Talk:Bill Gates

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Bill Gates|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Bill Gates|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Bill Gates|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Bill Gates|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Bill Gates|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Bill Gates|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Bill Gates|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Bill Gates|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Bill Gates|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Bill Gates|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

Change "Big Blue" to "IBM" to make it more obvious it's the same company. Reasoning: For those unaware of the nickname, it's a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.84.172 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Community reassessment

Bill Gates

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept Issues dealt with AIRcorn (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was listed as GA just over 10 years ago. However, since then we've got a few issues:

• Criticism section affecting neutrality
• Recognition section structured with bullet points and not prose
• External business ventures and investments structured with bullet points
• Personal life / personal donations sections with short paragraphs and doesn't flow very well
• In media section lavishly bullet pointed with little explanation/description. Wondering how relevant it is.
• Sources - there's a Facebook source (unreliable) and potentially other errors down there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy150 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Update from me - I've been cleaning up the article myself so this should hopefully be recovered. Phew! Just Lizzy^(talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lizzy150 are you happy that this is up to standard now? AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's safe to remove this reassessment. Article is in better shape and can be brought back to GA. Thanks. Just Lizzy^(talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 Sept 2020

Please add "Honorary Knight Commander Order Of British Empire (KBE)." Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiscid (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source to tell us about this? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This is already in the article in the "Recognition" section; there is also an entry in the "FAQ" above. Kuru (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. It should be added to the section about Microsoft sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGanot (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

the co-founder of Microsoft Tgonedes (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Tgonedes:  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. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Keeping info on Bill Gates's diversification in lead in reference to TerraPower nuclear power project

Hi, I would like the editor to discuss here prior to deleting the information on TerraPower the nuclear power station project mention that I added to the lead of his article. As it's been 7 years since Bill Gates stepped down as chairman of Microsoft, and if that's the only thing in the lead, it makes it quite outdated too. Thus I believe that a mention of his next generation nuclear power plants is important to keep in the lead, to show Gates's evolution as an innovator years after leaving Microsoft, and thus sets the tone better for the rest of the article too at this time. While further raising awareness among the general audience of this new type of traveling-wave reactor nuclear reactor that could potentially help to alleviate global warming. Nuclear power projects are also I believe quite notable, especially if a civilian is leading the effort across international territories. Perhaps even more potentially significant than a global software product. Death Star Central (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Flyedit32 I had perviously requested that before deleting sourced content, it is correct protocol to discuss it here in the talk section first. Thus, can you please further explain here why you believe mention of Bill Gates founding and being chairman of the TerraPower nuclear reactor development project should not be in the lead? For comparison please see the article on Elon Musk which mentions many companies that he has founded in the lead. Likewise there is much more to Bill Gates than Microsoft now. So your comment while deleting the info, that it is listed under the section "External business ventures and investments" does not suffice to as reason enough to delete this highly notable sourced content from the lead. Why can't it still be in the lead as well? I do not follow the logic. Can you please give any further reason? Also the name of this other section should be re-worded as I feel "External" wrongly implies that his article is only about the "Founder of Microsoft", when it is about Bill Gates in general. Death Star Central (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

See my changes. I think this is the proper balance. We shouldn't go in depth with all of his external business ventures when the lead is already too extensive as is. And on that point, what makes TerraPower the only one worth detailing (besides the Foundation) and not all his several other companies also doing important work? Like his former longtime partner and friend Paul Allen's lead, it's better to list them in this fashion and go into more detail in the body of the article. All those refs you used are now included in the body, as is the copy. And in the lead, it does mention his efforts to combat climate change. Now it mentions TerraPower as well. I'd like to hear other users' thoughts too, but I think that this is the right approach.... UPDATE: The lead for Thomas Edison is not much longer, it's significantly shorter! And if we're going to model Gates' lead after another figure, we should look to Paul Allen before Elon Musk. On that note though, Gates's lead as is, is still longer than Musks! We must stop the edit warring and wait for others to join the discussion. Simpler is always better for the lead though. Flyedit32 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, Thank you very much :) User:Flyedit32, for finally writing a reply here on the talk, after deleting the content multiple times before. I still don't see the rush to delete one line of text before discussing it properly here, how that serves any purpose to be honest. What I had meant was that the first paragraph of Thomas Edison's lead is longer, which it is in fact. Also I believe Elon Musk is a better compare to Bill Gates as they were both the principals and main innovators of their companies, Paul Allen was much more in a supporting role and left active duties in Microsoft as early as 1983. Sincerely, I think a one liner about a nuclear power project does merit inclusion here in the very first paragraph. Why this above all other projects, you ask? Well as it is nuclear power, that is perhaps the most important activity any civilian or government can engage in, in this era. Certain countries will even face sanctions if dealing with nuclear power. So as an Encyclopedia, I believe it is important to make the public aware as soon as possible if any body is heavily invested in nuclear power. Also this one line being in the intro helps to raise awareness of the possibility of new forms of nuclear reactors among the general audience, here specifically the traveling-wave reactor. The more people that can be made aware of potential alternatives to tackle climate change can be only be positive for the world. So I feel keeping this one line is important in the first paragraph. Also on the mention of edit warring, I believe the correct convention would have been to leave the actual line up there till we finished the discussion and had the benefit more editors expressing their view too, so the context would have been more clear. Death Star Central (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

One more thing on the subject of edit warring, I would like to reiterate, with all due respect, that it was you User:Flyedit32 that kept deleting the line from the first paragraph without wanting to a discuss it here on the talk page. I had to reinsert the line multiple times before you took the effort write any reply here, despite me mentioning it in the edit. I am for now not going to add that line back, though I really should (especially considering the nuclear nature of it all) till this debate is over actually. But you would just pre-maturely and arrogantly delete it anyway. Which I think is really wrong, impolite, generally unfair and frustrating in respect to wikipedia protocols. I don't know why you feel the rules should not apply to you, and why you feel your points to be deemed as certain right without any discussion at all, that was politely requested multiple times before? It's not just and it is not a nice feeling from my perspective. One line of text costs nothing on digital platform, to be in such a rush to delete it. Death Star Central (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're completely misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia and of lead sections. It has nothing to do with advancing a cause or raising awareness for something one (or many) users personally believe to be important. Personally, I don't at all disagree with your views, but that's just it, our personal views should not influence the way in which we edit a subject's article (that would be editing with bias, non-objectivity, and non-neutrality), and you have made it clear that your biases and personal opinions are influencing what you're pushing to have placed in this lead. Are his efforts with TerraPower important? Yes. But so are his efforts with the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and several other companies, but none of those are mentioned in the lead paragraph (not even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation!). It doesn't matter how personally important you think any of this is, whether it's climate change, nuclear power, traveling-wave reactors, etc. Expand on Terrapower in the main body then, but a lead section should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its main contents only. For that exact matter, TerraPower isn't even covered that much in the body of the article so there is absolutely no reason it should go in the first paragraph or be given undue weight (the only reasons you've specified for its inclusion here are how essential you think the cause is, that's it. Not that the company has defined Gate's career or given him his fortune or is the company he's most well-known for in the public eye. You haven't mentioned any of that because none of it is true). I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thank you for the discussion instead of edit-warring! It is also much appreciated.... UPDATE: Not only is TerraPower and his efforts with TerraPower not covered that much in the body, it's actually not covered AT ALL, other than the one mention in the "External business ventures and investments" section. That serves as even more confirmation that it should not be placed with undue weight in the lead paragraph or anywhere in the lead section for that matter. I'm still okay with it being mentioned where it is now, but if anything is to be included in the lead, per wiki guidance, it should be a main topic of the article (not just something that is briefly mentioned in one sub section). Flyedit32 (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And I think you are completely wrong in your understudying that any digital encyclopedia should only have content that is seven years outdated in its introduction paragraph. That's just simple common sense according to me, and does not require referencing any manuals. I also suggest more than simply reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, that you try and properly digest the direction there in the cultural context of what a digital encyclopedia should be doing. It clearly says in the introduction paragraph of that wiki manual article "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I have put emphasis on the most important here, as nuclear power is the most important content in this article now. It's not just me who says nuclear power is the most important development of modern human history, it is Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cuban missile crisis, Cold War, NK, Kashmir conflict etc... nothing is more important than developments in nuclear power in relation to humanity thus far. I think that's just major common sense. Hence, following the wikipedia manual you have linked too, the fact that Bill Gates is developing a nuclear reactor must be in the first paragraph. I don't know how you think that this is solely the topic of my personal bias and not the entire premises on which the United Nations itself was established. I think it does matter how editors perceive the importance of the content, as there needs to be an order of the most important content presented in the appropriate order. So I think to try and reduce the importance of a line concerning nuclear power as the bias of one editor is not fair and insensible in fact. Also I think where you have written what he is "well-known for" is not the same as most important, as is actually written in the wikipedia manual. A quality encyclopedia should have some intellectual and especially scientific editorial angle, and not just be what's the most famous thing there, once again most important is not the same as most famous. And this is where I think now you have admitted to a major flaw in your judgment, that you believe degree of fame to be the same as degree of importance. Any credible intellectual will tell you a nuclear scientist is far more important than the most popular reality star for humanity in general. Death Star Central (talk)

As Flyedit32 says, the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. The purpose of the rest of article is to summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they spend their column inches on (see WP:DUE). That is how Wikipedia editors judge which content is the 'most important' in an article. Do the majority of sources about Bill Gates spend the majority of their space writing about TerraPower? If you walked into a book store and picked up a biography of Gates, would you see 'Chairman of TerraPower' on the book jacket? - MrOllie (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie is spot on here. Thank you! Flyedit32 (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

But that's exactly why it should be on wikipedia, that a printed book jacket may have missed this crucial fact, but a digital encyclopedia can be more cleverly dexterous than the print media. That is why wikipedia is so important, as it can break free from the limited agendas of the for profit print media. From my understating of WP:DUE, it says in the guidelines: that the "mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" and that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I would say simply here no technology is more important than Nuclear power in relation to the human condition, do you disagree with that? Consequently as there are sources about Nuclear power here now it must be mentioned in the introduction paragraph. Once again the Elon Musk page has him on many projects listed as the co-founder in the first paragraph and none are even as significant to humanity as nuclear power, so why cannot there be one line here in the Bill Gates article? Why are you so adamant in simply deleting sourced content about nuclear power from the intro paragraph. More about TerraPower should be developed in the article body too of course, there are plenty of sources in regards to this, but this does not also mean that it should not already be mentioned in the opening paragraph already as it is a highly important topic. Two wrongs do not make a right. Death Star Central (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Bill Gates being on the board of TerraPower is probably the 75th most notable thing about his life. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is not to editorialise about which of a subject’s accomplishments is most important to the future of humanity. Smntstatus (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry this is not nonsense and that is only your opinion that, "Bill Gates being on the board of TerraPower is probably the 75th most notable thing about his life." I strongly disagree, as for me it is the No.1 most important role in his life presently. Do you have a source for that number 75? Come on that's a nonsensical statement clearly. Besides he's not just on the board, he is the chairman of TerraPower and its founder too. In the Atomic Age, please do read this article, any serious activity in nuclear power is obviously the most important fact about a subject and this present era. Do you disagree with the global scientific consensus that nuclear technology is the most important development of our Atomic Age presently? What technology do you feel is more important than nuclear? Also TerraPower is not about the future only, that's what Bill Gates has been working on now since 2006. He has even met with the President of China to collaborate on this nuclear project, please read this article in Forbes in regards to this. The nuclear and international nature of this project makes it highly important and notable now. Importance, I reiterate is not simply a popularity contest. Importance cannot just be left for the masses and their commercial spin mass media culture to judge, this is the real role of a good wiki editor to weigh up the sources and execute editorial judgment, and not simply follow the mass sentiments by rote. Further Bill Gates does not work for Microsoft anymore! He left in 2014. So as a wikipedia editor the job is to keep the intros of articles current, not seven years outdated, along with selecting editorial direction boldly of what is important for encyclopedic value. And it the job of the wiki editor to debate that, when he/she strongly disagrees with the other editors too. Like I am doing here, and feel that your logic and statement of this arbitrary "75" number being completely ridiculous for this debate. Do you have a source for this number 75? Can you give a full table of ranking then from 1 to 75? Is this not just made up nonsensically by you? I have given you a source to the importance of atomic energy in the Atomic Age article already, and listed facts and sources to support my statements. For me this should be common sense for everybody, but I do suppose we live in a strange time of media. I am sorry to say this, but it's really frustrating as I feel I am the only one presenting actual facts to the arguments and sticking to protocol. As regardless, that sentence I wrote should not have been deleted till this debate was concluded too. Clearly I feel this is very unfair, and the replies above not logical and not based on facts, and also not in keeping with the innovative spirit of the wikipedia project. There are guidelines, but then there is also soul. Death Star Central (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated paragraphs

There are a number of paragraphs in this article that 1) do not mention Bill Gates; 2) are only tangentially related to him; and 3) are covered in other articles (such as History of Microsoft). For those reasons, I am going to remove them. Of course, any strong objections, let's discuss here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you give examples? I offhand don't see any content as being fluff or redundant. I think it's okay if something in this article is covered in a different article as well. When the article is about the founder of a company, there's bound to be some overlap between topics given the history of both the figure and company is kindred. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at Steve Jobs's article, there is content that is included both in there and on the Apple company page as well as History of Apple Inc., but again, just because a story or elements of a story deal in multiple subjects, doesn't mean only one article is allowed to cover it. Flyedit32 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

change bill gates spouse thing and make it married from 1994 to 2021 Bruhbruhindia (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Divorces are not instantaneous. There will be a long legal process. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Does WP have a policy regarding the causes and circumstances of a divorce? Or the extra-marital affairs that occurred during the marriage? Gates's setup with Ann Winblad seems very well documented. It would be of significance given that Gates weighs in on social, political, and moral issues. But this is not my bailiwick. Dynasteria (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We generally go by what the reliable sources say, and there is correct pushback against sensationaised journalism. This goes into WP:BLP territory. As always err on the side of caution regarding this stuff (even on the talk page). Aircorn (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What does "even on the talk page" mean? Which part is sensationalized?

Bill Gates is a very public figure and his personal life is not exactly private. He has not maintained absolute privacy and even though he is one of the richest and most powerful men in the world he is not sacrosanct. Dynasteria (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, the sensationalized part is you speculating that the Ann Winblad thing (which was known to everyone throughout their marriage) constitutes an "extra-marital affair". There is zero evidence that an affair occurred. And yes, WP:BLP applies to public figures and rich, powerful people. Try reading it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I merely suggest that Bill Gates's personal lives be chronicled just as other celebrities' lives are. Tiger Woods, for example. The Gateses' divorce barely receives a whisper in the article. I didn't actually say the Ann Winblad setup was an extra-marital affair. I don't know what Gates's relationship is or has been with Ann Winblad. There's obviously no shame in maintaining an open marriage, if that's what you like. Why make a secret out of it? I'm just curious where and how you draw the line. Sending me some boilerplate form (as you did) doesn't answer my questions. Dynasteria (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line, we don't call them "divorced" until the divorce is final. As noted above, that could take years. As for Ann Winblad, that coverage is not coming from Reliable Sources; it's from tabloids like the New York Post and the Daily Mail, which we do not use as sources here. Right now the article is exactly where it needs to be: one sentence, plus a note in the infobox, saying they have announced plans to divorce. As the process proceeds, when there actual, widely-reported news - for example about the effect on their foundation - we will include that. But anyone looking for sensational stuff about their relationships has come to the wrong place. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For consistency sake, please get back to me when you've reviewed the Tiger Woods page which cites The National Enquirer. Thanks! Dynasteria (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, that's not how this works. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, did you just misrepresent a citation in a BLP? The Tiger Woods article does not cite the National Enquirer. Rather, in the context of discussing Woods' infidelity, the article mentions (sourced to Reuters) a refuted' National Enquirer story. Take more care to be accurate in your claims here, please. ValarianB (talk)

"even on the talk" means that BLP doesn't just apply to mainspace. Yes we are more lenient here, but it still pays to be careful. You were given a boilerplate, because what we can say varies and is governed by sources. If it becomes widely reported in good sources and is mentioned as a major factor in their breakup then we can probably say something. If you want to include something put together a sentence here with sources (in a new section ideally) and see what other editors think. In the end consensus decides what and how we say this kind of stuff. Aircorn (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB: I didn't misrepresent anything. If the Reuters article refutes a claim, I don't have access to it and it does not appear in the body of the text. The citing I refer to is in the text. Most people who read an encyclopedia article don't chase down references, so if you want me to respond here you have to deal with what's in the text. Where does it say that the National Enquirer claim is conclusively refuted? Aircorn: I'm still not aware of having said or claimed anything objectionable or inflammatory. Can you show me where? The same goes for Tartan357. Please respond with a substantive argument. I can hardly respond to boilerplate. Ultimately, the point about Tiger Woods is there's a whole section on scandals and car accidents, etc. The article doesn't just stick to his golf. I'm not informed enough about Bill Gates to have an opinion, other than to think that anyone that successful and with that long a career cannot have gone without some controversy. Long ago I read that he had made a lot of enemies and screwed over a lot of people. This article is glowingly laudatory, so it strikes me as biased and one-sided. Dynasteria (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, at this point, it's not even clear what changes you're suggesting be made. Vague complaints that the article "is glowingly laudatory, so it strikes me as biased and one-sided" are not helpful. If you're seeking to add tabloid gossip speculating about the reasons behind the divorce, you should know that's not going to happen. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been fine as far as I am concerned, it was merely a general reminder not meant to come across as an accusation. Aircorn (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't really evaluate anything here without being provided with sources. A mention of Ann Winblad could probably be made if it is done carefully. Criticism could and should be added if it is well sourced and balanced. Aircorn (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You claimed the Tiger Woods page which cites The National Enquirer. That was not a truthful statement. ValarianB (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, this is from the Tiger Woods page:

"Infidelity scandal and fallout

In November 2009, the National Enquirer published a story claiming that Woods had an extramarital affair with New York City nightclub manager Rachel Uchitel, who denied the claim.[213]"

Dynasteria (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, the National Enquirer is not cited there. It's just mentioned. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, Tartan357, what's the point of mentioning something if it has no validity? Your point seems largely about semantics. I would say that "mention" falls under the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "cite":

1.a. To quote or refer to (a book or author, for example) as an authority or example in making an argument.

b. Law To refer to (a previous court decision or other legal precedent), as when arguing a case.

2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.

Perhaps the right answer is to mirror the Ann Winblad mention of their relationship in her article:

When Bill Gates was to marry Melinda Gates, he had an arrangement with her that he and Winblad could keep one vacation tradition alive from their dating years. Every spring, as they had done for over a decade, Gates would spend a long weekend with Winblad at her beach cottage on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, where they would ride dune buggies, hang-glide, walk on the beach, and share their thoughts about the world and themselves.[12][13]

Again, Gates has taken himself out of the realm of private businessman and put himself in the socio-political arena. I think people have a right to know what he's all about. This one mention would hardly be invasive, and it seems highly relevant. As relevant to him as to Ann Winblad, who is in fact a private businesswoman. WP should treat men and women equally. Dynasteria (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree the question should be dealt with consistently for Gates and Winblad, but if "knowing what he's all about" means exposing any private matter at any time, then no. His socio-political activities do not entitle anyone to that. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dynasteria, no, it's not about semantics. A citation has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. Citations serve to verify information in an article. This is editing 101. The National Enquirer story is noteworthy in that case, and is described in a secondary reliable source, so we can talk about it. That is not at all the same as relying on the National Enquirer for the sourcing of facts. Seriously, actually go read WP:BLP. It's an important policy that many of us care about, yes, even for powerful people. Please stop with the word games and WP:OTHERCONTENT nonsense. Go to Talk:Ann Winblad and Talk:Tiger Woods to discuss those articles. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Gates article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Whoa back. They are discussing Bill Gates with the edit above. I am not a fan of the reasoning behind including it, but it is a valid addition to discuss. The source is this times article. Aircorn (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I see this has been added with this edit. I will change it now as it is in the wrong place and ,makes it sound like this has just been revealed. Aircorn (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Integrate a source of New York Times to article

New York Times has a news article about the Bill Gates + Melinda French divorce thing. If I got this right, New York Times is almost always reliable except for medical advice, and may need some checking if articles are opinion pieces. But I would like to say that this New York Times article should be reliable, I think? I don't think it's very opinion-like.

Also, I am not sure how I would integrate that news article into the Bill Gates article when it comes to information regarding Bill and Melinda's divorce. By the way, it does have some interesting info about Bill Gates' monetary value. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is too soon to include this topic in the Wikipedia article. Let’s see how notable these allegations, which Bill Gates’s spokesperson is categorically denying, become. I would give it at least a couple to weeks to get a more accurate picture of the allegations and what actually happened. WP:SCANDAL and all that (we have had issues, for example, with the Marvin Minsky article where we made some very serious allegations which came mainly from one press article misrepresenting what was said in one person’s testimony during a disposition, testimony where the person in question could not remember any key details of their allegation). Samboy (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would advise caution on Mr. Gates' currently personal life and coverage, ladies and gentlemen. Per WP:NOTNEWS Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 00:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)