Talk:Billionaire

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

From the first paragraph: "According to Forbes Magazine, the year 2021 saw not only the biggest increase in billionaires around the world..." Either this sentence is wrong or my hangover is worse than I thought.

71.7.53.13 (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a billionaire only one who is worth US$1bn? Take Gina Rinehart, for instance – she recently became worth over a billion dollars AUD. Is she not a billionaire, then? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• IIRC, "billion" means a million million in British Commonwealth nations, and as far as I know, no one claims to have that many Australian or Canadian dollars, or British pounds for that matter. So millionaires would be multinational term but "billionaire" is particular to American English. (Arnoldlover 19:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)) ... Just checked my OED. One thousand million is the French/American definition, not the British/Australian one. (Arnoldlover 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Canadians definitely favour the American definition of Billionaire, and there are definitely Canadian Billionaires (though I'm not sure any are so close to the line as to not alsobe worth $1 billion USD. WilyD 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title of the article should technically be 'People who are worth more than $1 billion USD', but billionaire is in common usage, and the article states the qualification very clearly. If you change the qualification to 'People who are worth 1 Billion units of their own currency' then it will be an unfair comparison. For example, 1 dollar is worth more than 100 Japanese Yen, so 10 million USD would make you a Japanese billionaire. In addition, where can you draw the line as to being 'so close'? $999 million? $950 million? The only obvious line is at exactly $1 billion. There is, of course, nothing to prevent alternative articles being written on 'People who are worth more than 950 Million Canadian dollars', and seeing whether the Wiki Community thinks the article necessary. Blowski 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A centimetre is 1/100 of a metre. A centibillion should be 1/100 of a billion, - 10 million (US billion), or 10 thousand million (10 milliard) with French or 'old' British understanding of the term. Thus, this article refers to who was the first person to have in excess of 10 million currency units from a US perspective; from a Turkish perspective, where at one point the exchange rate was a million Turkish lira to the British pound, this is a rather easy target. —the preceding comment is by 82.32.83.216 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 May 2006: Please sign your posts!.

"So millionaires would be multinational term but "billionaire" is particular to American English." Not in my experience. I'm British and the American usage is Billion and billionaire is now standard over here, and not even considered a crass 'Americanism' by us haughty Brits [in the way that 'airplane' would be]. Given its use in finance, goegraphy, demographics, physics etc, the US/French definition of Billion is internationally preferable. 80.176.236.203 13:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Billionaire" is quite meaningless unless the currency considered is known to be one of or reasonably near that of USD or GBP, the two currencies that dictionary definitions mention. I linked in from the Moscow article, which mentions that the city has more billionaires than any other city. Checking the citation, this is measured in USD. Otherwise, who cares? I wonder how many billionaires there were in Harare in 2008, where you needed about Z$25 billion to buy an orange. — RVJ (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Materials were copied and pasted from http://www.forbes.com/lists/home.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2000&passListType=Person into the article by User:Hoof38. I have reverted prior to that version. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you also erased stuff that wasn't copyvio. I'm putting that back in. --Mr. Billion 17:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that inflation and economic growth keep making the wealth of the richest human higher in nominal dollars over time, when can we expect to see the first trillionaire? This guy says in the year 2038. However, the party might end sometime after the onset of peak oil, unless the economy shifts largely to information rather than energy, and economic growth becomes tied to Moore's Law. --Teratornis 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Heshen says that he was worth (in a contemporary estimate) 1.1 billion taels of silver at the time when he was killed. Would this make him the first known billionaire? Note that this is worth about $20 billion in today's currency. Qqwref (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current article definition, almost everyone in Zimbabwe (population 13 million) is a billionaire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamarazzi (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't much of an article. For more information, write about the process people take to become a billionaire, traits or activities of billionaires, and analysis of what it means to be a billionaire emotionally, economically, socially and psychologically, from reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.164.47 (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a big difference between being a billionaire and being a trillionaire.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In countries that use the long scale number naming system, what is someone who has at least a milliard (a thousand million) units of currency is called?Turm (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... There's some random Spanish words in the third paragraph on the page, right at the end. "Caro es senda trolaza y le encanta el pedazo", to be exact. Normally, I'd just delete it, but I'm afraid that it might actually have some meaning in the article. Google Translate translates it as "trolaza is expensive path and loves the piece," which makes no sense, but maybe someone who actually speaks Spanish can translate it or condemn it as gibberish. Thanks! EDIT: This was deleted as I wrote this. Never mind.209.206.225.189 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the actual gdp for mexico in 2010 was a trillion US dollsrs so i think they were mistaken but could you guys please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It meant a long-scale billion, which is equivalent to a trillion. Michaelmas1957 09:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are Foundations relevant for Billionaires? It depends on how much they remember their parents, grandparents, school and college, and how much tax they want to pay. AesopMuse (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be renamed to African billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the discussion, see talk:Black billionaires -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Number of billionaires in 2015: 2,473" in: http://www.billionairecensus.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.242.39 (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not billionaires fault that most people are losers. This article should focus on the billionaire aspect of billionaires, not everyone else. If you are going to include that why not include that the US government is 18 trillion dollars in debt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.99.2 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in a country which is 70% christian, how many billionaires are christian? there is a page for black billionairs, we need to link black and christian billionaires to this page also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.234.105 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An edit explaining (and documenting) selection bias in the Forbes list of billionaires was removed without explanation or discussion on the talk page. The edit also removed discussion of taxation and billionaires.

The sources are academic articles and publications in major newspapers.

Given the lack of explanation for the removal, I plan to revert the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wt984688 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following paragraph needs clarification:

According to a 2016 Oxfam report, the wealth of the poorest 95% dropped by 38% between 2010 and 2015, thanks to an increase in the global population of 400 million.[1] In the same period, the wealth of the richest 62 people between the World's Billionaires increased by $500bn (£350bn) to $1.76tn. This number[clarification needed] has fallen dramatically from 388 as recently as 2010. More recently, in 2017 an Oxfam report noted that just eight billionaires have as much net worth as "half the human race".[2][3] But the Oxfam report has been criticized for considering debt as negative wealth, which leads to wealthy people with large amounts of debt to be considered poor or not wealthy.[4]

The problem here is that I am pretty sure that the number referred to is "62" but if so then the text reads/interprets something like the following:

• ... the wealth of the richest 62 people ... increased by $500bn ... (2016)
• ... the wealth of the richest 388 people ... increased by $500bn ... (2010)

I also notice there is an infographic nearby that references both these numbers but it does not refer to these as "the richest NNN people" but rather as "The number of billionaires that, with assets combined, would own as much money as half the world population." 172.88.130.119 (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the german language wikipedia, there is a rule that there should be only one link on the same term

in this article is under Statistics the link to Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates 3 times activated, to Carlos Slim only one time - why ?

--Über-Blick (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centi- is used as a prefix for one hundred, as in cm - centimeter - and cl - centiliter. The correct term is hectobillionaire. Anchr (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came to this talk page specifically to make this very point. Although this (mis)use, as well as the more common, but equally incorrect "centimillionaire" and "decimillionaire", are common, they are nevertheless incorrect.

Can I suggest that this be corrected to read "hectobillionaire", the common but incorrect use notwithstanding?

Unless there are any objections, I will make this edit.

Tarian.liber (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, I made this edit, which was reverted on the grounds that the reference cited cointained a typo and that we should include the typo (not just the information being referenced). I would suggest that the reference is there to provide information, such as the number of hectobillionaires, but we should not also be reproducing typos and mis-spellings in the references, but use correct spelling and words instead. Tarian.liber (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does not contain a "typo", it contains the word centibillionaire as it is used by the vast majority of reliable sources. Sure, the centi- prefix usually means one hundredth, and hecto- ought to be correct in theory, but wikipedia usage should reflect real-world practice. Rosbif73 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Centi-" is also used as 100x in "centimillennium" (100,000 years). A quick google of "Centibillionaire -hectobillionaire" (pages using "centibillionaire" but not "hectobillionaire") gives around 118,000 results including NPR, Forbes and two dictionaries, whereas the reverse, "hectobillionaire -centibillionaire", returns only 594 results... so even though it's technically wrong, it's clear that "centibillionaire" is the more common English term. Tobus (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not come across "centimillenium" to mean 100,000 years. Where have you seen such usage? The link you supplied points to a non-existent web page, and when I search the 'net for that phrase, the only use of that word I find is "cMIL (centiMillenium) is a unit of Military-finance (MIL) crypto-currency. 1 MIL = 100 centiMillenium." which is a correct use of the SI prefix. I cannot find usage of that word to mean 100 millenia. I am more surprised to hear that "centimillenium" is in use than that "centibillionaire" is, since worrying about other people's wealth is more likely to be of interest to ignorant people than the keeping of time is, which is more likely to be of interest to scientists who are less likely to misuse SI prefixes.

Returning to "centibillionaire", it seems that the phrase originates in a mistake made in a Forbes article, then amplified by Wikipedia (according to this article I found: http://xona.com/2006/12/17.html). I believe we all agree on what the correct English usage of prefixes "centi-" and "hecto-" is, the disagreement seems to be - please correct me if I'm wrong - over whether we should replicate and amplify (what at least when it was first used was) an erroneous usage which has become common, or use a word which is indisputably (also) correct, but (it is at least argued) is used less often. "Hectobillionaire" and "hectomillionaire" are nevertheless in use - I get plenty of hits when I search for them. Does anyone not agree that "decabillionaire", "hectobillionaire" etc. are correct terms, irrespective of whether "centibillionaire" is?

It is not uncommon for many people to use language incorrectly, or believe in myths and demonstrable falsehoods. But I would have thought that a work of reference should aspire to promulgate correct usage?

How about some compromise, like "hectobillionaire (also commonly referred to as 'centibillionaire' although strictly speaking this is not a correct usage of SI prefixes)."?

Tarian.liber (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, there was a typo in the link, fixed now.

There's no requirement for common English to be consistent with, nor only use, SI units. "Centi-", as well as being an SI prefix, is also a Latin prefix meaning "a hundred" - as in "centipede" (a hundred legs, not 1/100th of a leg!), so if you consider "centibillionaire" to be of Latin derivation instead of an SI unit then it's just as technically correct to use "centi-" as "hecto-" - perhaps even more so becasue "billion" isn't an SI unit in the first place! (Using SI nomenclature this page should technically be called something like "Gigannaire"!)

The link you gave only *CLAIMS* it was a mistake: "I assumed it was a mistake", but Forbes obviously didn't think so as it continues: "The article was not changed, and the author did not write me back.", and a Forbes search today still brings up multiple hits for "centibillionaire" and zero for "hectobillionaire".... I'm not sure that an single opinion piece from an employee of Xona Games would be a more reliable source on this issue than Forbes in the first place. A great source would be a dictionary: Merriam Webster has an entry for "centibllionaire", but not "hectobillionaire" - same with Collins, I didn't check any others.

How about a compromise that reflects common usage: "centibillionaire (also rarely 'hectobillionaire')..."?

Tobus (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"centibillionaire (also rarely 'hectobillionaire')...") sounds like a good way to phrase it to me.

Tarian.liber (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the "centi-" usage is so dominant in reliable sources that even mentioning "hectobillionaire" would be giving it undue weight. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your original comment when you reverted my edit, you said "Agreed that the prefix ought to be hecto, but unfortunately that's not what the cited reference uses". You seem to have gone from this to "hectobillionaire must not even be mentioned." I don't read the WP:DUE article in a way that implies that "hectobillionaire" should not be mentioned at all. To quote your own comment, "hecto" is what "ought to be" used. I've conceded others' contention that "centi" is de facto presently in more common use. But I don't think anyone is saying "hecto" is not used at all (including in sources which qualify as "reliable" by Wikipedia standards). WP:DUE says that "mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion". "Hecto" is used, therefore, I would say, it not being mentioned at all (i.e. its proportion being zero) would not be in proportion. WP:DUE goes on to say that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". Therefore, even views of tiny minorities can be included - including the example given, that of the flat Earth theory. "Hectobillionaire" is certainly used by more than a tiny minority, nor is that term fringe in the way that the flat Earth theory is. On the contrary, there are good arguments that it is the linguistically most correct usage, and on balance, I still view those arguments as the most persuasive, although very good and interesting and persuasive linguistic arguments to the contrary have been presented by others. WP:DUE further says that "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view", which I believe is precisely what Tobus' formulation does very well.

Tarian.liber (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First billionaire 2601:41:C07F:16A0:554F:7965:42B3:6E38 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago a submarine went down to the Titanic. It was destroyed. On board the submarine was a British billionaire ( and other rich people ).

Should the article be changed? The number of billionaires should be lowered now. 49.178.158.133 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia:NOTNEWS Tobus (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the graphics currently in this article don't even mention billionaires, but rather point out income inequality. They do not contain a separate category for billionaires, instead grouping them together with millionaires. Millionaires are a separate article, so these graphics are not relevant to this article. Additionally, the existing income inequality section is not necessary, as the Distribution of wealth and Economic inequality articles already exist. The amount of wealth controlled by the richest 10 billionaires doesn't directly relate to the concept of billionaires and would be more relevant for other articles. Cyifmae (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]