This is an archive of past discussions about Jeff Bezos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
That paragraph is WAY too long. It needs to be broken up and run on sentences need to be fixed. I had to stop reading because it became too hard to read.--Mrowlinson04:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
IP-related lawsuits missing from the article
I believe spurious patents such as the infamous "one-click-shopping" and their use against Amazon's competitors should be included in this entry, seeing how Jeff Bezos has created significant controversy around his name on account of these tactics. Porfyrios12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Left handed or ambidextrous?
Is this guy left handed? If yes, should it be noted or should he at least be put in the category of 'famous' left-handed people (if there is such a thing in Wikipedia)?
Note: My assumtion on handedness is from the recent press conference, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm92Tnp953c and my own perspective on handedness (I'm left-handed). Or might he be ambidextrous cf. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ambidexterity)?
The first paragraph says he was born to a couple named Jorgensen. The second states a different set of parents, the mother later marrying a Bezos. This is obviously messed up and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1965Mensan (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Done
Political donations
"According to the web site Newsmeat.com, a web site that documents political donations made by "the powerful, rich, and famous" since 1977 (and donations higher than $200), Bezos has donated $16,000 to United States Democrats, $2,000 to United States Republicans, and $55,000 to special interests as of September 6, 2012."
So, someone worth more than $22,000,000,000 has made, according to a website, less than $75,000 in political donations since 1977. In what sense is giving less than 0.00034% of his wealth for this over 35 years notable? I'll happily agree that the $2.5m donation to the referendum is (although I am about to add the word 'help'), but this is going. Lovingboth (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I've heard, Brad Stone's recent The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon is the only really solid biography of Bezos out there, but it isn't yet even cited here. If someone wants to make a serious contribution to this article, he or she should seriously consider reading that book and seeing what can be gleaned. - Jmabel | Talk05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It paints a picture entirely separate from the narrative he has approved, and elucidates some of the paranoid motivators behind that constant revisionism. I'm not even really sure where to start. 66.65.170.122 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Brad Stone's biography is extremely inaccurate, no where near "really solid". It is riddled with falsehoods and exaggerations. As a reminder, Jeff Bezos' wife, MacKenzie Bezos wrote a 922-word review denouncing the text. Here is a snippet of her review:
I have firsthand knowledge of many of the events. I worked for Jeff (Bezos) at D. E. Shaw, I was there when he wrote the business plan, and I worked with him and many others represented in the converted garage, the basement warehouse closet, the barbecue-scented offices, the Christmas-rush distribution centers, and the door-desk filled conference rooms in the early years of Amazon’s history. Jeff and I have been married for 20 years.
Although Stone claims that he "spoke to more than 300 people" these statements have been challenged by multiples of those quoted in the book. Stone did not have access to upper level management at Amazon, acquaintances of Bezos and more importantly Bezos himself. If you're looking for a "solid" biography of Bezos look at Tom Robinson's Jeff Bezos: Amazon.com Architect (2010). Here is a list of other, in-depth profiles about Bezos that deal properly with his criticism and feats in business and personally:
In short, there is a lot to be gleaned from Stone's book but little to nothing can be salvaged to add to this article. Wikipedia has very strong rules and standards about citing sources, especially for living persons. His biography fails WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:WELLKNOWN, and WP:BLPSTYLE. Stone wanted to sell a story, and he did just that. While I'm sure there are accurate parts, there are certainly inaccuracies. Its not up to us figure out which is which. There are plenty of books out there that are engrossing and popular that are similarly inaccurate and just pandering. This isn't Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, not by a long shot.
One could argue that it could be placed in the article's further reading or see also section, but even there I would raise objections (e.g. MOS:FURTHER). I think Stone's text should be left in the bookshelves of interested parties and not make an appearance here. That being said, the text did received some attention so I mentioned (not cited) it in the article's public image section. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Bezos' rationale and motivation for his NewSpace activity
There is some good insight into Jeff Bezos' rationale and motivation for being involved in the NewSpace industry (with his company Blue Origin) in this article: Jeff Bezos Owns the Web in More Ways Than You Think, by Steven Levy, November 13, 2011, Wired, December 2011 issue. Bezos may have made public comments about this before, but I had not previously seen anything very explicit.
Bezos: If I wanted to buy tourist trips to fly to the International Space Station and Soyuz and those things, there’s nothing wrong with that. But that’s $35 million. I want to lower the cost of access to space. ... I like to say, “Maintain a firm grasp of the obvious at all times.” For Amazon, that’s selection, speed of delivery, lower prices. Well, for Blue Origin it’s cost and safety. If you really want to make it so that anybody can go into space, you have to increase the safety and decrease the cost. That’s Blue Origin’s mission. I’m super passionate about it.
I don't have time to update the article just now, but did want to leave a link to the source should other's be interested. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I found that Bezos made comments re his motivations in remarks announcing the Blue Origin new orbital launch vehicle recently, and they were covered by media in reliable sources. So I have updated the article with some of that, and added the sources. N2e (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Jeff Bezos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In the Trivia section, there's this word ancest. I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Exteray (talk • contribs) 19:00, August 17, 2006 (UTC)
It's the name of his adoptive stepfather: "Bezos's mother was a teenager at the time. Her marriage to his father lasted a little more than a year. When Jeff was four, she remarried, to Miguel Bezos, a Cuban who immigrated to the United States alone when he was fifteen years old, worked his way through the University of Albuquerque, married, and legally adopted his stepson Jeff." Trivialist (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The name of his stepfather, Bezos, originates from one of the most ancient Greek villages, Alea, in Argolis, Peloponnese, Greece, now mostly abandoned. Its habitants known to have immigrated inside or outside the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.242.161 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just checked that Jewishpress link and it says at the foot of it, quote: This article has been updated to corrected the mis-identification of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as Jewish. Boscaswelltalk22:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen
January 12, 1964 —
If this was HispanicOrNotHispanic.com, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos would make an excellent profile. Yes, he is often referred to as Hispanic, but the link comes from his Cuban stepfather. But this is not HispanicOrNotHispanic.com... If this was ScandinavianOrNotScandinavian.com, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos would make an excellent profile. You see, despite the non-nordic last name, he is Scandinavian! His birth father, a star unicyclist(!), was named Jorgensen. But this is not ScandinavianOrNotScandinavian.com... This is JewOrNotJew.com, of course! And we're not sure if Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos would make an excellent profile on this website... But enough people are asking!
Verdict: Sadly, not a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.131 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Yea why is Wikipedia calling a guy constantly under attack for exploiting people and horrible working conditions a "philantropist"? Because he donates back a few bucks of the billions he squeezes out? I'm going to remove that from his description because it's not nuanced and reflecting the truth and write it into a more complete "Philantropy efforts" section if everybody agrees. Robin De Schepper (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has much info about Amazon.com that is not included in the Amazon.com article. Perhaps that Amazon.com info should be migrated into that article and out of this one? — TreyHarris 21:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Internet & Nuclear War Myth
I would just like to point out that the following paragraph is not entirely accurate and may want to be reworked or removed:
The Internet was originally created by the United States Department of Defense to keep its computer networks connected during an emergency, such as natural disaster or enemy attack. Over the years, it was adopted by government and academic researchers to exchange data and messages.
See: ARPANET's section on "Nuclear Attacks and ARPANET" for my justification. The above paragraph is also an oversimplification. ARPANET was created mainly to test certain networking technologies (packet switching mainly) and to share information amongst certain institutions... not to withstand attacks. Also the DOD did not have "computer networks" to connect together in the way the paragraph describes. I would change it, but I have not yet confirmed which fact is true, so I am just putting this out here and might make the change in a few days, unless someone knows for sure.
"As of March 2015, Bezos was among the largest landholders in Texas." What section? Not early life!
So I'm not exactly sure what section this belongs in.
It's right now in early life, but makes no sense there since its 2015. It's completely out of context.
But I'm not exactly sure where it belongs.. your thoughts?
I have just modified 9 external links on Jeff Bezos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
$42 million to the Clock of the Long Now is not philanthropy. If someone wants this project to remain in the article, it needs to be under a different heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.133.92 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, how exactly is "Recovery of two Saturn V first-stage Rocketdyne F-1 engines from the floor of the Atlantic Ocean." a philanthropic act?
--139.47.26.234 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Jeff Bezos. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The lede refers to Amazon as "the world's largest online shopping retailer". Shopping is synonyms with retail and thus redundant. Amazon sells pretty much everything so "retailer" doesn't need any qualifier other than "online". I suggest replacing the phrase with simply "the world's largest online retailer". Thank you. 91.142.106.73 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The guy's worth $135 billion and he's given away maybe $100 million in total if you sum up all the philanthropy listed in this article. That's less than 0.1% of his net worth. Having more money than the GDP of half of the countries in the world and keeping 99.9% for yourself is pretty much the definition of greed, not philanthropic. Mike (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Its not up to us to decide who is and who isn't a philanthropist. If there are reliable sources identifying him as such, we have to follow in line. The relative value of his philanthropic contributions does not somehow make or break one's status as philanthropic. You either give money to philanthropic causes or you don't. You, specifically, are using selection bias here as well. What you consider "philanthropy" and what others consider philanthropy are quite different. His work with Bezos Expeditions, Blue Origin, Amazon, and donations to various charities or organizations far surpass that $100 million valuation. Either way, please refer to the WP:SOAPBOX policy in the talk header and as General Ization said, the Philanthropy section of this article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the Not done outcome. Bezos has put some $3.5+ billion into private spaceflight, which is a big money loser for a corporation but is beneficial for developing technologies that benefit all by opening up spaceflight to lower-cost space transport and access to "what's out there" for more than just a few folks born into countries that happen to have large tax-based government-paid-for space programs. We go with what verifiable sources support. N2e (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)"I am philanthropic therefore I am philanthropic". – René Descartes, Meditations on The Bezos Philanthropic (1647)
@LivinRealGüd If we don't use our own brains, Wikipedia will quickly become a reflection of propaganda and ignorance.
Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbst verschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Anleitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbst verschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Muthes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude [wage es verständig zu sein]! Habe Muth, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.
I understand that Bezos has not given a large share of his wealth. He is frequently listed among the least charitable of fellow philanthropists. However, he is among fellow philanthropists. He is philanthropic and it is hardly a stretch to say so. In January 2018, he made a $33 million donation to TheDream.US, a college scholarship fund for undocumented immigrants. If someone with say $250 million in net worth donated this amount, there would be no question about this person's philanthropic status. It doesn't matter if you have $100 million or $100 billion, $33 million is a lot of money. In 2015, he funded the recovery of two Saturn V first-stage Rocketdyne F-1 engines from the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. He spent millions of dollars preserving a vital piece of American history and not only that, he donated it to the Seattle Museum of Flight. He personally donated $10 million in 2009 and $20 million in 2010 to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, a non-profit cancer research institute. Later in 2010, he donated $800,000 to Worldreader, another non-profit, founded by a former Amazon employee. In May 2017, he gave $1 million to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the largest single gift received by the organization. From the looks of it, this is only the beginning of his philanthropic pursuits. Not to mention he spends approximately one billion dollars every year on the greatest philanthropic endeavor known to mankind. I join fellow editors in the Not done outcome. LivinRealGüd (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a pretty preposterous argument. $250 million of wealth is 0.2% of his net worth. It's about equivalent to someone with a million dollar retirement having given away about $2000. That's not philanthropic. In addition, I will point out that you're not the owner of the page. It appears as if multiple people have pointed out that Bezos should not be called a philanthropist. However, my primary complaint is that it is called his *occupation*. If you want to leave it in the lead sentence, I don't care. But philanthropist is not an occupation so it doesn't belong in the info box. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear friend. Thank you for talking this out on the TP. As I, and others, have pointed out: philanthropy is not relative. Good or bad philanthropy is. Anyone who fights in a war has fought in a war. It doesn't matter if they did so for five hours or five days. Thank you for pointing out that I'm not the owner of this article, however, I don't think it is necessary. I never contend to be, no one believes me to be, and I shouldn't ever want to be. I view myself as a beefed up Wiki Gnome. You are very right: many editors have pointed out that Bezos should not be called a philanthropist. Many editors were wrong. They usually read one article in a newspaper and think Wikipedia should match it exactly. But always remember what Wikipedia is not. Now to your occupation parameter note. Although I am not the editor who included it in the article, here is what I have found. As I read at Template:Infobox person#Parameters: "Occupation(s) as given in the lead". As you say "If you want to leave it in the lead sentence, I don't care". If its in the lead sentence, then it should be as such in the infobox. According to Wikipedia: Occupation is a "job, his/her role in society, often a regular activity performed for payment". This definition coupled with the parameter guidelines supports the inclusion of philanthropist in the infobox. Let me know your thoughts. Lets work together to find a solution that improves the article. Best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
In my opinion, one needs to be extraordinary philanthropic to be called a philanthropist. Taking away a huge amount of money from hard working people only to later give a small fraction of this money back to charity can not be called philanthropy. Using less than 1% of his wealth per year for space travel is rather a hobby than an occupation in the good of mankind. I think calling people like Bezos philanthropic is disrespectful of all the people who risk their lives trying to save others.Johnaeph (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Johnaeph: You're entitled to your opinion, but not to publish your opinion in an encyclopedia. Decisions on Wikipedia are based on established policies and consensus, not on how noisily or how persistently any individual editor expresses their opinion. At this point, the consensus expressed by other editors here is that "philanthropist" as one of Bezos' professions should stay; and you are starting now simply to reiterate your earlier arguments. We are fast approaching the point where one of us will need to suggest that you drop the stick. General IzationTalk 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
1. Which consensus? (pro: General Izationcon, LivinRealGüd, N2e; con: Mike, Bueller 007, Johnaeph) 2. My opinion is only based on simple logic an my arguments remain valid Johnaeph (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The article should mention that the garage rental where Bezos started Amazon was in Bellevue, Wa. east of Seattle. Coddis (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done it is not clear in exactly which section of the article you want this change made. Anyone is welcome to incorporate your updated source though. — xaosfluxTalk15:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the 'philanthropist' part of his occupation, this man does not care about the welfare of humanity. Any donations made are purely to improve his public image.
Simply donating does not necessarily make you philanthropic if the reason for donation is to improve your public image
The reported working conditions in his warehouses are evidence of this.
He is married until he isn't. Even though a decision to divorce was announced, it could be YEARS before a divorce is final IF ever. They could change their minds. For now, under "Spouses", it should simply have: MacKensie Bezos (m. 1993). The "div. 2019" should be REMOVED until they are actually divorced IF it even happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8B44:C400:65BE:D974:7939:900 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Why does the infobox say "separation 2019"? All we know is they had a trial separation, which was announced today, 9 January 2019. It is described as a "long period", which is highly unlikely to be a mere 9 days or less. Separation was very likely 2018, not 2019, though for all we know it could have been 2017.
"Bezos eats exotic foods, such as breakfast octopus" - a few things problematic with this. First, there's nothing very exotic about eating octopus given a fair chunk of the world does it commonly (try Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Greece, Japan, Korea, Hawaii, etc.) Second, it makes it sound like there's a species called a "breakfast octopus" when in fact that term comes from an interview Jeff Bezos did in which he randomly coined that term to be funny - "I'm eating octopus for breakfast, it's a breakfast octopus" (to paraphrase). Third, the sentence itself is touching on the kind of thing that really shouldn't be on Wikipedia pages in the first place - i.e. random character notes that exist for PR purposes and aren't actually verifiable (we have no idea what his diet is actually like, we're going off an interview where he made a point of mentioning for his own sake that he eats octopus for breakfast). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.97.2 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this point further as it's a minor issue really, but I will say that isn't really the correct standard to use. For instance, if there were a Wikipedia article about a Japanese person who eats spam for breakfast, would we really write "she eats exotic foods like spam for breakfast"? It's exotic to a Japanese person but would sound completely absurd to, say, an American reading it. Hence the problem of using the subject's conception of exotic when the article is written in neutral terms for a global audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.97.2 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A Request for Comments (RfC) on Jeff Bezos' net worth table. What are we thinkin' folks? Which one do you think is better? References removed for clarity (available on the live article). Will comment personal preference below. LivinRealGüd (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Option 1 I think it looks the best, I made the other two to see how others felt about them. A pro is that one of them is smaller, but its con is that it doesn't support icons and the green/red text is disorienting. LivinRealGüd (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Option 2 using - or + is less ambiguous than the pointing arrow (down is not = minus). The eyes focus also more on the content than on those arrow. Gagarine (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Strange sentence
Under Business Career -> Amazon, near the top, there's the line "He warned many investors that there was a 70% chance of failure, but the investors should have ignored his warning.". The latter part seems like an out of place interjection. I'd make the edit myself but it seems I can't edit semi-protected articles, so I'm raising the concern here in case someone else wants to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairothon (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that sentence needs a little more of a fix. The statement about 70% failure was something Mr. Bezos said in the earliest pre-launch days when he was accepting seed/angel money before the launch. There was certainly not 70% chance of failure by the time of the IPO as the article now seems to suggest. SPECIFICOtalk11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@MelanieN et. al., I changed it to "He warned many early investors that there was a 70% chance of Amazon failing or otherwise going bankrupt". Thoughts? Does that make it better? LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Edit conflict. I was in the process of striking my earlier comment and saying that your rewording - specifying "early investors" and removing the "should have ignored" nonsense - may have solved the problem. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Merry Wednesday All. New image was just added on to the live article. Just wanted to throw down this RfC to see if anyone had anything to say. I personally do not have a preference one way or the other. Interested to what people have to say, if anything is to be said. I think he looks like a total STUD in all of them. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Means a lot! Option 2 is only two years old (and its not like Bezos has changed much) and presents him in a more portrait-like fashion. However, I do like how the green in the current picture makes the Good Article status symbol (e.g. ) pop. LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Option 1 and Option 2 would be my choices. Think 1 is good 'cause looking more toward the camera (our reader's eye) and not in a tie; 2 is more of a portrait look except not looking toward the viewer at all. I'll support whatever consensus forms however. N2e (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Exaggeration on increase of net worth?
Under the Wealth section in this page, it is stated that "A year later, Bezos entered the top ten when he nearly doubled his net worth to a grand total of 50.3 billion." It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that a 60.9% increase in net worth is "nearly doubling" it. It's definitely a substantial increase, but I would imagine that "nearly doubling" would be somewhere in the realm of an 80%-90% increase. Thoughts?
207.140.109.250 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Jeff Bezos: Episode VIII – The First Centi-Billionaire
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@LivinRealGüd I just have to take issue with the unqualified assertion that he is "the first centi-billionaire", particularly since it is in the introduction. Later on the article says (emphasis added): "He is considered the first registered centi-billionaire (not adjusted for inflation)" and the footnote further elaborates "Although Bill Gates momentarily surpassed the $100 billion net worth mark in April 1999 before the Dot-com bubble, Bezos was the first to register $100 billion with major wealth indexes and has retained the wealth for longer than Gates's three weeks." The question of whether someone qualifies as a "centi-billionaire" should be determined by brute purchasing power, and when adjusted for inflation individuals like Andrew Carnegie come out as wealthier. The question is not whether the figures were officialised or whether the wealth was held with any perpetuity. The assertion should at least be qualified. Citizen Canine (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all thank you for taking this to the talk page, contentions about his wealth are routinely discussed here. To address your edit summary: "the correct term would be hectobillionaire". I just did a quick search for hectobillionaire and couldn't find a single thing, in fact, its re-direct link is centi-billionaire. Furthermore, any sources that discuss his wealth do not refer him as a hectobillionaire whatsoever. If you should find a source, lets discuss that then. I gather that by "brute" purchasing power you are referring to monetary values adjusted for inflation. On an inflation-adjusted basis, the net worth of Jeff Bezos when he first was declared the wealthiest person in the world was US$112.0 in 2018. In April 1999, the net worth of Bill Gates, on a real value basis, was worth approximately +/- US$100 billion. According to Amy Harmon of The New York Times in a July 1999 article, "Gates Hits $100 Billion Mark, More or Less", his holdings in Microsoft "surged by just about that amount, brushing $100 billion for the first time". What happened was that Microsoft's share price rose by 5.4% on one day, fell on another day, rose on another, and then fell once more. Had Bill Gates' holdings in Microsoft not fallen, had he not given away billions, and had he not changed his holdings, then yes, his net worth, adjusted for inflation would be $150 billion.
Roman emperor Augustus had some fat stacks, but he shouldn't be considered the world's first centi-billionaire. Just because someone is worth $100 billion dollars does not mean they are a centi-billionaire. Just because I cook, doesn't mean I am a chef. If, on the off-chance, you are referring to "brute" purchasing power as the ability to command the value of one's own net worth, then the point falls to Bezos. In 2018, Bezos could put $100 billion in the bank account and spend it, no questions asked. Bill Gates could not in April 1999, not by a long shot.
Notice anything interesting? Bill Gates wasn't a centibillionaire in 1998, 1999, or 2000. Your method of valuation is entirely predicated on an ever changing, progressive inflationary rate. Why stop in 1999? Lets go back to 14 AD when inflation brought the wealth of Roman emperor Augustus over the one billion mark. How about a trip down memory lane to 1919, the date when the wealth of Andrew Carnegie surpassed the mark, with the help of inflation. The point is that there are many, many ways to value a person's net worth. You can used inflation-, real-, nominal-, value added-, or share of GDP-standards to calculate a figure, among others. In 1999, apart from a couple of market-centered news bites, no one called Bill Gates a centi-billionaire, especially when he recorded $90 billion in most major wealth indexes and then lost $30 billion the following year. Will he become a centi-billionaire? Probably in the next five years, if not sooner.
Even with the aforementioned valuation cast aside, here is a real-time comparative analysis of all the sources that argue for each side:
Bill Gates is the world's first centibillionaire: 1, 2, 3
So saying that Jeff Bezos is the world's first centi-billionaire is hardly an "unqualified assertion". If you want to further qualify that Bill Gates' net worth briefly surpassed $100 billion in the lead, thats acceptable, however challenging Bezos' status as the first centi-billionaire is a tough task indeed. When you say "whether someone qualifies as a centi-billionaire should be determined by brute purchasing power" thats just one valuation. Mansa Musa, emperor of the Mali Empire, is said to have an indescribable amount of money. Augustus personally controlled one-fifth of his empire’s economy, worth $4.6 trillion in 2014 (economic valuation), Emperor Shenzong of China held 25% to 30% of global GDP (a mix of economic & inflation-based valuation), John D. Rockefeller was said to be worth $1.5 billion at death and 2% of U.S. economic output (economic valuation). Genghis Khan's wealth is frequently determined on market valuation (which in turn as AFI) of the land he owned (property valuation). So when you say, "his position should be qualified", by what measure? Do you propose the following?
Most wealth indexes in the United States and indeed the world use net present valuation (NPV) to calculate the net worth of people. They replace the more standard "profit" with "income" and orient a time frame around either a fiscal or calendar year. Cash outflows (liabilities) and cash inflows (assets) inform our more mainstream understanding of a person's net worth or an individual's net economic position.
"The Bezos" looking at all the land he owns.With this in mind, properly discerning who was truly the first centi-billionaire would require editors to parse through centuries of economic data and personal finances. They would have to look for someone who held a certain amount that when converted translated to a value (when adjusted for inflation) over the monetary value of =US$100,000,000,000. The only way we can make sense of this is through wealth indexes that track a variety of indicators (e.g. "action in the stock market, economic indicators and news reports") on a net present value basis. So yes, it does matter if the net worth of an individual is "officialised"; if it was not, then we have extremely inaccurate results (e.g. everyone has a different opinion about how much John D. Rockefeller is worth). To your perpetuity note: the only thing that matters is if someone has money or they don't. Time (i.e. inflation) can only change the value of a given amount of money, it can't magically create more money than the principle amount. That is to say: Bill Gates is the world's first centi-billionaire if he had undertaken multiple hypothetical measures to preserve his wealth.
To that end, the footnote in the article's wealth section is correct by Wikipedia standards and mainstream consensus. So, yes, I agree with you that qualification of his wealth is of utmost importance and so do many of this article's editors. The question-at-hand is how do we qualify his net worth without stepping into the mud of original research or false synthesis. You can find similar conversations or justifications at: Talk:Jeff Bezos FAQ, #Q2; Talk:Jeff Bezos/Archive 2, item 10; Talk:Jeff Bezos/Archive 2, item 16; and Jeff Bezos: Revision history: 18:15, 4 April 2018. What we can discuss is whether or not "(not adjusted for inflation)" or a footnote explaining the Bill Gates situation should be added to the lead section of the article, in order to further qualify his position. All the best, LivinRealGüd (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
However, I was not suggesting that we change "centi-billionaire" to "hectobillionaire". Rather, my issue is that the article itself says
"He is considered the first registered centi-billionaire (not adjusted for inflation)."
It is qualified threefold, yet the statement in the introduction just asserts it outright. The conferring of such a contentious title as "the first centi-billionaire" should not be included in the lead without any explanation of how such a figure was calculated. I do not deny that Bezos has a strong claim, stronger than any of his predecessors, to be the first centi-billionaire. But as formulated, the reference to his status as such requires modification.
I am not claiming the title should be handed to Gates over Bezos, but pointing out that the mere fact that he has a claim makes this too controversial a matter to just state as though it is incontestable. As you have demonstrated with tedious emphasis, there are numerous different metrics to calculate wealth. Since you accept that Bezos is not the first centi-billionaire according to just any metric whatsoever, which in particular is being used as the basis for the assertion in the article lead? I think this requires explicit mention. What I suggest is that we change it to "..making him the first centi-billionaire" and immediately following insert as a duplicate the footnote which currently is only in the section "Wealth" (the one beginning "Although Bill Gates.."). Citizen Canine (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay I'm glad that we've clarified the "centi-" and "Hecto-" inquiry.The net worth of Jeff Bezos first crossed the $100 billion mark, according to the Forbes wealth index, in 2018–the first person to do so. I tend to write a lot on my responses to keep a record of discussions and so I can refer other editors to the talk page for certain information. Apologies for the lack of brevity. His status as a "centi-billionaire" is indeed not clear-cut and requires a fair bit of explanation. To your first point: the wealth section and the lead are two different places, one seeks to summarize while the other seeks exposition. There is a reason that the sentence in the lead is attached to the Forbes designation and the one in the wealth section is not. It is a stand alone sentence in the latter section because it refers to the fact that all major wealth indexes, in 2018, declared him the first centi-billionaire wherein he is de facto registered. The sentence in the lead:
"On March 6, 2018, Forbes formally designated Bezos the wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of $112 billion, becoming the first centi-billionaire."
refers to the very accurate and incontestable assertion that Jeff Bezos was the first centi-billionaire on the Forbes wealth index. This is, as I have laid out in the table above, true. So I don't think you're comparing apples to apples here. The way I see it the following three alternatives can be introduced:
We change the lead sentence to include the more general, all inclusive statement about his wealth and then add the footnote.
We add, at the end of the lead sentence, "... on the wealth index" (i.e. Forbes wealth index)
We add the word "registered" before "centi-billionaire" in the lead sentence
Simply put, the sentence "He is considered the first registered centi-billionaire (not adjusted for inflation)" is widely accepted by virtually every source available to us. The current sentence is just a fact. That being said you can always qualify facts. Right now I see only the three options above as reasonable modifications. LivinRealGüd (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to add "on the wealth index" to the end of the last sentence of the intro for the sake of clarification. Also, the sentence should not read "becoming the first centi-billionaire" since the subject of the preceding clause is Forbes, not Bezos, which is why I suggest "making him the first centi-billionaire" as an alternative. Citizen Canine (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. That sounds great to me. I also agree with your "making him" alternative. I've updated the article to read: "On March 6, 2018, Forbes formally designated Bezos the wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of $112 billion, making him the first centi-billionaire on the wealth index." LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The one thing about the WP:NOTNEWS policy that I think has any value at all is that "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", but it is not an encyclopedic goal to keep an up-to-the-minute diary of every happening. We are not remiss in leaving this out. Perhaps in a year or two you could say that, but not this soon. It sounds like mostly National Enquirer is the one suspected of wrongdoing. That topic needs to be updated sooner than this bio. We're more interested int he broader social and legal events than one guy's personal life, and focusing on the institutions and organizations in play rather than the personalities is of more encyclopedic value. It's not forbidden to mention the affair now, but I can think of so many higher priorities. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, the "one guy's personal life" you're dismissing is the personal life of the subject of this article. It's part of this article that seems to be lacking. I will probably add it, but wanted to see some talk page discussion first. This was disappointing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps his communication with the National Enquirer (though not necessarily the alleged affair) should be included sometime, especially given today's blog post: "No thank you, Mr. Pecker", Jeff Bezos. It's politically relevant and it's relevant to him owning the Washington Post. --Codesue (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Codesue, it's pretty clear with today's news that we have to include the National Enquirer (allegedly) trying to blackmail him. And then we have to say what they were trying to blackmail him over. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Time Magazine Person of the Year for 1999
Perhaps the article should mention that Bezos was chosen as Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 1999, an important milestone in his evolution into a major public figure.
Clearest explication of Bezos' vision for space yet
In an extensive interview just published, Bezos talks about his spaceflight technology company Blue Origin. In addition to details which clearly fit into that article, and the article on Blue's huge new rocket engine, the BE-4, Bezos makes his clearest statement yet on his vision for space. He sees giant space habitats for millions of people, in the vein of Princeton Physcisit Gerard K. O'Neill. Here's the link to the interview with Jeff Bezos.
I don't think we'll live on planets, by the way. I think we'll live in giant O'Neal[sic]-style space colonies. Gerard O'Neil[sic], decades ago, came up with this idea.
He asked his physics students at Princeton a very simple question, but a very unusual one, which is: Is a planetary surface the right place for humanity to expand in the solar system? And after doing a lot of work, they came back and decided the answer was "no."
There's a fascinating interview with Isaac Asimov, Gerard O'Neill, and their interviewer that you can find on YouTube from many decades ago. And to Asimov, the interviewer says, "Why do you think we're so focused, then, on expanding onto other planetary surfaces?" And Asimov says, "That's simple. We grew up on a planet, we're planet chauvinists."
But the space colonies we'll build will have many advantages. The primary one is that they'll be close to Earth. The transit time and the amount of energy required to move between planets is so high. But if you have giant space colonies that are energetically close and, in terms of travel time close to Earth, then people will be able to come and go. Very few people are going to want to leave this planet permanently - it's just too amazing.
Ultimately what will happen, is this planet will be zoned residential and light industry. We'll have universities here and so on, but we won't do heavy industry here. Why would we? This is the gem of the solar system. Why would we do heavy industry here? It's nonsense.
And so over time - of course you have to today - but over time that transition will happen very naturally. It'll even be the business-smart thing to do because the energy and resources will be so much cheaper off-planet that industries will naturally gravitate to those lower-cost environments.
I suspect that a very brief high-level summary of the (now, much more developed and articulated by the older Bezos) space colonies vision is appropriate for this article. But a few months ago, one particular editor (L. RealGud) had seemed to want to revert most changes not made by them, so thought it best to bring it up here on the Talk page first. See if we might develop some consensus on Bezos space vision, on which he is expending US$1 billion per year, of space O'Neill-type space habitats might be worthy of a summary, beyond the "industry off Earth summary" that was added to this article some years ago based on an earlier and less-specific Bezos interview on his space vision, and the current mention of "colonies" in the article prose is merely based on his High School speech from the 1980s, when he was just 18. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hacked cellphone running illegal Israeli operating system (Jamal Khashoggi link)
The sources in the Jamal Khashoggi article include references to some sort of "Israeli" operation on the hacked cellphone, via the Saudis or something, but the Bezos article doesn`t go into the same depth on it. Surely that should be remedied by making it clear that it was illegal Israeli hacking of the smartphones?113.37.133.134 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Seperation/divorce
It was revealed that he and his wife decided to get divorced so can we change the m. 1993 to (Married 1993. Decided to get a divorce 2019). or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.26.114 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Eventually after 25 years of marriage Bezos and his wife Mackenzie finalized their divorce. Under the settlement in a recent filing with US Securities and Exchange Commission, Amazon, Mackenzie will get control of 4% of the $890 billion of the common shares of Amazon Inc. According to current valuations, this works out to approximately $35.6 billion. [1]Amitized (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC) User:Amitized
McKenzie Bezos, one of the richest women on earth, should get an own article quite soon.09:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Meerwind7 (talk)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
^"Jeff Bezos Interview". Achievement.org. April 17, 2008. Archived from the original on July 27, 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
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. MrClog (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the "Wealth" section still reads as it did before the divorce was finalized. I tried to edit the page to update it but don't see the edit button. How do I update this information? YouNotSneaky! (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
While the divorce was filed and terms were finalized, it does not appear that it has closed yet. Probably best to watch here. Kuru(talk)01:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to add this to the 4th paragraph ~ and in September 2018, Forbes said "far richer than anyone else on the planet" as he added $1.8 billion to his worth when Amazon's cap reached $1 trillion.[1] ~ after ~ worth increased to $150 billion in July 2018[5] ~ thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change:
"Bezos is the maternal grandson of Lawrence Preston Gise, a regional director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in Albuquerque."
to
"Bezos is the maternal grandson of Lawrence Preston Gise, a regional director of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in Albuquerque who supervised the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)."
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove philanthropist from intro line, as it is defined by the oxford dictionary "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.", that does not describe this man. The source listed directly after describes how small his "Philanthropic" adventures actually are.
Please change
Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/;[a][4] né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is an American technology entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist.[5] He is the founder, CEO, and president of Amazon.com, Inc.
To
Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/;[a][4] né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is an American technology entrepreneur, and investor. He is the founder, CEO, and president of Amazon.com, Inc.
I removed this addition by Gagarine saying Bezos's philanthropy had been criticized and questioned, because as the edit summary says, we can't leave content that is so egregiously WP:WEASELy, and violates MOS:ACCUSED and WP:EDITORIAL. There is copious sourcing that verifies that many significant experts have criticized Bezos's philanthropy for being inadequate, disingenuous, self-serving or whatever. But the WP:BLP policy requires that it be written cautiously and adhere to WP:NOPOV, as outlined in Wikipedia:Describing points of view. There needs to be WP:INTEXT attribution that tells the reader up front who is criticizing Bezos and for why, and does not in any way lean on "some say..." or "...has been accused[by whom?]" weasely passive voice. It does belong in the Philanthropy section, not dumped off in some Criticism or Controversy garbage dump at the bottom of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland: All right, so many flag. I understand your point. But then, we need to put a POV-section until someone take the time to properly explain and source the huge amount of critics and debates around the Jeff Bezos's "philanthropic" activity. At the moment the section about philantropic is only 50% of the story. Also, if you said "JB give 3 millions" it need to be put in perspective with somethings, otherwise normal people can't understand what it mean. Gagarine (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
why? there is always criticism of rich people for not giving as much as people want them to give the guy donates millions that is philanthropic. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: There is criticism on philanthropic/charity related for example to taxes and concentration on wealth or how it can supposedly make the poor lazy, but those have to be addressed on the page of the respective subject. About Jeff Bezos, the guy is not simply rich, but the riches man of the world. With that come a lot of power and it's normal that peoples are watching what is doing with this power, we are not taking about a rich guy buying an extra car. Now Jeff Bezos relation to philanthropy as been quiet ambiguous (just google "Jeff Bezos philanthropic" I don't think that copy/past hundreds of links is necessary). It's also problematic because Amazon threat some labor very poorly, I guess you can understand that doing philanthropic projects, on the one hand, and actually not paying people enough for their job can bring some controversy. In short, controversy and criticisms are real. Therefore this article should reflect this reality. Gagarine (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
None of these topics belong anywhere on this article Jeff Bezos. It would be like the article The Beatles being filled with people complaining that rock n' roll is degenerate and turns the youth away from God and country. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that would be appropriate to discuss these points of view, such as Distribution of wealth or Income distribution or Philanthropy. Using this bio to address all those topics is what we call a WP:COATRACK, and it's not allowed.
The BLP policy requires a great deal of caution and understatement compared to an article about someone no longer alive, or that's not about a person. See WP:BLPSTYLE for the actual policy. If you want to address Amazon (company), well we have a whole article about that, and that article is not a BLP, so it doesn't have the same restrictions as Jeff Bezos. We have an entire article Amazon.com controversies, also not a BLP, where you can go to town. Well, no, you still have to adhere to WP:NPOV, but the balance scale aims to be neutral. You have to understand that on a bio page of a living person, the balance is actually tipped slightly against criticism. We give people an extra benefit of the doubt on certain articles. That doesn't mean you can attack living people on any article, or even on talk pages. It means you can address these topics, but don't make it so personal.
Somebody is going to be the richest person. Whoever that is, there will be talk of what is an appropriate level of philanthropy (if any, because not everyone thinks any such obligation exists at all). You can educate readers about those points of view without making it personal.
Maybe you think this bio article should confront these issues directly on Jeff Bezos, but Wikipedia's rules say no. Wikipedia is not the whole internet -- just google "Jeff Bezos philanthropic [sic]" indeed. You are not the only person who knows how to use Google, and Wikipedia's readers are presumed to be educated enough to be able to find other kinds of sources besides this one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I edited the philanthropy section so it better adheres to WP:NPOV.
Proposing adding a sentence to replace the following: “His philanthropic efforts have been negatively compared to those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.”
Replace with: "In September 2018, Business Insider reported that Bezos was the only one of the top five billionaires in the world who hadn’t signed the Giving Pledge, an initiative created by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that encourage wealthy people to give away their wealth [1] That same month, philanthropy expert Janet Camarena, director of transparency initiatives at Foundation Center, was quoted by CNBC as having questions about Bezos’ new fund, including the fund’s structure and how exactly it will be funded."[2]
I agree with Boscaswell’s questioning of space travel research being philanthropy. Would other authors agree to moving that information under the heading “Bezos Expeditions” earlier on the page? Seems to be a more relevant place for it. Quorum816 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I’ve made the change to the philanthropy section and will look into moving space travel into the Bezos Expeditions section.” Quorum816 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Not done: That is called an "infobox" and the text is generated via a template. It cannot change without changing all >300,000 articles that use the template. You can make an argument at Template talk:Infobox person that the text on those articles should change, if you'd like. I hope this helps. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)21:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I don't think this article should have GA status while it has fact tags in the lead and a neutrality tag unattended to since January. It appears to fail criterion 4 and (if those fact tags in the lead are really necessary) criterion 2 as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱12:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I am the one who brought the article to GA status. I agree that the article has considerably slid in quality. Editors would do well to restore older material (while making appropriate updates) and better adhere to basic editorial standards. DonSpencer1 (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Education Error
The article states Jeff Bezos has "Bachelor of Science degrees in electrical engineering and computer science". This is erroneous, he has a singular Bachelor of Science degree with focus in both electrical engineering and computer science. Princeton University does not offer dual degrees, and I can see from the alumni directory that Jeff Bezos has a single degree in two fields. Many sources besides this article also erroneously claim he has two bachelor degrees.
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.Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Expand the "early career" section - especially his experience at D. E. Shaw
The "early career" section is currently a bit weak.
In particular, D.E. Shaw was a technology driven quantitative hedge fund, and Bezos was Senior Vice President of New Business Opportunities.
Among other projects, at D. E. Shaw, he:
Created an early email software platform called Juno
Created an online trading market
Researched the then-emerging internet and was responsible for identifying opportunities it created - as a key part of his day job
Explored the viability of an internet bookstore, "The Everything Store", as a D. E. Shaw side project
These roles together provided Bezos with the perfect background to start Amazon:
He had been a tech developer Head of Development in an early stage startup at Fitel
He had been business Product Manager at Bankers Trust
He had designed online trading markets at D. E. Shaw
He had studied the opportunities of the emerging internet closely at D. E. Shaw - including designing an "Everything Store, focusing on categories such as books and CDs. Basically, he had designed Amazon for D. E. Shaw.
So, he had designed Amazon at D. E. Shaw before he went out to build it ... and he had picked up all the experience he needed on the technology and business side from his previous roles.
This is pivotally important background to understanding Bezos's success.
Your comments in that old discussion do not properly indicate that Stone's book is not reliable. The Everything Store was published by a reputable publisher without apparent incident, and the author is a respected journalist. It won at least one industry award, which suggests at least a superficially positive reputation. That it received a bad review on Amazon from one of the people covered has almost nothing to do with reliability for Wikipedia's purposes. If there is some specific point raised in this book, it must be evaluated on its own merits. Generally, being an independent source is a very good quality. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Recommend removing "Philanthropy" section or substantial rewrite
Given Bezos' wealth, his "philanthropic" activities noted in this article are so small that an objective analysis would focus on his low philanthropic score, which only compares with the deplorable scores of the Waltons and Kochs. I will try to work through the Wikipedia bureaucracy and persistent bias, and do my own revision as time allows. Imagine&Engage (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the third paragraph of the category labelled as "Public Image" change "Bezos eats exotic foods, such as octopus and roasted iguana." to "Bezos likes to eat exotic foods, such as octopus and roasted iguana." Shazan.Muhammad (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Last I knew 4.0 was perfect. So if Princeton has some system of point average differing from the standard, should this be translated into standard point average? (PeacePeace (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC))
it seems that most of the early life section uses "Jeff Bezos: Amazon.com Architect" as a source. However, it seems that this source doesn't have much notoriety, and that some of the information on the article are contradictory with the book "The everything store" from Brad Stone, senior executive editor of global technology at Bloomberg News. Those information differences ranges from age of the mother to the fact that he was in fact not abandoned, which are information of great interest for the article.
I'd like to know what to do with this, this is a labeled article so the information should be reliable, but this doesn't seems to be the case
This article now says Jeff Bezos was the first person in history to obtain a net worth over $200 billion but I wouldn't necessarily view that as true. You can see a number of people who likely made that mark before him on the List of wealthiest historical figures page. John D. Rockefeller would especially be an issue to this statement since he had wealth in American currency. So perhaps the sentence should be changed from "On August 26, 2020, Bezos became the first person in history to have a net worth exceeding $200 billion" to "On August 26, 2020, Bezos became the first person in the 21st century to have a net worth exceeding $200 billion" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5A80:2BE0:15CB:2136:7E4C:D9DF (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The Forbes article explicitly says he is the first to have a net worth of over $200 billion. Adding modifiers would be original research. I will add, "according to Forbes" - please continue the discussion if this does not address your concern. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk20:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, technically Rockefeller would have had more if his money was inflated to today's stand market value. But the fact remains that that isn't how money was gauged back then.
CNBC reported that on Wednesday, August 26th 2020 Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos "saw his net worth soar above $202 billion...making him the first person to cross the $200 billion threshold". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.141.19 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Bezos (center) at a cooperative for robotics in 2005
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. - Flori4nKt • c11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
With a net worth of almost $200.1 billion as of September 2021, he is either the wealthiest or second-wealthiest person in the world according to both Forbes and Bloomberg's Billionaires Index.[2]
why is this written idiotically
Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
he is the second richest person in the world, not first 67.183.25.255 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/ BAY-zohss;[3] né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964)[4] is an American internet entrepreneur, industrialist, media proprietor, and investor. Bezos is the founder and CEO[a] of the multi-national technology company Amazon. He is the second richest person in the world.
That is wrong use of the prefixes. Centi- means one hundredth, as in centimeter and centiliter. It should be hectobillionaire Anchr (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. Run n Fly (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The article is full of content that he reached the space, but according to different definitions actually he hasn't reached it, see for example https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Outer_space
"In 2009, scientists reported detailed measurements with a Supra-Thermal Ion Imager (an instrument that measures the direction and speed of ions), which allowed them to establish a boundary at 118 km (73.3 mi) above Earth"
Does "net worth exceeding $200 billion" need to be mentioned twice in the lede? It is currently mentioned in the first paragraph and the last paragraph. Aliasiqbal (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Space career: Commercial astronaut
change to: Space tourist
Remove: "The flight qualified him as an FAA commercial astronaut."
refer; https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8800.2.pdf
mr bezos does not meet the requirements for flight crew qualifications and training under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part460, and did not demonstrate activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety.
MrPi1ot(talk)
Not done: Reliable secondary source for that states: The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Air Force recognize the boundary of space at 50 miles, which means Bezos, Branson and their fellow passengers are all be eligible to get their commercial astronaut wings. We don't interpret primary sources ourselves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
fine, here are some (updated) media interpretations on the matter:
Under the new policy from the FAA and NASA policy he is no longer considered an astronaut. I feel space tourist is a more accurate description. Hbk1966 (talk) 10:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
many businessmen and entrepreneurs from around the world are designated as oligarchs in their wikipedia articles. so why is this person eminently fitting that designation not called that? why the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:2380:3C95:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"If a subject changed their surname (last name) for whatever reason (e.g., marriage, adoption, personal preference), then their surname at birth should generally also be given in the lead. Editors may denote this with "born" followed by the subject's surname or full name; for name changes due to marriage, they may also use née (feminine) and né (masculine) followed by the surname, provided the term is linked at first occurrence. The templates "nee" and "ne" provide this linking and do not require typing the é character." (bolded by me)
His name was changed as his mother's new husband adopted him, and not through a marrige of himself, so "né" can not be used in this case. Should be written as "...born as Jorgensen; January 12, 1964)" 2001:4C4C:20A1:C400:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: OK, I agree that the exammple is a bit controversial. However I found a discussion of Manual of Style in this topic, which shows for me, that there was a consensus. In 2018 the consensus was that "neé" and "né" can be used not only for names before mariages, and later there was another consensus which reworded it. It is now reflected in the text however I think missed to correct the examples (by @-sche:).
I think that both the text and examples should reflect the same as it was deliberatly discussed in March, this year:
Thanks for catching this; the failure to update the example sentence following the discussion earlier this year was indeed an oversight. -sche (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caitlin 647.
Is it true you are giving away millions on a gold card to random people or is the email a hoax ? Because its pretty ratchet of you to have people send other people emails to give personal details out in order to recieve money in a gold card..sounds fraudulent as ever 163.47.236.246 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
When discussing new shepard's first commercial suborbital flight, write a clarification (in parenthesis) noting that it should not be confused with the first private suborbital flight. Ajd271 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On citation number 200, there is a broken link. Is it possible to correct the link and have it point to https://money.com/richest-people-in-the-world/? This is the original content that was on the outdate time.com/money. The outdated time.com/money link is pointing to an irrelevant homepage. [1]
Money.com is no longer a subdomain on time.com, however, the original content from money is still available here on the link I provided. Please remove the http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world and replace it with the updated link. Thank you! ````CamerasAndCoffee
I removed the reference to George Strait as Jeff Bezos' cousin. In fact, Strait is the second cousin of Bezos' mother[1]. That is a fairly distant relationship, and they do not seem to regard each other as family. Illexsquid (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Under "Business Career" "Amazon" it reads: "With Bezos at the helm and Scott taking an integral role in its operation—writing checks, keeping track of the books, and negotiating the company's first freight contracts—the foundation was laid for this garage-run operation to grow exponentially." I am pretty sure "Scott" is supposed to be "Mackenzie." 2601:245:C100:5E5C:AC61:E1DC:CA45:66BB (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
New photo almost as old as the previous one, suggest this of Bezos at UNGA in 2021, only Creative Commons photograph of him in the current decade.
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Problem with article:
The article incorrectly states Bezos is the fourth wealthiest person in the world based on the sources... however the sources show him as the second wealthiest person in the world. Would recommend the following change:
Change this:
With a net worth of around US$136 billion as of September 2022, Bezos is the fourth-wealthiest person in the world and was the wealthiest from 2017 to 2021 according to both Bloomberg's Billionaires Index and Forbes.[5][6]
To read this:
With a net worth of around US$136 billion as of September 2022, Bezos is the second-wealthiest person in the world and was the wealthiest from 2017 to 2021 according to both Bloomberg's Billionaires Index and Forbes.[5][6] Jdmiltontx (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@FederalBacon - Not sure why, but it seems your update didn’t take. It still is saying he is fourth when he should be second. Jdmiltontx (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Disregard @FederalBacon. Looks like he coincidently has now slid to fourth in the latest Bloomberg report that just came out! :-) Ignore my message. Jdmiltontx (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Jeff Bezos has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
May i please permission to edit this... I know him more personally and would like to include things that havn't been editied along with many grammar errors. Thanks!
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Done
I'm going to add this to the slowly but ever-growing Further reading section! LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done See the section Jeff Bezos#Philanthropy for an abundance of reliably sourced content that indicates that he is a philanthropist. General Ization Talk 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done outcome. Bezos has put some $3.5+ billion into private spaceflight, which is a big money loser for a corporation but is beneficial for developing technologies that benefit all by opening up spaceflight to lower-cost space transport and access to "what's out there" for more than just a few folks born into countries that happen to have large tax-based government-paid-for space programs. We go with what verifiable sources support. N2e (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Option 1 (current image, 2018)
Option 2 (just replaced, 2016)
Option 3 (???)
Option 4 (cropped, 2010)
Option 5 (alternative, 2016)_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
) pop. 
.jpg)
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. MrClog (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#Deprecating the net worth parameter?. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jiff Bezos. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23#Jiff Bezos until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. WIKINIGHTS talk 02:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caitlin 647.
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Partly done: I just removed the line, as it was essentially unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Done Yup, he's second. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)