, and a bloody good thing too. Procrastinator supreme 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I'd want to see evidence for the claim that he voted donations to abortion-related causes. Thanks. Pakaran 02:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Buffett has donated money in support of abortion, but I believe it's common knowledge that Buffett personally contributes to Planned Parenthood. Also, Berkshire Hathaway donates money each year based on the votes of its Class A Shareholders; these shareholders choose charities, and the company donates money to the top choices. So, it's possible that Berkshire Hathaway has donated money to Planned Parenthood as well.

I don't have cites handy for the former claim (Buffett's personal donations) but any biography on him or a web search on Buffett and Planned Parenthood should turn up supporting information. For the latter, the Berkshire Hathaway annual report spells out the program for Class A shareholders. --Zippy 07:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the program, and it does look like Buffett has personally voted some of these donations, and donated personal money to pro-life causes vuia his foundation [4] [5]. I'll remove the disputed tag. Pakaran 22:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"donated personal money to pro-life causes" -- I think you mean pro-choice. --Zippy 11:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

if you go to Damn Right chapter 12 you will find a chapter on the Belous Case - with a discussion of Buffett and Munger's pro-life views. Pohick2 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Other famous Buffett worth mentioning?

I notice that the Jimmy Buffett article mentions that the two are distant relations. Worth putting on this page as well? Turnstep 13:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

this is good for a joke, although he did play before 2007 meeting, his father might be more interesting - stockbroker, congressman Pohick2 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is a link to a document via the Wayback Machine ok?

The link to "Warren Buffet's Wild Ride at Salomon" was broken because that document was a resource for a university course, and had been deleted. But the document is still archived by the Wayback Machine. On inspection, it appears to be an article from Fortune magazine. Does anyone see any reason why the archived article should not be linked? Too Old July 9, 2005 05:45 (UTC)

I have no problem with this (I helped build the Internet Archive :) --Zippy 06:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I argue Mr. Buffett has never said he hated the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce

The comment about Mr. Buffet not liking the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School is completely exagerated and purely speculative. The fact is that if he left the school at that point, he must have preferred U. of Nebraska for other reasons outside of quality of school etc... torresan September 5, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

He didn't think there was much he could learn at Wharton, and he was more familiar with Nebraska. [QUOTE] "I didn't feel I was learning that much," Warren explained. "Nebraska called, Wharton repelled." [/QUOTE] pg 32 of Buffett by Roger Lowenstein. & L.J. Davis, ‘Buffett Takes Stock,’ New York Times, April 1, 1990.

Picture

We need a picture again. Shawnc 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, the old copyrighted photo, Image:Warren Buffett in 1994.JPG, is still being used in List of billionaires (2007) and the more recent photo being used in this article now (Image:Warren Buffet 3.jpg) also has some licensing issues - so a GFDL or CC or Public Domain photo is still needed --Georgeryp 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A new picture is needed. I just flagged the current image (Image:Warren Buffet 3.jpg) with a copyvio because a Forbes article clearly identifies it as copyrighted. --Georgeryp 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point I had a scan of a photo taken by one of the professors doing a classroom visit to Buffett in Omaha, with his permission to post it to Wikipedia under an open source license. I never made use of it because there was a photo present by the time the guy signed off on it, but I can see if I still have it in my email archives. snarkout 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded to WikiCommons and added to this page. The photo is by Prof. Mark Hirschey of the KU School of Business and was taken in 2005; Prof. Hirschey's agreement to have it posted under CC license has been sent on to the WikiCommons permissions email address. snarkout 18:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Life ?

I removed Buffett from list of pro-life celebrities b/c: (1) He supported Planned Parenthood for many years. (2) Could not find any sources stating he was pro-life (or choice for that matter). (3) He did stop funding Planned Parenthood through BH mostly to stop the controversy.

Jcam 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The category should have been "Pro-choice celebrities"; the wrong category was copied. I apologize for the error.

Buffett's view on abortion is well-documented: "Buffett also got involved in a path-breaking abortion case. Along with Susie, who was active in Planned Parenthood, Warren strongly favored legalizing abortions (then illegal in most states). In 1969, the California Supreme Court had agreed to hear an appeal from Leon Belous, a doctor convicted for referring a woman to an abortionist. Charlie Munger had read about Belous in the newspaper and called Buffett, and the two immediately decided to underwrite the appeal." from Buffett: the Making of an American Capitalist, pg 116.

However, since Buffett himself has not used the "pro-choice" term, I've decided not to add that category to the article. Shawnc 05:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

America America which wording's right for me.

"corporate American standards." American corporate standards. Standards of corporate america. Corporate america standards. --Gbleem 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Economic moat

What is an economic moat? What other management philosophies does buffet have? -Jeff

What is an Economic Moat?[6]

Buffett's Philosophy[7] --Dragon_i 4 March 2006

succession box

The sucession box seems inappropriate for the purpose of displaying the Forbes Richest list, so it's being removed. Shawnc 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Flaws?

http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/COLUMNISTS04/604110302/1103/COLUMNISTS

Repetition

Many facts in this article are listed unnecessarily multiple times. The timeline and biography are incredibly similar, and should either be merged, or relevent information should be pared down to one or the other.

"Biography" is renamed "Overview" for now and should be concise. Shawnc 08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I have put the sections into a better order and moved the "recent developments" into the bio section, but there is still a lot of work to be done. The timeline and the bio need to be combined and rewritten. CalJW 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

His houses

I don't remember where on TV I saw it, but I recall he gave a tour of his homes once. It was quite amazing how modest and spartan they were, given his means. I doubt the same could be said for any of the others in the Forbes top 100. I think it might be notable to point this out. If people think this would make the article more "enjoyable", in light the newspaper editorial's remarks on how boring this article was to read, I'll try to track down a verifiable source. --Dragon695 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(archived POV rant in this space to page history)

Please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not a debate forum about the subject matters we are writing articles about. jni 12:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

why he left wharton

does anyone know why?

This Buffett Timeline claims: "1947 ...he enrolls as a freshman at the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce in Pennsylvania. Buffett hates it, complaining he knows more than the teachers." Any primary source for this? --Georgeryp 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I should've just read (above) Talk:Warren Buffett#I_argue_Mr._Buffett_has_never_said_he_hated_the_Wharton_School_of_Finance_and_Commerce for a source - pg 32 of Buffett by Roger Lowenstein. & L.J. Davis, 'Buffett Takes Stock,' New York Times, April 1, 1990. --Georgeryp 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

sourcing??

there seems to be alot of information about the manner buffett ran companies and acquistions that seems sketchy. how can we rely on what's being said with out some sort of sources??? like interviews, or books, or some authoratative source that analyzes... just throwing it out their that i don't trust the info on this page

Good question. In terms of the "manner in which WEB runs companies" the primary attribute that comes to mind (and I'm likely to have some pro-Buffett POV here, my apologies, I'm trying for NPOV) is "hands-off". Robert Miles did a book on the CEOs that work in BH's subsidiaries that may be of some use:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471442593/102-0460380-0004929?v=glance&n=283155

--Joe Decker 21:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffett also says he's hands-off wrt subsidiaries in the Berkshire Hathaway annual report. --Zippy 11:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Divestment of Assets to Gates Found., et al

Good catch on someone updating the Buffett article quickly AND articulately in relation to his announcement that he'd be "cashing out". HOWEVER, two paragraphs related to this before the ToC seem inappropriate; it should be a subsection of the article, perhaps in the "timeline" section. Is it standard WP policy to put a lot of text regarding a current event at the top of the article, and then move it downward once the event subsides? JD79 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his philanthropy warrants its own section with in the article. (Narkstraws 02:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Also note that there's currently redundant information between the Philanthropy section and the Timeline section. If there's going to be a Philanthropy section then the Timeline section does not need to be too detailed. Shawnc 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture from press release, with Gates and his wife. Shawnc 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Warren Buffett Jewish?

I read an article indicated that Warren Buffett is Jewish Descendant. But in Wikipedia I cannot find any relevance to this claim.

You may be thinking of Benjamin Graham, Buffett's teacher. Graham is said to have turned down Buffett's job application at first because Buffett was not Jewish. Religiously, Buffett is an agnostic and does not follow Judaism.[8] Shawnc 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain why an agnostic would invest so much in Israeli companies lately? I also noted that these recent investments (Iscar, maybe more soon) were not mentionned in the article. Emmanuelm 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of two good reasons to purchase Iscar that is not related to religion: 1) It fits his 'Acquisition Criteria' detailed in his annual reports of a large purchase with demonstrated earning power, good returns on equity, in-place management, simple economics and an offering price. 2) It fits his desire to diversify into non-dollar denominated investments based on his bearish view of the U.S. Dollar.Jvandyke 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a single company, and not all that much given that it was less than 10% of the cash they have sitting around for such investments. If you think it should be in the article, go ahead and add it. KonradG 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What Jvandyke and KonradG said. Buffett does not care where the company is, as long as it is an excellent business, is supremely well managed, and I'm guessing also exists in a country with reasonable business laws. Based on the latter, I wouldn't be surprised if he invested in an Israeli company, but I would be surprised if he invested in a Russian or Chinese one (the risk of the company being privatized or attacked by the government would be significant but also unquantifiable, so I doubt he'd consider an investment). --Zippy 22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than just economics, as one does not have to believe in Religion in order to donate money to buy companies in Israel. Warren Buffet is a strong believer in philanthropy towards Israel, although I do not know his political beliefs on it, I know he donates a lot of money to Israel.

Debbie Bosanek, Assistant to Warren Buffett, says: “Mr. Buffett is agnostic.”

His father, Howard Homan Buffett, was a four-term congressman from Omaha, and a prominent leader in perhaps the most influential social network in Omaha in his day, the Dundee Presbyterian Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.91.2 (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism?

On typical large WP biographical articles such as this, there's always a section criticising actions or opinions of the person in question. There's no such section here; is that because it hasn't been written, or because there is no notable criticism of this person? I don't know enough about mr. Warren, but when I looked up the article in WP I was, as usual, expecting an extensive criticism section as there is one for everyone who's either famous or rich. Wouter Lievens 10:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some that I can think of: he is criticized by pro-life groups for supporting birth control. His liberal view on taxes is not favored by some. He thinks companies shouldn't be allowed to hide large payments to executives from investors on income statements -- a rule recently adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board[9] -- so some fat cats might dislike that. He is a stock picker so some economists may scoff and consider him to be a lucky coin-flipper; he disagrees. He doesn't believe in predicting stock prices using charts which offends some people. His company's performance has slowed down over the years, though this has been predicted by Buffett in the past; it's easier to make $1 million than it is to find $100 billion to double. He may also be criticized by anti-capitalists by default, regardless of personal charity. Shawnc 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffett doesn't have many enemies. You can find criticisms if you look hard enough, but even there, one suspects they're made for shock value than anything else. You can probably find more disparaging comments about Mother Theresa than about Buffett, and that's not a joke. KonradG 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Warren Buffett has gone out of his way (I believe very intentionally) to stay out of the fray of public relations. You almost certainly can find more critism of Mother Theresa (and I'm not joking either). As an example of the way he attempts to avoid controversy, his pro-choice views are very subdued. His "donations to planned parenthood" are actually not made from him directly. He allows the shareholders of class 'A' shares of berkshire to designate charities, and by virtue of their designations, money goes to planned parenthood (see berkshires annual report <2001, I think>). Of course, he's the largest Berkshire shareholder, but individual donation elections of shareholders are not disclosed, to my knowledge. coreydaj 11/03/06 10:41 EST

Baloney. Criticism doesn't equal being someone's "enemy". There are plenty of folks who disagree with Buffet on many issues. Number one being he's never produced anything in his adult life. he's certainly a hero to his investors and they certainly seem to be the ones writing the bulk of this article.Awotter (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In this regard Buffett is very self-depreciating. This is an admirable trait of his that he regularly combines with humor to great effect. He has joked that his genius in allocating capital would not be of much use if stranded on a deserted island.

As for not making anything, he owns companies that create everything from boots to bricks to, well, Coca-Cola. This point seems more of a white vs. blue collar sort of argument than a valid criticism of Buffett. Mr. Welsh (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

in ancient times, the suit over Buffalo News, SEC investigation of Blue Chip Stamp, then the Pro-life boycott of pampered chef, and now Klamath river suit over dams. there is controversy, but he deftly diffuses it. Pohick2 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I question the motives of a philanthropist who says "Make a product for a penny, sell it for a dollar, and then sell it to the addicts" (see New York Times Magazine article on tobacco companies, Sat June 24) And how charitable is the Gates Foundation? (now billions of dollars richer because of Buffett) The two focus areas of that foundation are education and global health. The malaria vaccination program is laudable; on the other hand, they are pouring their millions into pharmaceutical companies and research to develop genetically engineered crops (which often means that farmers in third world countries will be prevented from saving seeds and forced to buy a branded 'product' that used to be in the public domain). The focus of their education program is to put more Microsoft products into public libraries. This is plainly stated in the Foundation's website. Seems as much private gain as public good.

"The focus of their education program is to put more Microsoft products into public libraries. This is plainly stated in the Foundation's website." Reference? --Joe Decker 11:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "make a product for a penny" quote might be referring to Coca Cola, and the "addict" is probably himself. He supposedly drinks a dozen cans of coke per day.[10] Shawnc 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the context of the "make a product for a penny quote" but I believe Buffett has talked about Coke having a profit of one penny per can of soda. It is possible the product (the soda itself) only costs a penny, but the packaging, distribution, and advertising cost much more. With respect to coke drinking, the only cite I could find was that he claimed to drink 5 cans of cherry coke a day (see above on this talk page) --Zippy 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Fast Food Nation, a gallon of coke syrup costs aprox. $5 for McDonalds and such. Assume $4 for an actual coke distributer. OpenCola is 5 parts water and 1 part syrup, and the cost of water is negligible, so $5 for 6 gallons of coke. 128 fluid ouncein in a gallon, 12 ounces to a can. 128 * 6 is 768 oz., divided by 12 makes 64 cans for $4, or 16 cans for a buck. Not quite a nickel, not quite a dime. Quite less than the actual price, if Fast Food Nation is a good source. Curuinor 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The "make a product for a penny quote" can be found in the book "Barbarians at the Gate" (concerning RJR Nabisco's buy-out) by Burrough and Helyar. In the 2004 edition of the book its on page 218. It's a little different than quoted here, but it is Buffett who apparently made this remark. It's also said he has owned RJ Reynolds stock, but has since stayed away from ownership of tobacco companies because of public opinion (according to the book). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.53.163.243 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

don't know any record of his owning tobacco stocks, he walked away from chewing tobacco investment; if you want to take comments out of context, how about 'I feel like an oversexed man in a whorehouse'; his gift agreement requires additional spending, but then Carnegie faced the same criticism. Pohick2 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples of frugality?

From the start of the article: "Despite his immense wealth, Buffett is famous for his unpretentious and frugal lifestyle. He continues to live in the same house in Omaha he bought in 1958 for $31,500,[5] although he also owns a summer house in Laguna Beach, California. His annual salary from Berkshire Hathaway of $100,000[1] is nominal by the standards of senior executive remuneration in the United States.[6]"

The way this paragraph is structured, it reads as if sentences 2 and 3 illustrate the statement made in sentence 1. I am not sure if that is true, though. There may be loads of reasons why a person still lives in the same house. What's more, a low salary may make much sense for the ultra-rich because of tax reasons. If you live in a country with high income tax and low property and consumption taxes, not paying yourself a high salary makes a lot of sense.--82.92.181.129 13:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet the average S&P500 CEO does not actually pay himself less than ten million dollars a year. Buffett's license plate says "THRIFTY". Maybe he's trying to trick us? How many billionaires drive themselves to work in a beige Lincoln, prefer Coke over Champagne, or live in the house they bought before they were millionaires? Shawnc 06:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He's famous for being frugal. There are two exceptions, and he's open about these. The first is having a summer home, and the second is having a privatecorporate jet. He gave it a name like "The Indefensible" (expense, presumably). I believe he pays for it personally, rather than through his corporationIt's owned by Berkshire. The company originally bought a used plane and traded up to the current one. Buffett talks about this in the annual reports. --Zippy 22:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (updated. --Zippy 23:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

I found it: His sole extravagance seems to be a fondness for luxury air travel. In typically self-deprecating style, the frugal Buffett calls his Gulfstream IV-SP jet "The Indefensible." Salon.com article on Warren Buffett.

Disowning his granddaughter?

Some coverage of his recent decision to disown his granddaughter (covered in the society pages and on Page Six), Nicole, probably deserves a mention in this article, though I'm not sure where...

I don't think it meets the criteria for an encyclopedic entry, nor would I rush to use the NY Post's Page Six (gossip column) as a reference (Page Six's lead story today is about a photo of Brad Pitt in his boxer shorts). But if anyone cares to follow up, here's a link to the story NY Post gossip about Buffett disowning granddaughter Nicole. --Zippy 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is his Chinese name here?

I got rid of his Chinese name because I cannot see how it is relevant. China is not mentioned specifically at all in the article and I fail to see its importance.

Warren Buffet on investment/speculation

• The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large dosesof effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities - that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.

– warren buffett , letter to shareholders 2000

Category idea

Buffett, the son of a U.S. Representative, is one of many notable people with such parentage. Does anyone have any thoughts for/against creating a category such as Category:Children of United States Representatives? Paul 03:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Rray 03:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe make it Children of United States Politicians. Wouter Lievens 08:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference format

The standard reference format (Using "<ref>") was removed in this edit. Should it be reincorporated? Shawnc 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Belated answer: yes, absolutely, and I have done so. In both cases it could share a reference with another part of the article, which is tidy. Notinasnaid 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Name pronounciation

How is "Buffett" pronounced? I've heard it sound like the meal Buffet, Buff-it, and Buff-ett. The pronounciation should be included next to the name in the article. --70.111.218.254 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. It not pronounced like the meal though :-), most journalists pronounce it as Buff-ett. User=DJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.254.137 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

athiest/agnostic

While several sources quote Lowenstein's book on Buffet and conclude from a statement that he doesn't believe he is an "Unseen God" that he is an athiest, this article at Wired suggests that he self-identifies agnostic.[11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Decker (talk • contribs) 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC). You're right, my bad. --Joe Decker 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Buffett is quoted in the article as sneering at gold. He bought a great deal of silver, the price of which is parallel to that of gold. It is not clear if he made any profit on the silver purchase. Silver is usually a fiftieth the price of gold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.206.96 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Buffett believes that gold has no intrinsic worth. In other words, he believes it doesn't help people in any way, it has no functional use, unlike say a commodity like oil that does have a use. But, that would not stop him from purchasing it if it got cheap. His investment in silver was exactly that, at the time he purchased silver, it was very cheap.--216.106.98.151 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Youtube vid of Buffet interview with Liz Claman

Is YouTube a WP:RS? It's obvious that a video is from CNBC, but to follow the WP rules, shouldn't this reference be removed and a CNBC-sourced video link replace it, if it exists? YouTube is a can of worms as a WP:RS use. Piperdown 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The "Writings" section

I am gald to find that this section does seem to have a proper refernce if needed from gsb.columbia.edu in particular, http://www1.gsb.columbia.edu/valueinvesting/research/public_archives/DOC032.PDF At the same time, I am not sure if "Writings" deserves a standalone section as it mostly lists a bunch of names. I am not sure where these names and info best fit. I think this section should be removed or at best integrated into the rest of the article. IMHO, the section currently reads like an ad for the people on the list, although I know it probably isn't an ad. Just my 2 cents. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 05:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is valuable as Buffett is as much know for his writings as his wealth. His writings in his various annual reports reflect his communications to his partners and shareholders and so are necessarily narrow in scope. His other writings provide insight into his other views. The names listed are Buffett's examples of investors following a methodology that challenges the academic world's general acceptance of the EMH and so are critical players in his critiscm of EMH. AlbertaSunwapta (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline section

I removed this response from the article itself. It seems to relate to the cleanup tag I suggested, indicating that it should be turned into prose.

"This section is a good way of carefully examining what Warren Buffett did with each year of his life, particularly because this discourages some years from being skipped (implying nothing happened that year).

Writing in paragraphs can result in losing focus on the chronological order or giving too much focus on a few years while ignoring many other years." The words I am quoting were added by 222.126.107.110. -- Notinasnaid 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Buffet's then age to every year in the timeline seems to imply that the average Wikipedia reader cannot do simple arithmetic to be able to deduct what his age is given the timeline year and his birthyear. - 162.83.133.9 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The timeline section is an ineffective way of conveying events that occured in his life. Would someone please make the timeline more user friendly? 70.13.13.52 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and salary

The most recent deletion of Buffett's salary from the infobox included a note saying that the information was included elsewhere in the article less deceptively. This isn't a valid reason for deleting this information from the infobox. All of the information there can be found elsewhere in the article (Buffett's name, date of birth, job title, etc.) The salary figure is only deceptive if it lists an inaccurate salary; Buffett's salary of $100,000/year is verifiable fact. I'd ask that this not be deleted again without good reason and a consensus on the talk page. Rray 10:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As already stated, the reason for excluding it from the infobox is that it is misleading and unencyclopedic when presented plainly in the infobox. The note is in response to your reason for replacing it, about "deleting notable information from this encyclopedia article", when in fact the information is already included elsewhere in the actual encyclopedia article. You also reversed two unrelated changes without explanation. So, why is listing the "salary" in the infobox not misleading and why is it appropriate for an encyclopedia article rather than a trivia game? The salary is the only item in the infobox that is outright misleading. Some of the other items like occupation and net worth are gross summaries and liable to change, but they are not misleading. Items like his birth name and date of birth are solid, unequivocal facts and are typically important to an encyclopedia article; including them in the infobox is redundant but possibly helpful, and not misleading. —Centrx→talk • 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You should read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick. Starting off your discussion with "As already stated" is a lousy way to make your point.

If you think it should be deleted as misleading, then you need to make your case about why it's misleading here on the talk page. It's not misleading just because you say it is.

btw if you look at compensation, you have to add director's fees Pohick2 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Buffett's salary is discussed in multiple print sources about him. Unless you think the multiple media and book mentions of Buffett's $100,000 annual salary are inaccurate or false?

It's not as if it's unusual to include someone's salary in their infobox. Look at the article about Bill Gates. It's just another fact, like his date of birth or where he lives. Whatever prejudice or agenda you have about his salary being misleading doesn't belong here, and a plain fact is a plain fact. Rray 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason the salary is misleading was also previously stated in the edit summary of the change. "As already stated" means that the justification has already been given and that you can find it in the past. Case in point: "As already stated" is a fact, but you interpreted it incorrectly because of how it was presented. The salary could be $0, and sometimes is for some executives for public-relations purposes--which with journalists' penchant for human-interest stories is the reason it is in articles about him--but that is not meaningful when a person's income comes almost entirely from the proceeds of investments. When placed in the infobox without explanation, it implies that his yearly income is $100,000. We could alternatively add more information about his income, such as investment profits, and many more "facts" beyond, but that is just clutter. (Aside: the existence of a verifiable "plain fact" does not actually mean that it ought to be included in an encyclopedia article; many facts are excluded from articles for editorial reasons and especially on biographies of living persons. Wikipedia is not a collection of "facts"; it is an encyclopedia of knowledge, which means that information is organized edifyingly.) —Centrx→talk • 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an encyclopedia article is a collection of facts that are presented edifyingly. But the infobox, because of space considerations, *is* a collection of facts. The relationship of Buffett's salary to his income and ownership of Berkshire Hathaway is clearly explained in the article, and it's also implied in the comparison of his salary with his net worth, which is also included in the infobox. The infobox doesn't imply that Buffett's sole income is his salary. It simply states the amount of his salary, which is perfectly legitimate and normal.

Regarding your "as previously stated" nonsense...your earlier statement was unclear and didn't explain why this information is misleading. Your additional statement above doesn't make a case for this information being misleading either, so you haven't made any progress toward building a consensus that your edit is appropriate here. Rray 02:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is not necessary, and it does not need to include all "facts". We could put every fact that is currently into the article into the infobox, but doing so would not be valuable or meaningful for an encyclopedia article. What is the reason for the putting the salary in the infobox at all? Why would it not be better to instead or in addition list his investement profits? How is the salary especially relevant to this person? The net worth is relevant only in saying he has a lot of money, which is at least relevant to his notability but is still unnecessary but merely not misleading; the salary then says...the opposite? What is the encyclopedic purpose? That something be a "fact" does not entail that it would belong in the infobox. Most of the other elements are vital statistics, most of which you find on tombstones. Why put "salary" there but not "favorite books" or "yearly investment profits"? —Centrx→talk • 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested deleting the entire infobox? Whether or not the infobox is necessary isn't relevant to whether or not his salary should be included. That's a separate discussion.

Who suggested including all the facts about Warren Buffett that are included in the article in the infobox? That's not relevant either.

The reason for including that information in the infobox is because it's customary to include pertinent details like salary in an infobox for a CEO. Look at the infobox in the Bill Gates article. Buffett's salary is notable and relevant because of the discrepancy between his salary and the salaries of other CEO's of similar sized firms. It's also notable because of the amount of value shareholders are receiving in exchange for his small salary. A CEO's salary is a shareholder cost. Buffett's net worth being high because he owns a large percentage of the company doesn't change that his salary accounts for about 1/100th of the expense to shareholders of other companies' CEO's.

The only reason I brought up whether or not it was a "fact" was because you insisted that it's "misleading". Stating that Buffett's salary is $100,000 a year isn't misleading. It's a black and white fact. It shouldn't be deleted as misleading. His investment profits are already represented by his net worth, which is also included in the infobox.

Who suggested including his "favorite books" or "yearly investment profits"? Those aren't customarily included in anyone's infobox, so that's not relevant to the discussion at all. Try to stay on topic.

As far as an encyclopedic source, Forbes lists Buffett's salary here: http://www.forbes.com/2001/04/26/buffett.html. That's a legitimate source, and there are plenty of others.

The only vital statistics that are normally found on tombstones are name,date of birth, and date of death. But we're not talking about tombstones; we're talking about an infobox in the Wikipedia, which typically includes more than just name, date of birth, and date of death.

You deleted the salary because you said it was misleading. I reverted the edit because it's not misleading. I've included a source to indicate how much Buffett's salary is. When are you going to present an encyclopedic source that Buffett's salary isn't that much, or that his salary is somehow misleading? Your opinion that it's misleading is just that, an opinion. Your opinion is not a good enough reason to delete his salary from the infobox. Rray 18:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If "custom" is the only reason for including it, then it ought to be removed, and removed everywhere else where custom is the only reason. What is the purpose of the infobox? Is the purpose of the infobox to list some important, representative facts about a person as a quick summary? Is someone who looks at the salary going to gain a better understanding of anything about Warren Buffet or are they going to either misunderstand his yearly income or be confused at the unexplained discrepancy between his salary and his net worth? Whether or not the "salary" he receives from Berkshire Hathaway is or is not presently $100,000 is irrelevant. Where it is included is the issue; see, for example, WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Is the salary one of the seven most essential or representative facts about this person? Is it not effectively the opposite of his actual wealth? —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Buffett's salary is relevant and notable. Including it in the infobox is appropriate and not misleading. The difference between his salary and his actual wealth makes it that much more notable. Rray 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? The difference between his salary and his net wealth means that the salary is just a gimmick, a trivia item, as can be seen in the sources for it, and is not relevant to his actual life. This is an encyclopedia; there is nothing especially notable about any particular number in the article. You also haven't addressed any of the questions of the previous comment. —Centrx→talk • 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it a gimmick? How much does Warren spend in a year? Clearly Steve Jobs does not live on $1 per year. In contrast I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Warren does live on less than $100k/year (excluding Cherry Coke & "the indefensible"). Mr. Welsh (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It hardly seems worth arguing over this small detail. It's already in the introduction. I don't agree that it's a gimmick though; many sources claim that he leads a modest lifestyle. - MrArt 10:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sort of information belongs in the article, well explained, not in a disjointed, completely unexplained factoid in the infobox. —Centrx→talk • 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the salary being removed from the infobox. A CEO's salary is similar to some measure of a company's recent performance used in infoboxes. WB's salary is widely known, one of his primary public stances, and an indicator of his basic function as a CEO. I also agree with the other two editors, it is not a gimmick or misleading. If anything, his 100k salary may actually be one of the most close to being accurate salaries reported by any CEO. He does not have option incentives, and he is regularly reported as reimbursing the company for things he uses, even down to office supplies such as stamps. Although weight of numbers is not determinative in whether something is correct or incorrect, it certainly can be indicative. Reverting also.Sentineneve 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would his salary, the most minor portion of his income, be like a company's total revenue or profit? Why should metrics of a company's recent performance be weighted more strongly than substantive information, in an encyclopedia? Why should Buffett's public stance of salary be put in the infobox rather than his huge donations to charity or any number of other supposedly important things about the person? Is that not what the article is for? What exactly is the purpose of including the salary in the infobox? If the infobox is for skimming vital facts, why isn't a reader mislead or confused? —Centrx→talk • 04:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You continue to remove this information, but nothing you've said here explains *how* this information is misleading. What is someone going to be misled into thinking because his salary is included? How is this information inaccurate? That IS his salary.
    • You're the only person who thinks this information should be removed. It's just a fact, just a piece of data, no different than his net worth. Please don't claim in the edit comments that your "explanations" here haven't been responded to. They obviously have been responded to by multiple editors, none of whom have agreed that this information should be removed. Your willingness to continue to repeat yourself is just refusing to see the point. Rray 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • This article covers the entire person, including the time before his salary was $100,000. For the same reason, having the current net worth is also a problem, though it is better to have "(2007)", but the net worth is less of a problem, because: Whereas the net worth is an all-inclusive number that straightforwardly fits with the general facts of the article, the salary is a small portion of his total income which he chose for public-relations reasons that contradicts the straightforward information of the rest of the article. This could be ameliorated by including in the infobox his total yearly income including profits from investment, which would also be a plain fact, but that would be adding more factoids to an otherwise unnecessary infobox.
      • You are the only other person that has actually discussed the matter; two others left comments, one brief and indirect, and never returned. I have explained the reasons for not listing this factoid, and you have not seen them or refuted them, but it would be wrong of me to assume that you are therefore acting in bad faith and refusing to see the point. —Centrx→talk • 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Your claim is that including the salary information in the infoxbox is misleading. But what is that going to mislead someone to believe? I don't think that you have explained what someone is going to take away from the infobox that is misleading.
        • Maybe the ideal situation would be to come up with a third solution that both of us would consider reasonable? Is there a way to include the fact in the infobox along with a link to the section of the article that explains Buffett's salary versus his net worth? And if there is, would you be agreeable to that? (It's a collaborative solution.) Rray 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
          • The reader may think that Warren Buffet currently has an income of $100,000 per year. If he does not think that, he is going to note that the infobox is distinctly lacking and out of balance, as it does not contain the equally important vital fact of his total yearly income. When I first saw it, I thought it was vandalism and checked the source. If the reader correctly recognizes that the number is specifically his salary, he is not misled but he has not been helped at all as the only relevance of the salary is that Buffet tries to live a humble life or whatever, which is not explained in the infobox.
          • Infoboxes are not good for explaining nuances. Generally, an infobox contains facts on the order of vital statistics; for persons most or all of the items would be found on a birth certificate or a tombstone, for movies most or all of the items would be found in the closing credits or on the sticker on the videocassette. No qualifying information is necessary. All persons are born and the date requires nothing except that the person was not alive before and was alive after; all movies have running times, with the perhaps some insignificant variation in that the movie ended 5 minutes before the credits; all animals are classified into their genus, family, etc. based on specific well-defined criteria; etc. A salary, however, might vary drastically from year to year based upon the choices of the individual, it does not account for additional income or debts or if stock options were chosen instead of cash salary. Though factoids like this should not be in any infobox, usually they do not have a story behind them. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I see your point. I deleted the salary from the infobox, although I don't entirely agree with you. I apologize for implying that you were acting in bad faith or refusing to see the point. Rray 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in late here, but it seems completely reasonable to state that Buffett draws a salary of $100,000 from Berkshire Hathaway. This is, indeed, a fact. What is at issue is his income, which is a different beast. It is consistent with mainstream reporting to talk about someone's salary, even when there are options that provide additional income. Off the top of my head, the best example is Steve Jobs, who draws a salary of $1 from Apple, but has received not only many options, but also I believe benefits like Apple paying the operating costs of his private jet. His salary is still $1, but certainly his income is greater.

So I would say that with the article on Buffett, it is reasonable to give his salary as $100,000, because: a) it's verifiable (via Berkshire's annual report) and b) consistent with reporting practices for other CEOs who draw a mix of options and salary. --Zippy (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, that information is included in the body of the article. The question is whether or not it should be included in the infobox or not. Centrx's position is that it shouldn't be included in the infobox because the infobox doesn't provide the necessary context for understanding the difference between Buffett's salary and Buffett's income. Rray (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Nearly every CEO infobox would need to be stripped of salary if this were a requirement, as most CEOs of major companies get stock/options and other benefits in addition to salary. See for instance the infobox for Steve Jobs. --Zippy (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Net worth along with his annual salary should clear up any misunderstanding about his resources. Mr. Welsh (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Worry

Worries about libel action make it difficult to mention clashes with regulators in 1974 and 1977 and with Greenberg and Gutfreund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Susan Buffett is said to have been born in 1952 and 1932. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1952 is probably the date of her marriage to W. Buffett, not her date of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.209.102 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional topics

Ajit Jain and National Indemnity is worthy of a mention.[12]

Also his American Express purchase during the Salad oil scandal should be mentioned and the wikipedia article cross referenced. [13]

User=DJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.242.9 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There were several acts of vandalism done by user 99.247.179.136 on Nov 12th and 13th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.141.238 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the "Public Stances" section:

"In a TV interview with Tom Brokaw, Buffett said that a billionaire's "receptionist" has a higher "tax rate overall to the federal government" than her boss, thus downplaying the real tax burden of the rich by ignoring that the top 5% of wage-earners pay 60% of all income tax revenue and that fully half of all wage-earners pay a negligible amount of the total (only 3%) in our graduated tax rate system; and that our dividend and capital gain rates of 15% are only that low because they apply to money that was previously taxed by the federal government already. Steve Forbes responds to Buffett's claptrap in Forbes, Nov 26, 2007: 24. Buffett seems very concerned with not provoking envy despite his wealth and is quick to adopt a curious soak-the-rich stance on taxes."

There was no citation for this paragraph, and it seems to be a soapbox for the author rather than a netural source of information about Buffett.

I'm not really a wiki guy, but this clearly didn't belong. I'm leaving this note to document the change, and in case someone wants to clean that mess up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.92.116 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Buffett has regularly compared his (lower) tax rate to his secretary's, but I agree that the paragraph is a mess. Mr. Welsh (talk)

Pacificorp and Klamath River

I moved this paragraph from the philanthropy section here for discussion:

In May 2007, fishermen, tribal leaders and environmental leaders from northwest California went to Omaha to ask Buffett to tear down four dams on the Klamath River. [14] The dams, owned by Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary Pacific Corp., are currently up for relicensing. The dams have had a devastating effect on the Klamath River fisheries. Members of the Hupa, Yurok, and Karuk tribes who depend on these fisheries have been especially hard hit. In September, 2002, low water flows resulting from the dams caused the death of at least 33,000 adult salmonids. As of July 2007, with Klamath River waters dangerously low once again, it is unclear what action Buffett will take.

It's unclear to me how this pertains to Buffett's philanthropy, or more generally, to Buffett. After reading the cited article, it seems to me that this would be more appropriate in an article on either PacificCorp or the Klamath River. I'd like to open this discussion up to anyone who feels that this is notable in Buffett's life or in his philanthropy. --Zippy (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Article to translate... Please translate in the buttons in the right side of the article.

• Article about Buffet

To translate please. Is a very important article about Buffet.

Press the buttons on the right side of the page for other language... Article 1, Article 2, etc...

Sometimes the buttons don't work, you need to try all of them. When you find the article in this language, please copy the link for the right place and complete the article.--88.157.78.203 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost reference...

in the first para, there's a ref name tag for 'Sec1', but no ref tagged AS sec1. As I'm not a regular editor on this page, I have NO idea what this should refer to. ThuranX (talk) 04:13, 9 January 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) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MAYBE HE OWNS OTHER STUFF???? 67.168.160.59 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WB Timeline

There's a lot of content here without any citations. How important is it to have a timeline? Anyone have any views on this? I'm not sure it's that necessary. If it is, we should work on checking the text and adding some sources. Netsumdisc (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think both the timeline and Public stances are difficult to read. There's lots of valuable, interesting information in them, but the presentation could be improved. Mr. Welsh (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Power Lunch"

On June 27, 2008, Zhao Danyang, a general manager at Pure Heart China Growth Investment Fund, won the 2008 5-day online "Power Lunch with Warren Buffett" charity auction on eBay with high bid of $ 2,110,100. Zhao had the right to dine with 76-year-old Buffett, at New York's Smith & Wollensky Steakhouse, may invite up to 7 companions for the private lunch and can ask Buffett anything at all, except what he's buying or selling. Auction proceeds benefit the San Francisco Glide Foundation. 2007 winners, including Irvine Mohnish Pabrai dined with Buffett this week in New York. Pabrai bid for 5 years, and Guy Spier paid $ 650,100 to dine with Buffett.uk.reuters.com, Warren Buffett lunch sells for record $2.11 mlncnbc.com, Warren Buffett Charity Lunch Auction Ends with High Bid of $2,110,100--Florentino floro (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Views on religion

This edit reversed some information which could be useful to some readers. I agree that the references are not very good and need to be replaced by better ones, but for the moment that is all we have. Perhaps we could re-write the information saying that the religious views of Mr Buffett are unknown but there is speculation that he is Agnostic, and just provide the references and let the reader decide for themselves, rather than trying to decide which references our readers are "allowed" to see and which are not. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I re-added the information in a way which I believe makes it clear that there is no certainty about his views but there is lots of speculation. The paragraph does not try to document the religious views of Mr Buffett, but merely documents the speculation. Note that all of this information/speculation can be found through search engines. Hope you find the paragraph useful for the encyclopedia. If not please try to improve. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to Template:Speculation. Speculation, while it may be interesting, has no place here. Hondo77 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

well he did comment on his religious views last march at the annual meeting "Question 10 [36] Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

WB I'm an agnostic. If you had asked my mother and father you would get a different answer.

CM I don't want to talk here about religion.

http://groups.msn.com/BerkshireHathawayShareholders/page.msnw?&pps=k Pohick2 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1977 anti-trust charges

See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/07/20/245683/index.htm Buffett said, "We had one civil antitrust case at the Buffalo Evening News in 1977." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.152.65 (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Public stances

I added the cleanup-restructure template to the Public stances section. Reading WP:LISTS#List_content, a list should be organized around something. The lists in this section seem to be a random collection of things whose main purpose is to get the authors out of writing normal paragraphs. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hondo77 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Should public stances go under philosophy, they do seem related. Pohick2 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Birthplace: Omaha or Bakersfield

Which is it, the infobox says Bakersfield, while the text says Omaha.Critical Chris (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism. I haven't been able to police the page as much as I used to the last few weeks. Hondo77 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Article layout

This article seems very poorly executed. This is a very prominent, powerful and influential person and there is a serious lack of information here. What information that is here is not laid out very well. His early life and education gets a few sentences. Then, for some bizarre reason, the article skips directly to philanthropy. This layout skips from him as a young man to somehow being old and having lots of money to give out. It's very bad story telling. How did he get this money? What did he do to make himself into being who he is? For the answers to these questions you first have to get passed him as an old man, and then his personal life (which should have been woven into the article better than that) and then you get this really awkward timeline which often has entries that are very unclear as to why they are in there, how they pertain to Buffet. This method is shoddy and lazy at best. It would be like if I were writing a biography of LBJ and I went from LBJ at college and suddenly skipped to LBJ living in retirement and tending to his legacy and then briefly mention his wife and children and then I insert a bare bones timeline concerning Vietnam, JFK and Civil Rights and every now and then I put in random factoids about the 60's into the timeline. Then there is not the slightest mention that he has played at least a small role in the current election, backing Obama, giving him economic advise and so forth. But this last part may or may not be worth mentioning. My real problem is that the narrative and layout here makes no sense whatsoever for a man as influential and prominent as Warren Buffet. The timeline is lame, the lay out is incomprehensible and biographical information such as his early years is sadly lacking. Surely someone could do a better job than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

he's been a private person, hopefully, someone will incorporate some of the info from Snowball into the article. Pohick2 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors is Personal Life section

The last paragraph of the personal life section is really unclear and I'm pretty sure it's a joke, so I'm going to remove parts of it-- I have no idea who Warren Parkkonen is and the article contradicts itself by saying they are paternally related, then not related. There's no mention of him in the DNA article. Further, to whomever wrote it in, Finland is not a Skandinavian country.Functionvsaesthetic (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

10

Buffett's selling options with an expiry date in 10 years when he was born in 1930 is optimistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.116.24 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited some possibly misleading comments on 'financial failings'

Using today's stock price as a measure of anything is not really helpful in 2008, given the overall world economy.Ykral (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Which other price do you want to use? One chosen by yourself, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

References might really be just a commercial.

I want to point out that I have not found anywhere where Warren Buffett agrees that his ex daughter in laws (Mary Buffett) books are authentically teaching his method of investing.

Therefore, they have no business being listed in the reference. 24.108.136.141 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Stock Holdings

I will definitely add the stock holding info to Warren Buffett /Berkshire Hathaway pages because this is what readers want to see and why they come to these pages. Gary King's edit makes the whole page non-readable and much less useful. People come to these pages because Warren Buffett is a legendary stock picker.

The stock holding info I put on is from the latest Berkshire 13F filing with SEC. It's not stock quote or anything changing fast. It's what Berkshire tells world what they bought/held/sold in last quarter. Always keep in mind Warren Buffett is about investment, i.e., stocks, without that, the page is dead.Iifacts (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any addition of the stocks, as they are indiscriminate bits of information which other websites can serve more efficiently. I would accept linking to an SEC page from this article that contains the same information, to provide readers the information without cluttering what is already in this article. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The stock holding in a table form is the best way to view it, and I will keep it up-to-date. If you think the info is wrong in that part, change it. But it's not right to simply cut it off. Also, please get the time line back. It's a lot of work from a lot of people, it cannot simply go away because of your personal taste. Iifacts (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An external link would work fine and would save time and effort. I noticed that you (Iifacts) reverted even though consensus was against you and you had already reverted twice. Please keep in mind the three-revert-rule. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page, I agree that an external link is more appropriate than having a list of stock holdings that may or may not be kept up to date. However, if an external link is used, I highly suggest that it be to a page other than iifacts.com, however, which I would suspect, from the editor's username, may be a conflict of interest issue. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for bringing that up, I didn't actually check the URL used and so I didn't suspect a COI. This brings a whole new dimension to this. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you can find better info elsewhere than what's on iifacts.com, go ahead. Gary: your stock holding link on Berkshire Hathaway is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iifacts (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I renamed it to Assets. It was Holdings for a while until I merged the lists together on that page. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a page existed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there were a few lists before in this article. One was the stock information, which I removed. The other was a list of assets that his company owned; some items in the list were not yet in the separate article, so I merged it in there to be cleaned up later. Gary King (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Books about Warren Buffett

According to an entertaining and informative USA Today article[15] from October 2008, more books have Buffett's name in their title than any other living person, excluding U.S. presidents, major world political figures, and the Dalai Lama. I've added a section describing this phenomenon, and listing the books about Buffett that have an indicia of notability--namely, the book or the book's author has its own Wikipedia article. I added one additional book to the list, a gigantic book that's described at some length in the USA Today article. If others think it would be useful to create a list of all books about Buffett, perhaps that would appropriate for a separate article linked from this section.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on bottom of Page

Please remove the vandalism on the bottom of this page. 140.175.214.35 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's now been reverted. If you notice vandalism in the future, feel free to be bold in removing it yourself. --Onorem♠Dil 12:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reorganized the article

Okay, after reading this article every once in a while and never seeing any major improvements, I just went ahead and reorganized it, giving it essentially a complete overhaul. No content was lost; all prose was kept intact. I think that the new layout is a lot better than before, but it might still need a few tweaks here and there, such as better section titles. Gary King (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

me too pohick (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cutting Tobacco quote

i'm considering cutting the tobacco quote. no context, using Buffett as straw man vs. "ethical" investing, he's only bought tobacco stocks when they're cheap, never a core holding pohick (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ok i put it down in a new section, with a follow on quote. dropped guardian ref as secondary, to book barbarians at gate. pohick (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

wealthalchemist.com link spamming

Many of the links seem to go to wealthalchemist.com blog postings instead of legitimate news sources. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.94.195 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

plagurism?

a part of the introduction is 100% identical to the web page http://www.motivational-story.com/richest.html

"When Buffett spent $9.7 million of Berkshire's funds on a business jet in 1989, he jokingly named it "The Indefensible" because of his past criticisms of such purchases by other CEOs. He lives in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha that he bought in 1958 for $31,500 and today, it is valued at around $700,000."

the are massive similarities throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.184.61 (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I read some of the original article and wrote a new way of explaining the anecdote. However, I am not sure that the story even should be a part of this article as already I feel this page is too long. If anyone went behind me and deleted the story about the jet, I would not oppose. I should also say that I moved this story from the introduction to "personal life." Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation 26

Citation 26 appears to be a Duke student's uncited and IMHO poorly written paper. I think it should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.55.47 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the probability of his having autism, specifically aspergers syndrome?

There are numerous hints of it in his Bio, and the foundations he supports and his sister supports contribute heavily to autism/aspergers research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.30.129 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I read a book review in the Sunday Times of the new authorised biography on him, and the reviewer questioned why the author hadn't brought up the subject of him probably having asperger's. He eats the same food each day (burgers and cherry coke) and has many irrational aspects of his behaviour... I'll check the review (I kept it) and give a ref tomorrow :) But it seems a relevant issue. Malick78 (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fisher/Graham

Either this page or Fisher's page is incorrect as it has the Buffett percentage quote reversed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to submit an e-mail to Mr. Buffett and I don't have an e-mail address to Mr. Buffett. How do I get an e-mail to this busy man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.142.244 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Try berkshire@berkshirehathaway.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.171.34 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not go to the Hagstrom book? <sigh> He might well have said it both ways depending on the date. Pohick2 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Political Views

I noticed you guys conveniently left out that buffett is actually a conservative, and usually supports republican nominees. He is a fan of the free market, obviously, and while he has endorsed obama, he hasnt actually supported any of his economic policies. This should be mentioned, because as it is written now it is a bit misleading. Any business man would be lying if they said obama's economic policies are good for free market.136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a profound misreading of his views, but do you have a reference to support this? Snowball goes into great detail about his pro-choice, pro-estate tax, anti-privatization of social security views. what economic policy did he fail to support? even if, it wouldn't make him a conservative. Munger is the conservative. Pohick2 (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

this contrast between Obama policy and the free market is interesting. i've seen the opposite point made: that Obama has been co-opted by the wall street, goldman sachs set, and the jaw-boning is only rhetoric, but i take it you wouldn't agree. Pohick2 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By international standards, Obama is very right-wing and market oriented. At most, one could describe his policies as vaguely keynesian, which isn't exactly the most controversial stance in relation to economic theory. Most of Obama's economic policies would be considered borderline libertarian in a european setting. //European political scientist 85.226.152.189 (talk)

Minor ref his early life

Currently, the comment about the pinball machine makes the narrative confusing. We do not know the significance of the pinball machine story if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.11.156 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

well to put it in context, these stories show how he grew his seed capital: paper route, rental car, pinball, and stock investments, from an early age. although retold in a hagiographic manner Pohick2 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very very minor, and it's not my habit to edit directly (particularly such a good entry), but I've just read in the Lowenstein biography that it was his friend Lanly who bought the pinball machine because he was into mechanical stuff (p24) and that it was Buffet's idea to hire it out, rather than that they bought it jointly with this in mind, which is how the entry reads. There is some later reference to Buffet "claiming" that they both bought it and this is used as an example of him occasionally mythologising his early life - although at 50 years distance one would forgive him this slight misrecollection, especially if it makes the anecdote simpler in the telling which is probably the purpose. I respectfully leave this comment to the guys who are editing this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.15.32 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

well according to Kirpatrick Of Permanent Value, Don Danly and he formed the "Wilson Coin-Operated Machine Company". (Woodrow Wilson High School, Washington D.C.) "Warren provided the capital, and Danly was director of technology (fixed the machines), the company was sold when Warren went to U. of Penn, and Danly went to Cornell" "they bought a $25 pinball machine which they fixed up. They installed it in a barbershop on busy Wisconsin Avenue. After the first day of operation, the young entrepreneurs returned to find $4 in a pan full of nickels. Buffett has said, "I figured I had discovered the wheel"" Lowenstein may have garbled it. Also Danly was in the Partnership, and remained a shareholder, so the story telling has been going on for a while. Pohick2 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition To Opening..

I added Berkshire Hathaway's FT Global 500 rating as of June 2009 to give the reader a sense of the scale of Mr. Buffets awesome lifetime accomplishment. I of course provided an inline citation of the source. --Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary in what way?

The intro paragraph has described Buffett as the most successful investor "in history" or "in the world", and perhaps there are other categories as well. What is the most meaningful to our readers, to convey how unusual his performance has been (and, by implication, how unusual his talent)?

IMO, he is the most successful: 1. on a relative basis (i.e., average growth rate over a long time) among all wealthy investors who are now alive or (probably) who have even lived at any time in the last century or so. Possibly, though, there is someone whose average growth rate is a little higher, but who started with much less and was therefore not widely noticed, or who died after "only" 30 years, instead of persisting as long as Buffett. 2. on an absolute basis (i.e., in terms of increase in total personal wealth) among all people ever, who have invested under modern economic rules. This leaves out the Pharoahs, for instance, b/c their rules had much to do with religious and political power, not investment in the modern sense. It also leaves out people who achieved a higher rate with much less wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See the Berkshire Hathaway section and follow the links. This information is "in the clear", that is any one can access it. Berkshire is bigger then freakin IBM! Holy Smokes that is astounding! To simplify further, Warrens system can be stated in four simple steps:(1) He reads.. (2)He thinks.. (3)He acts... (4) He waits.. These are things anyone can do. --Oracleofottawa (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite. (And he is an excellent writer as well, as his shareholder letters on the BH site demonstrate.) But this neither explains nor sources the statement in the intro paragraph -- the topic of this section. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

Buffett's investment in Goldman Sachs is partly financed by the tax-payer. See reference 13 in the Goldman article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Reference 15 in the Goldman article is much the same, showing how Buffett is being partly financed by the U.S. tax-payer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Reference 14 in the Goldman article is interesting, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.34.71 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

huh? he invested in Goldman, the Government is a counterparty, no financing there. however, with the Government largess, there is less chance of default, and also the dividend exclusion for corporations. i take it you want the AIG counterparties to take a haircut, but there is no legal rationale for that. With the quitting of AIG executives,[16] the value of our investment is impaired more than the amount of the bonuses. pohick (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The ref. numbers have now been changed. See ref. 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.40.73 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

School Days Anomalies

Born: 1930 Started Elementary School: 1942 Graduated High School: 1947 Say What?????

Also not clear on where these schools were.

63.170.90.24 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sokol

Sokol's activities should be mentioned in this article about Buffett. The Sokol article is already linked to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Partnerships

There are many references to "partnerships", and to "partnerships operating the entire year". That is a complete mystery to most people. An explanation in simple English would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Office Cameo

Has anyone pointed out that Warren Buffet was in the Season 7 Finale of NBC's The Office? He was one of the contendors for Michael Scott's manager position. Just thought that would be interesting to add to his page. If you'd like proof, check officetally.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.198.166 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Which category does he belong to, Scottish Americans? I think Buffet might be a Welsh name. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Howard Buffett says "Buffetts were of Huguenot ancestry". Therefore, shouldn't this article be in the Category:French Americans? Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dollar and Gold again

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the heading "Dollar and Gold" someone has written "WHAT?". The answer to the question is the trade deficit. I suggest that the first sentence under this heading should begin "The trade deficit induced Buffett to enter the foreign currency..." The appropriate reference is Buffett, Warren, "America's Growing Trade Deficit Is Selling the Nation Out From Under Us," FORTUNE, November 10, 2003.

14breh (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 00:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation 61

The existing link is to the wayback machine loading a page selling a dvd of the interview. A more useful link is http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1294 which is a stream of the interview (live as of this post).

Kegly (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Warren Buffett/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Clearly does not meet criteria. Article was reviewed by a now-blocked user. Plenty of unreferenced paragraphs. Structure needs work; "Public positions" section especially; plenty of miscellaneous information could go here. It needs to be organized with more general section headings. The entire article looks the same from when I last set foot here and made it look far better than the way it was before, with at least a few dozen bullet points, and it still is a long way to go for a GA. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Demoting Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Phil Fisher.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Phil Fisher.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dollar and gold

"This induced Buffett to enter ..." WHAT induced him? "Buffett['s] views [on] the United States' expanding trade deficit..." or "Author Ann Pettifor has adopt[ing] the image..." Or something else. Yes, I did understand it after a minute or two of re-reading, but I still feel it is badly written. Do these two really need different headings? If yes, then make each a stand alone piece, otherwise put 'em together or throw them out. Balgarion13 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, why don't you go ahead and edit it so that it is clearer? Owen× ☎ 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

nothing really ur just dome — Preceding unsigned comment added by First447 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Link for Roger Lowenstein

Please linkify Roger Lowenstein. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kuru (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

dude that does not make any sences because born 1930 school in 1934 and he got out if school in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by First447 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this sentence is almost incomprehensible; could you try to clarify your concern so we can help you? Kuru (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Namaste

113.199.147.120 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)As have come to know about Mr. Buffet that he is a very good investor and also a good helping person.can i talk to him if have few minutes.113.199.147.120 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A more honest Buffett?

Interesting angle on his "Views on Taxes" in 2007. It would be nice to add to that section.

"I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations, will do a better job with lower adminsitrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/22199472/Warren_Buffett_to_CNBC_Giving_Money_to_Charity_Isn_t_a_Tax_Dodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Please note that Susan Thompson Buffett year of birth is 1932 and not 1952 as listed in the box on the top right of the page.

24.118.160.111 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Oops! That isn't her birth year, that is the year they were married. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible worth inaccuracy

The wikipedia entry states "In 1956, Benjamin Graham retired and closed his partnership. At this time Buffett's personal savings were over $174,000 ($1.2 million inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars) and he started Buffett Partnership Ltd., an investment partnership in Omaha.".

On the other side, Mr Buffett says "The thing is, when I got out of college, I had $9,800, but by the end of 1955, I was up to $127,000." (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2012/03/26/warren-buffetts-50-billion-decision/)

Do we have an inaccuracy here? I consider this aspect important, because one thing that people may be interested in about Mr Buffett, besides "stock holding info" like discussed by other users, is this legendary investor's annualized return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoara1 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

You may replace the "[citation needed]" in "Buffett returned to Omaha and worked as a stockbroker while taking a Dale Carnegie public speaking course." with a reference to this source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505383_162-57373393/person-to-person-warren-buffett/ (the video at the top of the page), where Mr Buffett himself shows us his diploma of "Dale Carnegie Course" that he took at the age of 21.

Later edit: I forgot to mention, we can see "Dale Carnegie Course" diploma at 6:00 in that video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoara1 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicoara1 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Kuru (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Cultural impact section, example item

• For Runners, a Lift From Warren Buffett April 27, 2012, regarding Brooks Sports shoes. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ownership of newspapers

Does any one know about his ownership of seventy-two newspapers that he has just acquired? It was mentioned on news on Today on Radio Four this morning. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is the website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18107508

It mentions how he just acquired media general newspapers. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

The passage below tremendously undermines the difference between the "Percentage Loss" of an individuals "wealth", and the "Absolute Loss" of an individual's "wealth."

---

 Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from 
 dividends capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.[138] “How can this be fair?” 
 Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be right?" He also added:
 "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."[139][140]

---

 Warren Buffett, an individual (thereby meaning un-dividable in a societal sense), lost billions of dollars of his own wealth in 2008.
 This loss is not comparable to any other individual's losses through tax payment percentages.

 A single individual losing billions of USD in one year, is orders of magnitude more appreciable than the spread between the stated 
 33%-19% = 14%.*  The employee's Warren cites are still happily employed, earning the same salary they have been, and more.  Meanwhile, 
 Warren lost Billions. This world doesn't reward safety (meaning his employees); This world rewards(and punishes) risk (meaning 
 investors).  And tax percentages (although still not perfect) reflect the relationship with which one stands to lose or gain against 
 their peers that weren't willing to make the same commitment to societies future. 14% doesn't have any tangible value without an absolute 
 dollar amount multiplied by it.  Being taxed an extra 14% on $50,000/year salary is peanuts; It means you can't go to the sizzler buffet 
 every Friday night, and buy an extra car that you don't need.  14% detracted from Berkshire-Hathaway's inherent value to society would 
 mean the company wants to start thinking about laying off many employees, and thereby interrupting many peoples lives, leading to 
 economic instability.** If anything, this passage should reflect the fundamental values underpinning capitalism and thus the American 
 dream; put your money, ideas, responsibility, and your livelihood where you will be happy, and take the consequences commensurately.  I 
 am 99% sure that is how people want to live their lives.

"Percentage Points" are not equal to "Absolute Value." If the editors of wikipedia, or Warren, desire a lesson in finance/economics/software programming, send me an email.

Kyle Eide <email address redacted>

• This is also the case for anyone who is willing to trade "today's problem" for "tomorrow's solution", so to speak.

• • Having a steady, productive occupation is inherently more worthwhile to society than eating at sizzlers on Friday's. It is the classic case of production versus consumption

Aristeaus19 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Floating Boat (the user formerly known as AndieM) 18:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Update to Books about Warren Buffett

• Preston Pysh, Warren Buffett's Three Favorite Books. (An interactive book that references http:www.buffettsbooks.com for online videos)

AndyBowers (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2012

I have located a missing source within this article. It is source number 114.

Right now it says "NY Times article should go here." Here is a link to said article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/business/27friends.html. The Title is "A $31 Billion Gift Between Friends," the author, Landon Thomas Jr., and it was published on June 27, 2006.

Ktbennett (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the tip. Some copyediting would be useful there, if anyone has a moment. Rivertorch (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2012

Please add the following Bloomberg Billionaires reference to the first paragraph:

He is widely considered the most successful investor of the 20th century. Buffet is the primary shareholder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway[5] and consistently ranked among the world's wealthiest people. In October 2012, he was ran ranked as the world's 4th richest man by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Previously, Buffett was listed as the the wealiest man in the world in 2008 [6] and as the third wealthiest person in 2011.[7] In 2012, American magazine Time named Buffett one of the most influential people in the world.[8] 68.55.214.10 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. Information is already in article and doesn't belong in lede. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wealth in 2009?

He is listed as the wealthiest man in the world in 2008, but second wealthiest in 2009 - the reason given being that he donated billions to charity. If you look into it, this is not why he dropped in the rankings. He lost $25 billion from 2008 to 2009. This was in part due to bad investments, the recession's affects on stocks, and much less due to his donations. This should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.179.229 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism - please revert

Hey folks, an anonymous user here. In Buffett's info box, his religion is listed as "Money". This isn't in the source provided, and a quick Google search doesn't show any evidence. Given the context, I don't think it was a good faith edit either. Please revert it! Guess I will go and register now. - Parsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.189.245 (talk) 01:57, 24 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Klamath River

Shouldn't it at least be specified that this happened in 2008? 76.226.118.88 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Add 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers choice

In the November 2012 issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Buffett was picked with his Administrative assistant Debbie Bosanek FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "For demanding that a secretary not pay more than her billionaire boss." Per http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,32 99.109.127.141 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

American nationality?

He is an U.S. citizen, not an 'american'. A mexican or a peruvian person is an 'american' too. It's not the first time i find such cultural bias in the wiki. I can't correct it because i just created my user a few days ago and the page is blocked. Can anybody do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voetius (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. From the American English language expert Bryan Garner's Garner's Modern American Usage:

American. As an adjective limited in application ot the United States, this word has long been known to be anomalous. All North Americans and South Americans have claim to being called Americans, and yet the language has never quite recognized this fact: "In strict logic such a use is not justifiable, but common practice and understanding have long since put the word beyond the jurisdiction of logic." 1 George Philip Krapp, The English Language in America xiii (1925). Perhaps one reason for the firmly established usage is the lack of any reasonable alternative (United Statesian?)

ryguillian (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

that's US english language expert's opinion. articles in wikipedia are joke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk • contribs)

He can easily be described as a United States investor, etc. "Yankee imperialism" is not an excuse for misleading titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"A. n. 1. An indigenous inhabitant of (any part of) the Americas; an American Indian. Now only with modifying word, as indigenous American, original American, etc.; see also Native American 2. a. a. Originally: a native or inhabitant of America, esp. of the British colonies in North America, of European descent (now hist.). Now chiefly: a native or citizen of the United States. Cf. also Latin American n., North American n., South American n., etc.

B. adj. 1. a. Of or relating to (any part of) the Americas b. Of, relating to, or designating the indigenous inhabitants of (any part of) the Americas; of, relating to, or designating American Indians. Now chiefly with modifying word, as early, original, indigenous, etc."

Obviously, this is just part of what the OED has listed in the entry for "American," but the point is that, while many people use the term "American" to refer to those born in the US, the term is definitely not limited to that use. It would be more accurate to use "United States." 184.38.105.128 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., we call ourselves "Americans", and we call people from South and Central America, South and Central Americans. Maybe because the word America is actually in the name of our country (U.S. of America). El Salvadorans in their language drop the El and call themselves Salvadorenos. It's their prerogative, and helps simplify matters. Since this article was written more than likely by an American (even the Brits and other English-speaking countries refer to U.S. citizens as Americans) in American English (there you go again), it's only fitting to use the term. Too bad "Americans" got first dibs on the term because we had one of the first successful revolutions against an Imperial power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.142.18 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Americans could be called Yanks too, but that is not your nationality. Wikipedia needs to maintain higher standards, and be on guard against colloquialisms.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Howard Buffett

Mr Buffett senior was a critic of the interventionist New Deal policy, that I understand, but critic of "foreign policy" makes no sense. Critic of which policy?203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mercaptan

Buffett is benefitting from the bad smell from Lubrizol. This should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.23.219.8 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the money-making smell of mercaptan. How long it will stay, I don't know.

It smells like Warren's morals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.33.136 (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Causes

The allegedly philanthropic causes are evil causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.33.136 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Buffet has clashed with regulators. This was before the mercaptan, with an evil smell, hit us from Lubrizol, a subsidiary of Buffet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.33.136 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest some verifiable information from reliable sources we could use to improve the article? This isn't a forum about the subject, this is a place to discuss article improvements, within Wikipedia policy. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A Google search with "Lubrizol mercaptan" produces many references. See www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21147361 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Many sources are available for clashes involving Sokol and Mid American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM, comments unrelated to improving the article may be deleted. A comment which makes no sense is unrelated to improving the article.

Therefore, a comment which makes no sense (on a talk page) may be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The "evil causes" comment starting this section falls into the unrelated category. The one by 81.152.162.31, while of dubious veracity, is related to the article, does not fall under WP:NOTFORUM, and if true, would serve to improve the article. As much as I see such comments as being of low value, I think we should need a very good reason to remove someone's on-topic comment from a Talk page. This view is also reflected in our policies and guidelines, with which you are at least as familiar as I am. Owen× ☎ 01:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin Graham and The Intelligent Investor

Right now, the introduction merely says that Buffett is a value investor.

Shouldn't it specifically mention Benjamin Graham and The Intelligent Investor?
After all, this is the man Buffett named his son after - his mentor and teacher. He has repeatedly said that almost everything he does is what Graham taught him.

“ I'm 15 percent Fisher and 85 percent Benjamin Graham.

The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing.

”

And in the preface to the The Intelligent Investor, Buffett calls it "by far the best book on investing ever written",

That could be highlighted better than just "one of his favorite books on investing", as it currently says on the article. It's not ever day that Buffett writes a preface to a book, let alone call it by far the best ever!

Such specific information on Buffett's investing origins would be very valuable to uninitiated readers trying to understand his investment philosophy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.136.164 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2013

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Suggest changing school name from "Wharton Business School," which is incorrect, to "Wharton School" 71.183.241.14 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done EBY (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Social media

To date, Warren Edward Buffett has two Verified accounts:
1.linkedin
2.Twitter Handle Is @WarrenBuffett
--Ltalawar 10:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Business career section titles

In the sections on his business career, I wonder if segmenting his career into events that transpired when he was "millionaire" and then a "billionaire" is the most appropriate method of segmentation. Millionaire and billionaire are arbitrary categories, not really appropriate for measuring the business career of a person. A business career is defined not by a person's net worth, but by the milestones in the business itself...or by time period. Either one would be a good alternative. ask123 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture on Warren Buffett's page

The picture of Warren Buffett on his page is nine years outdated and just, frankly, not a very good picture of him.

A recommendation: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/warren_buffett.top.jpg

Thank you 209.6.140.72 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: thanks for the suggestion, but I suspect that the picture you link to is under copyright. --Stfg (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

In the warren Buffett page, 4th line under personal life, we have "three were close and Christmas cards to friends were signed "Warren, Susie and Astrid"." It should have been three were close and Christmas cards to friends were signed "Warren, Susan and Astrid". Praveen2032 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the 3 persons who signed the christmas cards were "Warren, Susan and Astrid". But is is incorrect in the page which states "Warren, Susie and Astrid". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen2032 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Wdchk (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Section: Philanthropy

The following quotation from 1988 highlights Warren Buffett's thoughts on his wealth and why he long planned to re-allocate it:

to

The following *quote* from 1988 highlights Warren Buffett's thoughts on his wealth and why he *had* long planned to re-allocate it

From a NY Times article

to

From an article by The New York Times 10000drums (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've replaced "quotation" with "quote" and "a NY Times article" with "an article by The New York Times". I'm not convinced injecting "had" in that first sentence is appropriate grammar or improves the context of the sentence in any way, so I'm leaving that part out. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Astrid Mencks

Astrid Mencks seems to have been born in America with a Scandinavian background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.185.243 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Worth

Worth section should be updated. As of 2014, Buffett is number 4 on Forbes chart with $58.2 Billion. Didn't want to make a change to the article until someone with word skills could word it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.97.207 (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Politics: Political Affiliation, Donation and Party

Retired Boys Town English teacher Barbara Basham of Omaha, Nebraska, who is also retired from investment firm Edward-Jones, has stated repeatedly to Omaha, Nebraska's larger than life living hero, Trent James (TJ) Stewart, who is the son of the widow's companion, widower James Robert Stewart, all of Omaha, Buffett is a registered Democrat.

No mention of Buffett's political affiliation was ever mentioned in the article other than possibly the fact that his Father, Howard Buffett, was a Republican US Congressman representing Nebraska while Warren Buffett was a child.

James Stewart and Barbara Basham have both found themselves attending the same half price movie theater as Buffett in the last two decades, although neither Basham nor Stewart have met Buffett.

Trent (TJ) Stewart and Warren Buffett have met on two occasion, both at the Kiewitt Plaza office building where Buffett's Berkrshire Hathaway office is located.

Stewart was briefly employed by the International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 28 in Omaha before being fired during his proationary period for using the elevator car he and fellow IUEC Local 28 mechanic, Jay Greenfield, had just conducted the yearly safety and operational test upon to escort four elederly gentlemen seeking an elevator ride after leaving Buffett's office to leave the building.

Buffett could have cared less and was never notified of the travesty, after insutlting both Greenfield of Onowa, Iowa, and Stewart for the elevator car taking so long to respond to Buffett's call while the two had two of the building's four elevators shut down for safety reasons while conducting the mandator yearly tests.

On another occasion, Stewart laughed and insulted Buffett as one of the world's wealthiest men was again waiting for the elevator car he had requested at the lower level of the building telling Greenfield what a loser Buffett really was, pointing out Buffett held the smallest paper sack McDonald's made in his hand, so small it was unable to hold more than one breakfast sandwich as the billionaire headed to his office full of employees adding anyone Stewart had ever worked for would have at least brought donuts for the entire office.

Greenfield then attempted to terrorize Stewart by ordering his apprentice into the dirt floored room connecting the four elevator pits as Greenfield let the building's freight elevator freewheel three levels onto the elevator pit's buffer while Stewart stood ten feet away. Stewart survived the impact of the crashing eleavator car which shook the entire sixteen story Kiewitt Plaza building and sent employees on the upper levels near the elevator shaft to believe they were under terrorist attack.

But Jay Greenfield of KONE Elevator and Escalator based in Finland, was not done testing Stewart's nerve, yet.

The three thousand pounds in elevator weights were removed from the slightly damaged elevator car and Stewart was once again ordered into the adjoining room connecting the elevator pits. Prior to the test of the building's freight elevator, Stewart was ordered to perform the same duties in the elavator room above the elevator shaft of the sixteen story, eighteen level structure.

Greeenfield, a twenty year veteran elevator mechanic, then contacted Stewart from the eleavator control rooom at the roof of the building via radio, he was going to let the counterweight stack freewheel from an even higher position that the elevator car which had been damaged when the elevator's buffer completely compressed but could not absorb the force of the tens of thousnands of pounds falling down from three stories above.

Stewart reported to his friends and Father that he could hear the ten thousand pound counterweight stack rolling down the greased rails that guide it getting louder and louder until coming into view a split second before completely compressing the twelve foot tall hydraulic damper then exploding while Stewart stood ten feet away as ordered.

In a panic, believing he had seriously injured or killed Stewart with his childish game of chicken, Greenfield called for Stewart on the radios the men carried.

Shrapnel from explodiing counterweight stack had flown through Stewart's chest as if an artillery shell had exploded near him.

Not quite, the luckiest man alive, who has survived over a dozen attempts on his life over his lifteime survived the recklessness of Jay Greenfield of KONE Elevator and Escalator in Omaha, as well.

Bolts and nuts from the explosion flew past the man as shrapnel, but after a self examination by Stewart, had all missed the man.

Stewart was then fired not long after, following an altercation with an Omaha Police Division uniformed officer in the Baker's Supermarket at 24 and Vinton Streets in Omaha in which Stewart used his body to prevent the attack of his elderly father by the officer working security at the grocery store while the two were shopping.

The officer fled the scene of his crime after being knocked to the ground by Trent Stewart and Joe Dworak fired Stewart from his employ with KONE shortly after citing the earlier escorting of the elderly clients of Berkshire Hathaway as one of the reasons.

Knowing the Union was behind the whole thing, Stewart resigned the IUEC the same day.

Since then, 2003, Stewart has been recognized by the El Salvadoran immigrant community as a hero beyond anything white America has ever produced, saving two of themn from death in seperate incidents and also saving the lives of a young mother, her three year old daughter, and drug addicted father who were being held at gunpoint in 2009. That incident came to light when the gunman later shot a bouncer at a tavern in Omaha then committed suicide and pulled Stewart, a reputed Irish Mob Boss, into the media spotlight.

Stewart declined interview by three of the four television news media outlets in Omaha.

In the 2003 incident defending his father from attack by a uniformed, armed, Omaha Police Division officer, witnesses came forward immediately telling Trent Stewart, that same officer had assaulted three other elederly store patrons and no officer needs assistance call nor criminal charge was filed against Stewart.

Later that same year, President George W. Bush contacted Stewart via US mail thanking him.

A serial rapist from Omaha had just become part of his Prsidential Administration unknown to the President of his staff and Stewart notified Senators Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson to the disaster.

In 2004, President Bush sent Stewart yet another thank you letter, this time on behalf of both himself and First Lady Laura Bush.

Then in recent years, President Barack Obama awarded Warren Buffett the Medal of Freedom, which Stewart claims to this very day was intended for him, but give to the billionarie, instead of the convicted felon.

The National Rifle Association refuses to acknowledge Stewart's felony conviction and he continues to vote for NRA Board members each and every year after a near thirty year tenure in the NRA.

The Greatest Living Hero the United States ever produced and you never heard of, Trent James (TJ) Stewart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.15.90 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2014

Project Economics

Warren Buffet is neither an economist nor is he relevant for economics as a science. There exists a popular misconception that economics is about the stock markets and therefore stock brokers are relevant. This is incorrect. Thanks. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the issue of scope at the project page. Meanwhile you don't have consensus for this so please don't reinstate it. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Forbes 400 entrance should be in 1983, not 1979.

In 'As a millionaire' section, there is misinformation;

'In 1979, Berkshire began the year trading at $775 per share, and ended at $1,310. Buffett's net worth reached $620 million, placing him on the Forbes 400 for the first time.'

1979 is wrong, it should be 1983. Please see historical price chart of BRK-A on yahoo-finance web site.

This information can also be verified by page 483 of Snowball, a book about Warren Buffett. He made the entrance to Forbes 400 at the end of 1983 by 680 million $. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.127.161 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion August 2014

The section headed "Writings" is really what he has written about economics and investing philosophy. I suggest a change to either the heading (eg, "writing about investment philosophy") or the body to make it match the heading. Also on the suggested topic. this should include the quote from his 2014 annual report where he recommends a low cost S&P 500 index fund such as Vanguard's - a major statement that goes against some of his other statements quoted in this section. 85.1.194.144 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing monitoring and revision

After revising the first part of the "Personal life" section today, I realize that this article requires both revision and ongoing monitoring. For example, the first part of a paragraph was left uncited, as the reference supporting the second half of the paragraph made the entire paragraph appear verified. I will continue to monitor and revise the page, and have entered a template at the top of the page. Thanks. --Soulparadox (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit

Just completed a copyedit of this piece (Feedback welcomed!) Comments:

• I didn't remove it, but I think there is too much emphasis on BH deals and other stuff, which belongs in the BH article, not a bio, unless it reveals something about the man, other than his investment savvy.
• I thought I'd see more about his relationship with Munger, again not about BH minutiae, but about the people.

Cheers Lfstevens (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this work. I will attempt to review it thoroughly in due course.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Net Worth

Wondering if the Net Worth should be updated.

According to cnn.com, he has lost 2 billion dollars in the past two days. (Mostly in Coca Cola and IBM stocks.)

Dated 10/22/14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.127 (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Warren buffett's real job

Why doesn't the article say anything about his control in Illuminati? Jenny17070 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Because most of us aren't paranoid crackpots. Owen× ☎ 12:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And the illuminati are fiction.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they don't EXIST? . . . .

(.....It's NOT that Mexican goat-sucker, either....)

69.127.82.127 (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/22/warren-buffett-on-cell-phones-email-and-material-goods/ Warren Buffet does seem to own a cell phone as reported on CNN.184.97.121.158 (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC) 184.97.121.158 (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"He was the most successful investor of the 20th century."

Second sentence in the article. That seems like a subjective statement. Most successful by what standard? Is there a citation on that? 24.150.144.157 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Barry

Warren Buffett is a supporter of Barry Dunham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.7.229 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A quote?

The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing.[21]

As written, this appears to be a quote from Buffett, in which case it should be enclosed within quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.8.90 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My philanthropic pledge Reference

Reference number 11: My philanthropic pledge is not working.

I have found it here: http://archive.fortune.com/2010/06/15/news/newsmakers/Warren_Buffett_Pledge_Letter.fortune/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERFon (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Important news

Warren Buffett has attacked Indiana SB 101. This should be in this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.211.67 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

BNSFrailroad

Maybe someone can add information regarding BNSF, the problems he has encountered. Maybe someone could look up information about him buying BNSF. Just an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.164.22 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Warren Buffett, in the Feb. of 2012, seemed to be disappointed by BNSF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.131.206.242 (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Link Rot Notification

Source 11 has succumb to link rot. "index.htm" simply needs to be added to the end. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtsnakeeyes11 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done; thanks! Kuru (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive

Should we archive these discussions?--88.111.129.157 (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea :) Done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Buffett's ethnicity

Buffett's father's wiki article claims he's of Scandinavian ancestry paternally while his son is apparently only of "French Huguenot" background. How does that square up? Because Buffett's mother is of Huguenot descent? I don't believe anyone else in his line is of French descent, and if so, or if not so, the article should clarify this. Ultimately, it's not really accurate to say one is or one's family is "of French Huguenot" descent unless one is or one's family is predominantly or fully of such an origin. Simply stated, it's just plainly false to say Buffett's family is "of French Huguenot descent". The name "Stahl" (his mother's maiden name) for example is as not French as conceivably possible. It's a standard German last name. The line should read: "Buffett is of mixed ethnic heritage. His father's family was of Scandinavian and French Huguenot extraction. His mother had some German ancestry. There is also some British (likely English) ancestry in his line, based upon a casual analysis of his family tree." These wiki articles are so scant and dishonest on the ethnic issues. How can you have two contradictory articles and no one recognizes this? It can't continue to read that his family was of French Huguenot descent. That just seems way overblown, given what we know. We can only confirm one person in his line as having such descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adplatt126 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

http://famouskin.com/ahnentafel.php?name=11381+warren+buffett You can put this family tree as a citation right next to the end of the quotes. It's a far more accurate analysis/assessment of his background.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Buffett's father's wiki article claims he's of Scandinavian ancestry paternally while his son is apparently only of "French Huguenot" background. How does that square up? Because Buffett's mother is of Huguenot descent? I don't believe anyone else in his line is of French descent, and if so, or if not so, the article should clarify this. Ultimately, it's not really accurate to say one is or one's family is "of French Huguenot" descent unless one is or one's family is predominantly or fully of such an origin. Simply stated, it's just plainly false to say Buffett's family is "of French Huguenot descent". The name "Stahl" (his mother's maiden name) for example is as not French as conceivably possible. It's a standard German last name. The line should read: "Buffett is of mixed ethnic heritage. His father's family was of Scandinavian and French Huguenot extraction. His mother had some German ancestry. There is also some British ancestry (likely English or Scottish) in his line, based upon a casual analysis of his family tree." These wiki articles are so scant and dishonest on the ethnic issues. How can you have two closely connected articles that directly contradict one another and no one recognizes this? It can't continue to read that his family was of French Huguenot descent. That just seems way overblown, given what we know. We can only confirm one person in his line as having such descent.

citation: http://famouskin.com/ahnentafel.php?name=11381+warren+buffett You can put this family tree as a citation right next to the end of the quotes. It's a far more accurate analysis/assessment of his background. Adplatt126 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your conclusions about his mother's ethnicity based on her family name cannot be put in the article. The relevant rule is WP:Original Research.

Your view that French people called "Stahl" are "as not French as conceivably possible" is ill-informed. For example, some Alsations are called "Stahl".

In any case, making deductions based on names if fraught with error. For example, neither the Verdy du Vernois family nor the "Pour le Mérite" are French.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Real Time Net Worth

Is it possible to automatically change the net worth to whatever it says here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime or can it only be done manually--88.111.129.157 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at bot requests.--88.104.133.190 (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warren Buffett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100608082855/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_buffett_lunch to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100606/ap_on_bi_ge/us_buffett_lunch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

Please can edit the WIKI page to include the book Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders. The book is official and includes shareholders letters which are not on the Berkshire Hathaway website. You can see a link on the Berkshire Hathaway website pointing to this book -

For your information, It is my first time requesting an edit on Wikipedia so I am going to give two possible sections where I think the information could fit.

1) AS A BILLIONAIRE section with the following example text, change as needed:

In 2013 the official book “Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders” was published and compiles the full unedited shareholder letters between 1965 and 2012. Shareholder letters from 1965-1976 which are included in the book are not on the Berkshire Hathaway Website.

2) Or alternatively you can add the following to the section "Books About Buffett".

• Warren Buffett and Max Olson, "Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders"

Tripolitrader (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tripolitrader (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved a reference to the letters on Berkshire's website to the external links section, where it's more likely to be spotted. The reference didn't specifically state where in the letters the assertion could be confirmed, so it wasn't really needed in the article body. As you point out, that contains a link to the published book, which should be sufficient. Wikipedia isn't really intended for the promotion of books. See the external links guidelines. This isn't really a "book about Buffett" in the sense of the others; it's a book of letters written by Buffett. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2015

| networth = US$81.9 billion (November 2015) 115.111.233.66 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: Your source does not back up your claim. It is more in line with the current number in the article. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Political comentary alert

"Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their source as dividends & capital gains, although the figure excluded the taxes on that income paid by the corporations that provided it), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.[152]"

The phrase,"although the figure excluded the taxes on that income paid by the corporations that provided it" refers to the concept of "double taxation". This is a political concept used by those opposed to individual capital gains taxes. In the national press, this concept is not routinely brought up when discussing the taxes owed or paid by any individual taxpayer.

Since all individual income tax excludes "taxes on that income paid by the corporation that provided it," by definition, the inclusion of this phrase does not provide any illumination to the reader. It should be excluded. If the issue of "double taxation" needs to be addressed, it should be handled directly, with relevant links and quotes, rather than inserting it in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.139.177 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This comment was made by me anonymously prior to creating an account.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2015 - Dead references link

That's a dead references link [130]:

That's the original link at fortune.com-archive:

References

Bestoernesto (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warren Buffett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090414092753/http://www.equilar.com:80/CEO_Compensation/Berkshire_Hathaway_Warren_E._Buffett.php to http://www.equilar.com/CEO_Compensation/Berkshire_Hathaway_Warren_E._Buffett.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Warren Buffett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151005230616/http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090724005103&newsLang=en to http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090724005103&newsLang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130724100245/http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page95?oid=234774&sn=Detail to http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page95?oid=234774&sn=Detail
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413013010/http://www.forbes.com:80/2004/10/11/cx_da_1011topnews_print.html to http://www.forbes.com/2004/10/11/cx_da_1011topnews_print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warren Buffett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111009083337/http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/buffett001/category/1084 to http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/buffett001/category/1084

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Business career: Benjamin Graham's refusal

In the article it says;

Buffett wanted to work on Wall Street; however, both his father and Ben Graham urged him not to. He offered to work for Graham for free, but Graham refused.[35]

The website http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/03/8-unusual-things-i-learned-from-warren-buffett/ says;

When he originally wanted to work for his mentor Ben Graham, on Wall Street, Graham said, “no”. Buffett was shocked and asked why. Graham told him it was because he wasn’t Jewish. Graham wanted to save a spot in the firm for a Jewish person. To be fair, Graham was worried that Jews couldn’t be hired anywhere else on Gentile Wall Street so he wanted his firm to be Jewish-friendly.

I understand the sensitive nature of this information, but if it is true then extending the sentence explaining why Buffett was rejected is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.165.84 (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2016

103.244.14.94 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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. Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

you forgot one thing

you forgot to add that he donated 46.1 billion dollars between the years 2002-2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.138.132 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

correct this typo

In Politics section, please edit to "times and" "...the IRS multiple time sand am currently being audited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.247.99 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Done - thank you. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aging etc.

Buffett is now 86 (which is unbelievable. wow.). How old will he be when he has to relinquish his hold on things and starts losing his memory? How old can someone be and still run a company? Will he still be able to do it when he is 90? 95? 100? I'm very curious. Lehasa (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warren Buffett. 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/20120308182509/http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=21029-1 to http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=21029-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225154751/http://www.businessweek.com:80/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101214_945792.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101214_945792.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording

The second-wealthiest person in the United States is "considered by some" to be one of the most successful investors in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Should also be mentioned in the same sentence that Warren Buffett endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California (which is what is says later in the article). If there are other candidates he has supported they should be mentioned too, instead of just focusing on the most recent election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.186.106 (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

It says that Warren Buffet is the second richest person in the U.S. as of March 2017, it should also include that he's the second richest person in the world. That's both more accurate and gives more prestige . Eisenzelle (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Didn't Warren Buffett die on May 9, 2017? A0861741 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Kuru (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Warren Buffett. 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/20071209161910/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Nov_22/ai_57747902 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Nov_22/ai_57747902
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2010/ca20101214_945792.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed citation number 13

Citation number 13 didn't have the information for which it was cited for. I replaced the citation with this -

http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffetts-high-school-yearbook-foreshadowed-his-future-career-2012-6?IR=T

Also, there's another citation for the same thing if we can use the website - (http://www.warrenbuffett.com/history/) Knightplex (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Warren Buffett. 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/20151120201106/http://www.incademy.com/courses/ten-great-investors/-warren-buffett/1/1040/10002 to http://www.incademy.com/courses/ten-great-investors/-warren-buffett/1/1040/10002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022065118/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070729/6intro.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070729/6intro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604052500/http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/toptens/forbes400/vehicles/01-cadillac_dts.html to http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/toptens/forbes400/vehicles/01-cadillac_dts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120013350/http://thehill.com/business--lobby/buffett-tells-senate-finance-panel-dynastic-wealth-on-the-rise-in-u.s.-2007-11-15.html to http://thehill.com/business--lobby/buffett-tells-senate-finance-panel-dynastic-wealth-on-the-rise-in-u.s.-2007-11-15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130409020602/http://thebuffett.com/ to http://www.thebuffett.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warren Buffett. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://entrepreneur.venturebeat.com/2010/04/13/startup-lessons-learned-from-warren-buffett/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009121930/http://psc.utah.gov/utilities/electric/07docs/07203501/8-30-07petition.pdf to http://www.psc.utah.gov/utilities/electric/07docs/07203501/8-30-07petition.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonstandard format

Personal biography, wife/children, buried in early investment section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.242 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Either you spell "Chief Executive Officer" or "chief executive officer", but not "Chief executive officer". At least, I haven't seen this spelling before in an article.--Tittyjoke (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I have changed the spelling. Nice catch. Artoasis (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warren Buffett. 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/20100618163023/http://mbaa.fuqua.duke.edu/ldi/press_johngutfreund.html to http://mbaa.fuqua.duke.edu/ldi/press_johngutfreund.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Quote

I miss this quote, that Warren made:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.0.201 (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, the Wikipedia article calls Warren a "philanthropist" - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.0.201 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

He is one of the more philanthropic billionaires; the material in the article is well sourced. I'm presuming you have not researched the context of that quote, here's some help: NYT, CNN.

Use of article by spammers

This article is currently being used by scamming spammers to add credibility to one of their campaigns. Wikipedia's credibility should not be used for profit, especially by criminals. There should be a convenient mechanism to add a warning for the victims so that the spammers will stop doing this. There is an additional risk that spamming scammers will be motivated to actively vandalize Wikipedia articles to add more juice to their scams. The implementation seems IOttMCO, but my many-year-old opinion is that Wikipedia has a "live and let spam" policy, and that has greatly reduced my personal evaluation of the reputation of Wikipedia and also discouraged me from actively supporting Wikipedia. Shanen (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Which part of the article supports spam? Kuru (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pro-abortion

Buffet and Munger have always been pro-abortion, starting before 1973.

This was in the article, but quietly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, neither of them favors abortion. Both are in favor the right to abortion. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

68.71.6.126 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Friendship with Bill Gates [edit | change the code]

In 1991, Bill Gates meets Warren Buffett: the two men become friends. Bill Gates was impressed by Buffett's intelligence. "I have never met anyone with such a clear vision of the business world," Fortune, February 5, 1996. Buffett considers that "Bill Gates could do what I do ... but I could not do what he does ".

In 2000, Buffett testified before the judges in favor of Bill Gates in the US court case against Microsoft.

In 2004, after the death of his wife, Buffett appointed Gates to the board of Berkshire Hathaway. Bill Gates bought shares in the company.
In 2006, Buffett announced its intention to entrust 83% of its fortune to the Bill-and-Melinda-Gates Foundation, joining the board of directors of the foundation but without participating in the foundation's investments.

He is one of the only people with Bill Gates to own the McGold McDonald's card that allows him to eat for free23 in every McDonald's of the world

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

In the philanthropy section, please add that Warren Buffett helps fund the following Buffett family foundations: The Sherwood Foundation (daughter), NoVo Foundation (son), The Howard G. Buffett Foundation (son), The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation (ex-wife), Learning by Giving Foundation (sister), Letters Foundation (sister), The Sunshine Lady Foundation (sister). 169.47.21.184 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

Here in this article , Warren Buffett mother name 'Leila Stahl Buffett' link had been put wrongly . Please edit this or remove the link Mainak369 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Correct minor error please

Please change "In October 2008, the media reported that Buffett had agreed to buy General Electric (GE) preferred stock.[69] The operation included special incentives: He received an option to buy three billion shares of GE stock, at $22.25,..."

to

"In October 2008, the media reported that Buffett had agreed to buy General Electric (GE) preferred stock.[69] The operation included special incentives: He received an option to buy three billion dollars of GE stock, at $22.25,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimTurnbull (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Another spammer-cited article

But the Wikipedia apparently doesn't care if Wikipedia's reputation is abused to support spamming scammers. I've suggested the obvious countermeasure in the past, but it's increasingly even more obvious no one cares--except for the scammers. They're obviously delighted, even if they aren't going to thank you for your support. Shanen (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

80.65.103.177 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC) I also got here trough an obvious scam email.

Need money help sir

Sir i am suffering from money problem..due to child helath problem i take loan from some persons nearly 30 lakh..now they are pressure on me very much..i came from poor family please help me sir..now i am thinking to commit suicide level..i am waiting for your reply sir..i fall on your foot and i beg you please help me and save my life sir Rajappa K (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"He is the most successful investor of the 20th century."

Serious case of "citation needed"

Reply Bezos260387 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the date of his college degree correct?

He was born in August 1930, so in 1947 he would have entered the Wharton School at the age of 17.

Two years later he would have been 19.

Did he graduate from the University of Nebraska after less than one year?

Morris (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

From article:

In 1947, Buffett entered the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He would have preferred to focus on his business ventures; however, he enrolled due to pressure from his father.[24] Warren studied there for two years and joined the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity.[29] He then transferred to the University of Nebraska where at 19, he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.

Why did Buffett transfer from Wharton/UPenn to the University of Nebraska?

In the wiki article it just always says THAT he transferred from Wharton/UPenn to the University of Nebraska. But is there any information on WHY he transferred?2A02:120B:C3CF:7E30:14F7:D82B:D2EB:C5C (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

It should be that he is the 3rd richest person in the world not fourth as shown by the article linked. In the article where it says he is the 4th richest person in the world, it links to another wikipedia article which cites him as the 3rd richest person in the world by net worth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires JesusWithAG (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Interstellarity (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a new source https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/; JesusWithAG (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Real life

Some of me seems to think that sounds good IbishalSharma (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

I believe there is an incorrect date that should be updated, changing from "In April 1952" to "In 1951". Under "Early Business Career", it is cited that "In April 1952, Buffett discovered that Graham was on the board of GEICO insurance." From other sources I have noted that this in fact occurred in 1951, though I am not sure of the month. Links below that provide reference to that date:

http://sabercapitalmgt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Security-I-Like-Best.pdf - Article from 1951 in which Warren E Buffett refers to Graham on the board https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/28/warren-buffett-describes-a-moment-when-he-was-20-that-changed-his-life.html https://www.geico.com/about/corporate/history-the-full-story/ 192.135.123.22 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Done Morris (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)