![]() | Forbes list of billionaires (2008) is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I suggest another change. The is a member missing in there: Familie Brenninkmeijer (C&A): 18,5 miljard they are Dutch and living in the Netherlands
wikipedia source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_500 (2007 figures)
This has been the richest family in the Netherlands for years and their wealth is still growing (I have read the Quote 500 for years)
Can this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderhooijer ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am curious as to why the people's names are under a heading titled age, why the people's ages are under a heading titled Residence, why the rankings are under a heading titled 100 billion, why the amount of money each of them has is under a heading titled Citizenship, and why their citizenships and birthplaces are under a heading titled Sources of wealth. I can't fix this, but if there's someone who can, please do. 67.166.109.72 ( talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I question the need for this article at all. The list is available through Forbes website and it is simply Forbes opinion of wealth. For instance why count families in one ranking and not another? Why because it's Forbes's list. While I say Forbes has a right to publish a list, it is just their opinion and not a fact and if so why is there an article in the wikipedia about it. This amounts to a commerical endorsment for a magazine running a list of whom ever it chooses to include or dis-include 4.130.6.32 ( talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)eric
I started work on User:Jklamo/List of billionaires (2008). Feel free to help, but do not forget to use Template:Inuse with proper parameters. -- Jklamo ( talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
uhm... so where are the druglords? 116.50.179.173 ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Only worth $20.1 billion ( http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_Mukesh-Ambani_NY3A.html). I just changed his article as well for the misquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.101.218 ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Jklamo, do you think this page needs semi-protection for a few days while the official Forbes list is still new? Maybe for a month, until a new issue of Forbes magazine is released. Gary King ( talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The arrows mean increased or decreased. I found this legend very ambiguous. One can interpret this increase/decrease as changes of the rank, or changes in their net worth. IMHO, changes in net worth does not always line up with the changes in ranking. Two billionaires can both increase their net worth, but one overtook the other to end up with a change in ranking too. I'd suggest clarifying the legend. I don't find it useful when no one understand what it actually mean.
The words "increased and decreased" are ambiguous when used in ranking. When rank 5 becomes rank 4, do you say the rank decrease from 5 to 4? Is 1 a higher rank than 2? So when rank "increases", should the number increase or decrease? It is simply too confusing and inappropriate to use these two words.
If the arrows are for networth, explicitly say net worth increased/decreased. If it is about the ranking, say move up or down the rank. Kowloonese ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.69.137 ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing he also has money in other investments, such as his place of residence or other property. After all, 42 billion is pretty close to 45 billion. Acastus69 ( talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"A billion here, a billion there … " Too Old ( talk) 10:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell is this prick Bryce Campbell? He's just vandalised this article, saying he's the richest man in the world! more like richest idiot! How gullible does he think we are, saying he got 100 billion dollars from something called 'Jurassica Productions'! Personally, I wait the day when this Bryce Campbell, if this is your real name, rolls over dead, and all others like him. Signing off, angry reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.251.202 ( talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i will be the next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.56.186 ( talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Who/what the bloody hell is Jean-Luc Lukunku? So I removed that name and replace it, rightfully, with Warren Buffett. 70.55.82.127 ( talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism AGAIN. Ramennx claims to be 96 on the list. I'll be civil and ask for a revert. -- 165.21.155.117 ( talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if there should be a ref column, especially since not everything has a ref. I believe ref's should go in the Name column. - Roy Boy 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Last year Forbes estimated his wealth at 22 G USD (1 GUSD = 10^9 US dollars) [ [1]] and rising world oil prices would probably have increased that amount as oil makes up a large proportion of his wealth, keeping him in the top twenty or even the top fifteen. For someone who I thought was considered the richest person in the world ca. 1997 in between periods of Bill Gates holding that title, it seems somewhat remiss for him to be left out, unless some qualification was added like the exclusion of royals; especially when you consider that the source list has about 1062 rankings and about 1125 entries, some of which are plural, going down as far as 1.0 GUSD [ [2]]. -- Thecurran ( talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He is on the list as of the date of this article at #16, but as of March 5th, I can't find him on the list at all. What gives? Iamvered ( talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you mongs really trying to claim that Chelsea FC is a source of Roman Abramovichs wealth??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.115.86 ( talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Roman Abramovich generates no wealth at all from Chelsea. It's a play thing for him. I'll remove. Graemec2 ( talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone was making massive (I assume good faith) changes to the article, but the intermediate results had numerous problems. I have undone the changes to restore a good copy for our users. I suggest any significant changes be made first to a temporary page, and then once the changes are complete and checked, move them to the main article. -- Tcncv ( talk) 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would propose that this list should remain primarily single sourced for consistency and should be clearly labeled as such. If other sources show drastically different data or document persons left off of the Forbes list, I think this data should be listed separately, possibly in a section labeled "Other sources". -- Tcncv ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ernesto Bertarelli is really an italian. He was born in rome. I suggest changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanovich ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2008
some son of a **** has gone and added obama to the list as #1. he deleted the #2 and made the original #1 the new #2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.9.128 ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
someone changed the richest person to "vinoth" who had "$999.6 trillion. i tried editing this to warren buffet, but it's still all screwed up. i tried changing the wealth to 60 billion (an estimate), but somehow that shows up as the united kingdom. that whole row is screwed up so if someone can change that it'd be great. also i got an "edit conflict when i tried editing it the first time and when i came back that row had changed even more. i got it to change the second time, but the timing makes me think this is enough of a problem for at least semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.66.112 ( talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This article was originally created as " List of billionaires (2008)" (currently a redirect). It was apparently renamed to "100 wealthiest people" as part of an attempt to get it to qualify for featured article status (see the featured list nomination discussion here). I don't think this article will ever achieve that goal, and its present name is inconsistent with its predecessors - " List of billionaires (2004)", " List of billionaires (2005)", " List of billionaires (2006)", and " List of billionaires (2007)".
Since the article is a snapshot of 2008, and we will eventually have to deal with the 2009 list, I propose moving the article back under its original name - " List of billionaires (2008)".
Opinions? -- Tcncv ( talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing the proposal, since there seems to be one in favor (myself), one opposed (Matt White) and no other interest. -- Tcncv ( talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I always thought that the prestegious Rockefeller family would certainly be close to the top of the list. They had their hands in the two most money making markets in the world, which are oil and banking. If someone is more knowledegable about this, I would like to know why the Rockefellers are not included in this list. Goldwings ( talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason the Rockefellers aren't. None of the most wealthiest are because they are staying under the radar, using the world as their own personal video game. They don't want you to know who they are. They are playing everyone like a fiddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.66.30 ( talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Is showing twice in the list. I doubt they're two different people. Zhuravskij ( talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
since when did he turn korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.101.16 ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at Buffet's and Gates' pages--Buffet's net worth there is 62 b, making him the richest. Gates' page says he's the third richest. And this page says Gates is the richest. Let's fix these pages. Brancron ( talk) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Brancron
Does this need protection of some kind, it's edited a hell of a lot and It's hard to tell vandalism sometimes Pi Talk - Contribs 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok now why isnt the king of thailand number 6 or 7 on the list in forbes aug 08 version of the FORBES richest royals he is worth 35 billion dollars can some please put him on the list please????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.180.237 ( talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
According the Indonesia rich list, Aburizal Bakrie has $9.2 billion. This should make him the 96th richest man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.51.70 ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Under Notable Mentions, it read "Allegations of heavy-misappropriations have recently sprung up against current President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf." Musharraf is now the former president. Can someone correct that? Also, why is this article locked? 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There are several positions with more than one person on the list, so that this list contains 103 people.
Given that there are three people at number 25, shouldn't Mikhail Prokhorov be at number 28 instead of number 25?
Or perhaps, the title of this article be "List of the 103 people with the 100 largest fortunes?" cojoco ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the Bloomberg Markets magazine (Oct 2008), the Pritzker family has assets/shares/equity in a number of companies, especially Hyatt hotels (100% stake). These total just under US$40 billion, placing them between 6. Anil Ambani and 7. Rinat Akhmetov. Source page- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_1008_trim1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 ( talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Would edit but page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 ( talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The news tonight reported that Bill Gates is once again the richest person in the U.S.
Is he also the richest person in the world?
The list needs to be updated to show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 ( talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Q: Can data from different dates be accurately merged into this table without violating WP:OR, or should we stick with the Forbes snapshot date?
These ’Rich Lists’, purported to be the academic analysis of such faux worthy institutions as Forbes, are of course little more than light entertainment to sell magazines. There’s another ‘Rich List’ published by the Sunday Times newspaper in the UK. The fact is that it’s near impossible to estimate the net worth of people who operate at this level, they have a thousand ways of concealing their affairs, which of course they mostly do, with the possible exception of many of the US tycoons, who despite the assertion of living in the land of the free, actually live in one of the most regulated and overbearing economic environments in the developed world. Europeans, especially the British, Dutch and Swiss, have evolved, over generations, the most convoluted and sophisticated international business operations. The use of ‘offshore’ companies and accounts is, by the standards of the incognisant and merely presumptuous, a game that extends well beyond the trite tricks of the Nuevo Rich with their Caymen Isles and other Island havens. Washington and Brussels have pretty much squashed these tiny countries ability to provide complete discretion under threat of total economic war. However, threaten as much as they like; there are a few havens which remain utterly unassailable to Washington and Brussels. Two such havens are Liechtenstein and Dubai, impervious for reasons that belong in another article, to the clumsy oafishness of mere politicians and their functionaries. From such places dynastic family clans, many actually and perversely in European governments themselves, have built up great and hidden wealth, free from taxation or any other government interference. The true scale of these ‘businesses’ will never be revealed. It’s an interesting subject in its own right but for the purposes of this articles conceit, in attempting to draw up a list of the rich that has any credence whatsoever, it is self evident, given the existence of such havens and a number of ‘elephant in the room’ type anomalies, such as the completely missing British Merchant Fleet, which just fifty years ago represented over half of all the shipping in the world (think, flags of convenience and Lichtenstein companies that own other companies that own other companies that own other companies ad infinitem)and the strangely enduring power, even within a democratic government, of the British Lords, heirs of the original pirates who once stole a third of the world before going ‘legit’ with their City of London merchant banks and other institutions. These are the guys who have no interest whatsoever in flaunting their wealth, a trick that has been honed to perfection over centuries. Their subculture has long matured beyond even being quietly self satisfied, never mind the slightest egocentricity, it’s a birth right for them, though they do own a disproportionate percentage of the worlds super yachts, perhaps the most flaunt worthy of assets but discretely hidden from the view of those who don’t frequent the rich lists own playgrounds in the Mediterranean and Caribbean (mostly flying flags of convenience of course. The Gibraltar Red Ensign is one of their favourites as it allows them to fly something that looks close enough to the British Red Ensign)
Another anomaly that has entertained rich list authors over the years is how to assess Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and her family. At one time the Sunday Times list put her at number one but then in subsequent lists declared that her personal wealth did not include the assets of the Crown (Crown and State assets are not the same); however it is a very moot argument and not one that will ever be decided in any court of law for fear of undermining the fundamental principles of property ownership which in any event would find that the Queen does indeed own, as private property, all of the assets of the Crown. The fact is that the Crown Estates and other assets include fabulous arts and treasures collected, received and stolen from every corner of the world over the last half a millennium and vast areas of land measured in the thousands of square miles, much of it in highest value city areas but also rich farm lands, castles, palaces the entire shoreline of the UK between low and high water and the Crown lands of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other places. By any accepted legal definition, these assets are the personal property of the Queen and would have a value in the trillions, making Her Majesty the world’s only trillionaire. The fact of it being a problematic legal conundrum is irrelevant. There are other nice legal conundrums with the Crown in that the Armed Forces of the UK and Dominions are also the legal, property of the Crown. The courts, judges and QC’s (Queens Councillors) are sworn to the Crown, as are the officers and men of the armed forces. Put a value on that! As anomalous as these precedents may seem in the modern world, it’s the way the UK separates’ power, allegedly preventing the dictatorship of government. It’s not a system a brand new nation could formulate, it took the British over a thousand years, it’s only just getting nicely bedded in now.
But apart from the issue of Queen Elizabeth, the other somewhat unignorable facts relating to Discrete International Asset Management, as some like to so delicately call it (should really be called Legacy System of Global Piracy), make it clear that most of these tycoons will have incalculable assets far from the eyes of mere journalistic business hacks. Therefore this article, in its present form, can in no way be presented as some sort of learned tract. 82.12.254.182 ( talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Whay on this list arn't Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? He is in some other billionares lists.
It's listed here that he's based in Russia, but over 50% of his assets are UK based. In fact if you click on him, it explicitly states he's Uk based. As I'm not a memeber, could someone please fix this for me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.199.136 ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone could correct that. You may also ad that Theo Albrecht owns the compandy Aldi Nord and Karl Albrecht the company Aldi Süd. Both companies contain the same name but are legally seperated entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.12.158 ( talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(Moved to bottom of talk page, as is customary.)
You are right. Trader Joe's is owned by Theo. I confused that with the Aldi subsidiaries in the US. They all belong to Karl Albrechts company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.152.22 ( talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Mohammad Asif --> Warren Buffett
lol—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.55.232 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 December 2008
Shouldn't Ratan Tata CEO of the Indian Tata company be also part of this list?. According to his Wikipedia page his networth is 50.6 billion USD which makes him forth richest man in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.125.177 ( talk) 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. I guess he would be ommitted from forbes for being the brother of a head of state. either way he is reportedly very rich, but not included on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.140 ( talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
and for that matter; the Sheikh himself Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Warren Buffet should be at No.1.
At present there is an ongoing deletion proposal that appears headed for a keep consensus. (Those with delete/keep opinions should direct their comments to that page.) I propose we rename this article back to the original name - List of billionaires (2008). The Current name can be left as a redirect to the most recent available list (such as List of billionaires (2009). I had proposed this before, but that proposal gathered little attention at the time. With the Forbes 2009 list coming soon, I've decided to bring it up again.
Reasons to rename:
Opinions? -- Tcncv ( talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition to national identity I think it maybe interesting to add in religious denomination. This could help confront common misconceptions about religion and wealth. Sucubi ( talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.61.198 ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to the falling economy, the list and order have changed, this is my source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7938227.stm of course, the article says it doesn't reflect any changes since 2008, but if there is no rule against fixing it, then someone with more data than I ought to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 ( talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 data is out. Work has started on the List of billionaires (2009) article. If you are interested in contributing, I suggest you coordinate efforts on that article's talk page to avoid conflicts. -- Tcncv ( talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Forbes list of billionaires (2008) is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured list candidate |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I suggest another change. The is a member missing in there: Familie Brenninkmeijer (C&A): 18,5 miljard they are Dutch and living in the Netherlands
wikipedia source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_500 (2007 figures)
This has been the richest family in the Netherlands for years and their wealth is still growing (I have read the Quote 500 for years)
Can this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderhooijer ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am curious as to why the people's names are under a heading titled age, why the people's ages are under a heading titled Residence, why the rankings are under a heading titled 100 billion, why the amount of money each of them has is under a heading titled Citizenship, and why their citizenships and birthplaces are under a heading titled Sources of wealth. I can't fix this, but if there's someone who can, please do. 67.166.109.72 ( talk) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I question the need for this article at all. The list is available through Forbes website and it is simply Forbes opinion of wealth. For instance why count families in one ranking and not another? Why because it's Forbes's list. While I say Forbes has a right to publish a list, it is just their opinion and not a fact and if so why is there an article in the wikipedia about it. This amounts to a commerical endorsment for a magazine running a list of whom ever it chooses to include or dis-include 4.130.6.32 ( talk) 06:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)eric
I started work on User:Jklamo/List of billionaires (2008). Feel free to help, but do not forget to use Template:Inuse with proper parameters. -- Jklamo ( talk) 02:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
uhm... so where are the druglords? 116.50.179.173 ( talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Only worth $20.1 billion ( http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_Mukesh-Ambani_NY3A.html). I just changed his article as well for the misquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.101.218 ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Jklamo, do you think this page needs semi-protection for a few days while the official Forbes list is still new? Maybe for a month, until a new issue of Forbes magazine is released. Gary King ( talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The arrows mean increased or decreased. I found this legend very ambiguous. One can interpret this increase/decrease as changes of the rank, or changes in their net worth. IMHO, changes in net worth does not always line up with the changes in ranking. Two billionaires can both increase their net worth, but one overtook the other to end up with a change in ranking too. I'd suggest clarifying the legend. I don't find it useful when no one understand what it actually mean.
The words "increased and decreased" are ambiguous when used in ranking. When rank 5 becomes rank 4, do you say the rank decrease from 5 to 4? Is 1 a higher rank than 2? So when rank "increases", should the number increase or decrease? It is simply too confusing and inappropriate to use these two words.
If the arrows are for networth, explicitly say net worth increased/decreased. If it is about the ranking, say move up or down the rank. Kowloonese ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.69.137 ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing he also has money in other investments, such as his place of residence or other property. After all, 42 billion is pretty close to 45 billion. Acastus69 ( talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"A billion here, a billion there … " Too Old ( talk) 10:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Who the hell is this prick Bryce Campbell? He's just vandalised this article, saying he's the richest man in the world! more like richest idiot! How gullible does he think we are, saying he got 100 billion dollars from something called 'Jurassica Productions'! Personally, I wait the day when this Bryce Campbell, if this is your real name, rolls over dead, and all others like him. Signing off, angry reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.251.202 ( talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i will be the next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.56.186 ( talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Who/what the bloody hell is Jean-Luc Lukunku? So I removed that name and replace it, rightfully, with Warren Buffett. 70.55.82.127 ( talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism AGAIN. Ramennx claims to be 96 on the list. I'll be civil and ask for a revert. -- 165.21.155.117 ( talk) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if there should be a ref column, especially since not everything has a ref. I believe ref's should go in the Name column. - Roy Boy 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Last year Forbes estimated his wealth at 22 G USD (1 GUSD = 10^9 US dollars) [ [1]] and rising world oil prices would probably have increased that amount as oil makes up a large proportion of his wealth, keeping him in the top twenty or even the top fifteen. For someone who I thought was considered the richest person in the world ca. 1997 in between periods of Bill Gates holding that title, it seems somewhat remiss for him to be left out, unless some qualification was added like the exclusion of royals; especially when you consider that the source list has about 1062 rankings and about 1125 entries, some of which are plural, going down as far as 1.0 GUSD [ [2]]. -- Thecurran ( talk) 04:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
He is on the list as of the date of this article at #16, but as of March 5th, I can't find him on the list at all. What gives? Iamvered ( talk) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you mongs really trying to claim that Chelsea FC is a source of Roman Abramovichs wealth??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.115.86 ( talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Roman Abramovich generates no wealth at all from Chelsea. It's a play thing for him. I'll remove. Graemec2 ( talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone was making massive (I assume good faith) changes to the article, but the intermediate results had numerous problems. I have undone the changes to restore a good copy for our users. I suggest any significant changes be made first to a temporary page, and then once the changes are complete and checked, move them to the main article. -- Tcncv ( talk) 02:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would propose that this list should remain primarily single sourced for consistency and should be clearly labeled as such. If other sources show drastically different data or document persons left off of the Forbes list, I think this data should be listed separately, possibly in a section labeled "Other sources". -- Tcncv ( talk) 16:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ernesto Bertarelli is really an italian. He was born in rome. I suggest changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanovich ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 June 2008
some son of a **** has gone and added obama to the list as #1. he deleted the #2 and made the original #1 the new #2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.9.128 ( talk) 07:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
someone changed the richest person to "vinoth" who had "$999.6 trillion. i tried editing this to warren buffet, but it's still all screwed up. i tried changing the wealth to 60 billion (an estimate), but somehow that shows up as the united kingdom. that whole row is screwed up so if someone can change that it'd be great. also i got an "edit conflict when i tried editing it the first time and when i came back that row had changed even more. i got it to change the second time, but the timing makes me think this is enough of a problem for at least semi-protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.66.112 ( talk) 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This article was originally created as " List of billionaires (2008)" (currently a redirect). It was apparently renamed to "100 wealthiest people" as part of an attempt to get it to qualify for featured article status (see the featured list nomination discussion here). I don't think this article will ever achieve that goal, and its present name is inconsistent with its predecessors - " List of billionaires (2004)", " List of billionaires (2005)", " List of billionaires (2006)", and " List of billionaires (2007)".
Since the article is a snapshot of 2008, and we will eventually have to deal with the 2009 list, I propose moving the article back under its original name - " List of billionaires (2008)".
Opinions? -- Tcncv ( talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing the proposal, since there seems to be one in favor (myself), one opposed (Matt White) and no other interest. -- Tcncv ( talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I always thought that the prestegious Rockefeller family would certainly be close to the top of the list. They had their hands in the two most money making markets in the world, which are oil and banking. If someone is more knowledegable about this, I would like to know why the Rockefellers are not included in this list. Goldwings ( talk) 01:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason the Rockefellers aren't. None of the most wealthiest are because they are staying under the radar, using the world as their own personal video game. They don't want you to know who they are. They are playing everyone like a fiddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.66.30 ( talk) 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Is showing twice in the list. I doubt they're two different people. Zhuravskij ( talk) 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
since when did he turn korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.101.16 ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Look at Buffet's and Gates' pages--Buffet's net worth there is 62 b, making him the richest. Gates' page says he's the third richest. And this page says Gates is the richest. Let's fix these pages. Brancron ( talk) 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Brancron
Does this need protection of some kind, it's edited a hell of a lot and It's hard to tell vandalism sometimes Pi Talk - Contribs 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok now why isnt the king of thailand number 6 or 7 on the list in forbes aug 08 version of the FORBES richest royals he is worth 35 billion dollars can some please put him on the list please????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.180.237 ( talk) 00:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
According the Indonesia rich list, Aburizal Bakrie has $9.2 billion. This should make him the 96th richest man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.51.70 ( talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Under Notable Mentions, it read "Allegations of heavy-misappropriations have recently sprung up against current President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf." Musharraf is now the former president. Can someone correct that? Also, why is this article locked? 98.221.133.96 ( talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
There are several positions with more than one person on the list, so that this list contains 103 people.
Given that there are three people at number 25, shouldn't Mikhail Prokhorov be at number 28 instead of number 25?
Or perhaps, the title of this article be "List of the 103 people with the 100 largest fortunes?" cojoco ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the Bloomberg Markets magazine (Oct 2008), the Pritzker family has assets/shares/equity in a number of companies, especially Hyatt hotels (100% stake). These total just under US$40 billion, placing them between 6. Anil Ambani and 7. Rinat Akhmetov. Source page- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_1008_trim1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 ( talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Would edit but page is protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.9.245 ( talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The news tonight reported that Bill Gates is once again the richest person in the U.S.
Is he also the richest person in the world?
The list needs to be updated to show this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 ( talk) 05:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Q: Can data from different dates be accurately merged into this table without violating WP:OR, or should we stick with the Forbes snapshot date?
These ’Rich Lists’, purported to be the academic analysis of such faux worthy institutions as Forbes, are of course little more than light entertainment to sell magazines. There’s another ‘Rich List’ published by the Sunday Times newspaper in the UK. The fact is that it’s near impossible to estimate the net worth of people who operate at this level, they have a thousand ways of concealing their affairs, which of course they mostly do, with the possible exception of many of the US tycoons, who despite the assertion of living in the land of the free, actually live in one of the most regulated and overbearing economic environments in the developed world. Europeans, especially the British, Dutch and Swiss, have evolved, over generations, the most convoluted and sophisticated international business operations. The use of ‘offshore’ companies and accounts is, by the standards of the incognisant and merely presumptuous, a game that extends well beyond the trite tricks of the Nuevo Rich with their Caymen Isles and other Island havens. Washington and Brussels have pretty much squashed these tiny countries ability to provide complete discretion under threat of total economic war. However, threaten as much as they like; there are a few havens which remain utterly unassailable to Washington and Brussels. Two such havens are Liechtenstein and Dubai, impervious for reasons that belong in another article, to the clumsy oafishness of mere politicians and their functionaries. From such places dynastic family clans, many actually and perversely in European governments themselves, have built up great and hidden wealth, free from taxation or any other government interference. The true scale of these ‘businesses’ will never be revealed. It’s an interesting subject in its own right but for the purposes of this articles conceit, in attempting to draw up a list of the rich that has any credence whatsoever, it is self evident, given the existence of such havens and a number of ‘elephant in the room’ type anomalies, such as the completely missing British Merchant Fleet, which just fifty years ago represented over half of all the shipping in the world (think, flags of convenience and Lichtenstein companies that own other companies that own other companies that own other companies ad infinitem)and the strangely enduring power, even within a democratic government, of the British Lords, heirs of the original pirates who once stole a third of the world before going ‘legit’ with their City of London merchant banks and other institutions. These are the guys who have no interest whatsoever in flaunting their wealth, a trick that has been honed to perfection over centuries. Their subculture has long matured beyond even being quietly self satisfied, never mind the slightest egocentricity, it’s a birth right for them, though they do own a disproportionate percentage of the worlds super yachts, perhaps the most flaunt worthy of assets but discretely hidden from the view of those who don’t frequent the rich lists own playgrounds in the Mediterranean and Caribbean (mostly flying flags of convenience of course. The Gibraltar Red Ensign is one of their favourites as it allows them to fly something that looks close enough to the British Red Ensign)
Another anomaly that has entertained rich list authors over the years is how to assess Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and her family. At one time the Sunday Times list put her at number one but then in subsequent lists declared that her personal wealth did not include the assets of the Crown (Crown and State assets are not the same); however it is a very moot argument and not one that will ever be decided in any court of law for fear of undermining the fundamental principles of property ownership which in any event would find that the Queen does indeed own, as private property, all of the assets of the Crown. The fact is that the Crown Estates and other assets include fabulous arts and treasures collected, received and stolen from every corner of the world over the last half a millennium and vast areas of land measured in the thousands of square miles, much of it in highest value city areas but also rich farm lands, castles, palaces the entire shoreline of the UK between low and high water and the Crown lands of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other places. By any accepted legal definition, these assets are the personal property of the Queen and would have a value in the trillions, making Her Majesty the world’s only trillionaire. The fact of it being a problematic legal conundrum is irrelevant. There are other nice legal conundrums with the Crown in that the Armed Forces of the UK and Dominions are also the legal, property of the Crown. The courts, judges and QC’s (Queens Councillors) are sworn to the Crown, as are the officers and men of the armed forces. Put a value on that! As anomalous as these precedents may seem in the modern world, it’s the way the UK separates’ power, allegedly preventing the dictatorship of government. It’s not a system a brand new nation could formulate, it took the British over a thousand years, it’s only just getting nicely bedded in now.
But apart from the issue of Queen Elizabeth, the other somewhat unignorable facts relating to Discrete International Asset Management, as some like to so delicately call it (should really be called Legacy System of Global Piracy), make it clear that most of these tycoons will have incalculable assets far from the eyes of mere journalistic business hacks. Therefore this article, in its present form, can in no way be presented as some sort of learned tract. 82.12.254.182 ( talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Whay on this list arn't Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? He is in some other billionares lists.
It's listed here that he's based in Russia, but over 50% of his assets are UK based. In fact if you click on him, it explicitly states he's Uk based. As I'm not a memeber, could someone please fix this for me? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.199.136 ( talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone could correct that. You may also ad that Theo Albrecht owns the compandy Aldi Nord and Karl Albrecht the company Aldi Süd. Both companies contain the same name but are legally seperated entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.12.158 ( talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(Moved to bottom of talk page, as is customary.)
You are right. Trader Joe's is owned by Theo. I confused that with the Aldi subsidiaries in the US. They all belong to Karl Albrechts company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.152.22 ( talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Mohammad Asif --> Warren Buffett
lol—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.55.232 ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 December 2008
Shouldn't Ratan Tata CEO of the Indian Tata company be also part of this list?. According to his Wikipedia page his networth is 50.6 billion USD which makes him forth richest man in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.125.177 ( talk) 22:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. I guess he would be ommitted from forbes for being the brother of a head of state. either way he is reportedly very rich, but not included on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.140 ( talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
and for that matter; the Sheikh himself Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Warren Buffet should be at No.1.
At present there is an ongoing deletion proposal that appears headed for a keep consensus. (Those with delete/keep opinions should direct their comments to that page.) I propose we rename this article back to the original name - List of billionaires (2008). The Current name can be left as a redirect to the most recent available list (such as List of billionaires (2009). I had proposed this before, but that proposal gathered little attention at the time. With the Forbes 2009 list coming soon, I've decided to bring it up again.
Reasons to rename:
Opinions? -- Tcncv ( talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition to national identity I think it maybe interesting to add in religious denomination. This could help confront common misconceptions about religion and wealth. Sucubi ( talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7938227.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.61.198 ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Due to the falling economy, the list and order have changed, this is my source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7938227.stm of course, the article says it doesn't reflect any changes since 2008, but if there is no rule against fixing it, then someone with more data than I ought to... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 ( talk) 22:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 data is out. Work has started on the List of billionaires (2009) article. If you are interested in contributing, I suggest you coordinate efforts on that article's talk page to avoid conflicts. -- Tcncv ( talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)