Talk:Bill Gates

/Archive 5

SAT-IQ Equivalency?

I find the statement that Gates' SAT score of 06542 reflects an equivalency to an "IQ" of 170 intriguing as IQ is supposedly a measure of some innate aptitude or "intelligence" while the SAT represents a test of what a student has learned or achieved in high school. Fundamentally, though, that statement may have validity as an IQ test, an emerging consensus concedes, is largely a test what a person has learned on a more subtle level, something that is heavily influenced by that person's environment, particularly during early childhood. We would all agree, however, that any such high score on a SAT He Got 300% test reflects great achievement earned through hard work and study, the behavioral key to success more than any innate factor.[[User:Tom Cod|Tom 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the article? That is what this page is for; not a discussion of Gates' intelligence. (Also, please don't remove other comments on the page; the one you displaced is probably not important, but in general you should edit below the existing sections.)  Frank  |  talk  18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think his suggestion is clear. It is silly to translate SAT scores to IQ scores in a Wikipedia article. The only source given is from a High-IQ society's 1998 annual report, which states that a correlation was reported in a book ("The g Factor"). It's not obvious to me that the citation supports the claim that a 1590 score "translates" to an IQ of 170, and the report includes caveats regarding the correlation.

It seems to me that the reference to IQ needs some work. The fact that the IQ of 170 was reported in the press justifies the reference in the article, I think, but the claim that "an SAT score of 1590 was equivalent to an IQ of about 170" is surely much too strong, no? I'll defer to someone who's statistics background is stronger than mine (this would include most anyone). Phiwum (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do need to stick with what citations from reliable sources say.  Frank  |  talk  21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I'll defer to others to re-write the claim so that it is accurate. Any takers? Phiwum (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The source for the 1590 = about 170 is a chart published in the reference that converts many different test scores to IQ equivalents. It's not in the SAT section. Slackergeneration (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates' IQ is 160, not 170. According to this source, which is from a 'safe source.' http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Q&A/Q&A.htm - Brady 14:15, 23 February 2009

That's not a reliable source. That's just a wild guess on someone's part. There's no data to back it up. Slackergeneration (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence. I've done academic work in the area of standardized testing score validity, and correlating IQ to SAT is just silly. For those who consider test scores important, the point is made simply by stating his SAT score. Decafdyke (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not silly at all. The old version of the SAT measured vocabulary, reading comprehension, math aptitude, and other fundamental skills that are highly correlated with intelligence. In fact SAT scores correlate as well with IQ scores as different IQ scores correlate with one another. Slackergeneration (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't be sure it's a reliable source, but the person who wrote the webpage clearly knows a LOT about IQ. When he says "safe source" we can't just assume it's an arbitrary number pulled out of nowhere. 1590 could mean that Bill got lucky on a few questions, his IQ range is probably between 160 and 170. At the 1550+ range, the SAT, we can say that a person's IQ is around 160 or higher - but due to ceiling effects, a 1590 doesn't necessarily imply 170. 170 is an extremely rare score. It means that you are smarter than pretty much everybody in the world...Bill Gates is a smart man, but he's publicly stated that he met people at Harvard who were smarter than him in his autobiographies. A 170 IQ pretty much guarantees that you're going to be THE smartest guy no matter what...trust me. Every IQ test (including the SAT, which I agree is essentially an IQ test) has a ceiling, and Bill's score is too close to the top to extrapolate the general trend and conclusively state his IQ is 170. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.201.66 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Honorary knighthood, "sir", and other irrelevant trappings of British aristocracy

I think the case should be made here why it is relevant to attach the initials KBE to Gates's name in the first sentence. Please explain here how this is notable for the current article. It doesn't seem like any other Gates biographies (including the official one) even mention his honorary knighthood. So for our article to emphasize it in the first sentence would seem to assign WP:UNDUE weight to it. Of course, the article rightly mentions the award later on. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC), BPhil, PhD, FRS, KFC

Also, in MOS:BIO, one finds the following style guideline regarding post-nominal letters:

"Post-nominal letters should be included when they are issued by a country or organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead."

Since, as indicated above, Gates seems not to have a particularly close association with Great Britain, inclusion of the initials seems improper. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look back to Archive 5 for a full discussion on this. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The MoS link provided in the archive is better than the one I gave above. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because Gates is not a British citizen, he does not receive the title "Sir" in front of his name for being a knight, but it is necessary to have the initials KBE behind his name to make that note. This is not a title, it is just to show the recognition of the honorable award he recieved. -(Tarheelz123) 12:45, 21 January 2009

See the discussion in /Archive 5, and the style guide. Specifically, "Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare." siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages

Hi, I help maintain the above page, on which Bill Gates is currently included. I've reviewed the history log of the article and it seems that there has not been significant vandalism in the past month, so I'm taking the article off the list. If vandalism becomes a problem again, please do not hesitate to put it back on the list. Hadrian89 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Katharine

Alert: There is a hoax going around the internet that show exclusive pictures of Jennifer Katharine (Bill's eldest daughter). These pictures are actually of actress Rachael Leigh Cook, who was born in 1979 as oppose to Jennifer who was born in 1996. Expect to see edits and vandalism added to this article related to this hoax. Clerks. (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IDIOTS!!!

GUYS!!?!??!?! BILL GATES DID NOT DONATE 28 BILLION DOLLARS TO CHARITY!?!??! WHICH MORON PUT THAT IN THE ARTICLE?!?!?! HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN THERE

WHEN PEOPLE SAY THAT WIKIPEDIA IS UNRELIABLE SOURCE THIS IS WHAT THEY MEAN!!!

HOW COULD THIS HAVE STAYED SO LONG WITHOUT IT GETTING CORRECTED!!!

THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST VISITED ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!

HE DONATED 2.8 BILLION!!! NOT 28 BILLION!!! THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!!

PLZ CHANGE ASAP!!!!

aeishunu@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.160.238 (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RAWR!!!

I made a mistake myself, even the 2.8 billion is wrong. It is out of date, the latest figures show 3.5 billion either already donated or pledged.

Spouses

Melina Gates (1964 - Present) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt199407 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

why is the main picture of gates a mugshot from his teens? that seems inappropriate to me. how about a normal recent photograph like we have for everyone else (when available)? Roadnottaken (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gates uses the exact same picture on his identication card in this TV commercial. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roadnottaken. Not only is that just an advertisement, but it's only a joke ID card within that ad. It really should be changed, there must be plently of free images of Bill Gates available. DonutGuy (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It got me confused. I think we should keep it simple. Or put it in the middle of the article. Khullah (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600, what the heck? Don't fool around in articles, especially in biographies. The next user that uses the mugshot on the infobox gets very long holidays from the website. Seriously, that particular biography is sensitive enough without having to deal with that mugshot. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you threaten to suspend me? Wikipedia is supposed to be about free speech. Also, Wikipedia:Be bold says, "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages." Why does every article have to have a bland, generic picture in the main info box? What's wrong with having some diversity in the types of pictures that are used? Why would you threaten to suspend me for posting a public domain picture? What about free speech? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about Free content, not free speech. Wikipedia's aim is to be neutral and balanced, and that is most important in biographies. Using a mugshot on someone's bio when the article is not around him being a criminal is not neutral, and ultimately is not responsible: this article is seen by 12 000 people per day, that means that 6000 people were served a biased picture instead of the correct one. I'm sorry but that is not acceptable, especially when Wikipedia is under intense scrutiny from the media due to its biographical content. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 - shame on you for invoking something as noble as freedom of speech in your reply. Your intentions here are plain to see - you'd like to embarrass or belittle Bill Gates by showing a mugshot, rather than a regular picture. It's got nothing to do with free speech. David T Tokyo (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to embarrass or humiliate anyone. Gates had a sense of humor to use that photo in the ad. I appreacite humor like that. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I'm a libertarian, and I think Bill Gates is a hero of entrepreneurship, capitalism, wealth creation, job creation, and private charity. I think it's ridiculous that the government has accused him of anti-trust, when people are perfecty free to use alternatives like Apple, Linux, Unix, etc. It's also ridicluous that the government thinks it's wrong that he gives his web browser away for free, when all the other companies that give their web browsers away for free, such as Firefox, don't get criticized for it. I don't have anything against Bill Gates at all. I think he's a great guy, and I wish there were thousands more entrepreneurs who were like him. I put the mugshot there as a joke, and nothing more. There was no ill will intended. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-joke|Bill Gates}} :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate or Scale Down Ad Section

While reading his bio, it seemed to me that the section talking about his 2008 ad was either way too long and descriptive or just unnecessary. Anyone agree? 66.206.186.59 (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree on all points. It's not necessary and despite its detailed description it isn't even authoritative ("at least one commercial"). It should be removed. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna pull it then. If anyone disagrees with that, put it back and talk about it here. 66.206.186.59 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary image links

{{editsemiprotected}} On Bill Gates' wiki entry there are unnecessary links that read: "http:// i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn128/girltickling/sally_black_large.jpg" and lead to some girl in a black suit. Please remove these image links.

Larogoth (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been removed. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft keeping copyright on DOS

"Gates insisted that IBM let Microsoft keep the copyright on the operating system, because he believed that other hardware vendors would clone IBM's system"

While it was very prescient of Bill Gates keeping copyright on DOS, he could hardly have foreseen the cloning of the IBM PC. That Columbia Data Products and Compaq managed to clean room a version owes more to an accident of history. Unless someone can actually come up with a verifiable historical quote from Bill Gates. emacsuser (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)