Talk:Warren Buffett

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

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

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

Buffet sold all of his PetroChina stake recently

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

No Linking To Berkshire Hathaway Without Written Permission?

Read the disclaimer on the Berkshire Hathaway website:

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

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

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

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

216.164.159.128 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

216.164.159.128 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Silver price?

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

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

First Investment?

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

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

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

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

Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The timeline is designed to set the record straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warren Buffett's views on earnings smoothing

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

There is nothing unethical about earnings smoothing.

But it is unethical to intentionally distort or manipulate earnings.

Warren Buffett's views on Taxes

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

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

He used his own properties to illustrate an example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ethical problem of double taxation?

Schwarzenegger campaign

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

---

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

Jeff Albro

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

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

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

Facts and myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Buffett : Hero or Zero ?'

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed

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

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

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

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

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

Other famous Buffett worth mentioning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Life ?

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

Jcam 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

America America which wording's right for me.

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

Economic moat

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

What is an Economic Moat?[6]

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

succession box

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

Flaws?

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

Repetition

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

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

Cleanup tag

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

His houses

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

(archived POV rant in this space to page history)

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

why he left wharton

does anyone know why?

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

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

sourcing??

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

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

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

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

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

Divestment of Assets to Gates Found., et al

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

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

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

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

Is Warren Buffett Jewish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the Criticism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of frugality?

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

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

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

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

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

Disowning his granddaughter?

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

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

Why is his Chinese name here?

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

Warren Buffet on investment/speculation

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

– warren buffett , letter to shareholders 2000

Category idea

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

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

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

Reference format

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

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

Name pronounciation

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

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

athiest/agnostic

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

Inconsistency

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

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

Youtube vid of Buffet interview with Liz Claman

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

Re: The "Writings" section

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

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

Timeline section

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox and salary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worry

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

Dates

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

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

Additional topics

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Removed a paragraph

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

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

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

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

Pacificorp and Klamath River

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

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

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

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

• Article about Buffet

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

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

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

Lost reference...

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

FORBES MISTAKE?

I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45?

FORBES MISTAKE?

I must say something i noticed.The stock prices that were used for the list are from 11th of february.OK.Arcelormittal close price for 11th of febr is 67.82 you can see that on the site.Also,another thing you can see is mittal family stake which is 43.04%=623620000 million shares.If you make a multiplication 623620000 x 67.82 thats equal to 42293908400 billion dollars...why Forbes says its 45?