Talk:Nicolas Berggruen

Semi-protected

Semi-protect. Frequent level of IP vandalism. TimmyGUNZ (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance

we want to agree and revert to the older version and say that berggruen made money re inheritance and business dealings.

Party animal

we want to say that he nicolas berggruen is a party animal re him attending many parties.

Chateau Marmont is not in St Tropez but in California and St Tropez is in France needs to be corrected.

(1) Not important (2) Not sourced (3) not relevant. Black Kite (t) [[Special:Contributions/Black_Kite|(c--Bioplus (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC))]] 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the facts are here: 1/ when you are the son of Heinz Bergruen the worlds largest Picasso collector you have money from inheritance and a lot of money from inheritance. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/arts/design/27berggruen.html

2/ when you have eight references for Mr Berggruen attenting parties in St Tropez, oxford dictionary calls this a party animal

and is a regular party animal in St-Tropez France. [1] [2] [3] http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/4184 ^ http://www.hauteliving.com/2011/07/doris-world-my-birthday-party-in-st-tropez/ ^ http://www.hauteliving.com/2011/07/doriccoperman-st-tropez-simon-reuben/ ^ http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/karstadt-investor-nicolas-berggruen-auf-den-spuren-von-jimi-hendrix-1.982877

--Bioplus (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioplus (talk • contribs)

First source doesn't actually say what you used it to source (i.e. that person gained most of his money from inheritance). Second quote is original research (and not particularly important anyway). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 1/ phrase it as you want its obvious that N Berggruen's money comes from inheritance and from his father, you have the facts and links + article details..

2/ so many references about N Berggruen and parties and social events, seems part of his life and therefore relevant for the article.... --Bioplus (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read WP:OR. Even if something is "obvious" it doesn't go into the article without direct, reliable, sourcing. There may well be a source for Burgguen's inheritance (if so, find it and use it), but there certainly isn't for the second. Even if he does attend a lot of parties, it's a completely unimportant fact (see WP:UNDUE). Black Kite (t) (c) 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggets that you read WP:OR to and also read Wikipedia Contents/Policies and guidelines. I give you more than two reliable sources. if you say that berggruen made his fortune with business dealings only this is simply innacurate and false. you have the source to prove that he in fact made most of his money out of inheritance.

for the party animal details, this is pure fact as much as anything else in this article with regards to this person. if you dont mention Berggruens many parties in chateau marmont or st tropez you ignore facts and sources and the article is imcomplete.

--Bioplus (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Try this. WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". Don't re-insert any of that material without a valid source which says exactly that, whether you believe it to be true or not. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well we are not playing games here but an encyclopedia. we are not building an advertisement or promotional article re berggruen. Please follow Wikipedia Contents/Policies and guidelines, re advertisement and promotional articles....I give you a ref from the new york times and several refs with pictures from berrgruen in parties in st tropez more than you need to point the fact and VERIFY that Berggruen's fortune is based on inheritance and that he is a party animal.

--Bioplus (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref doesn't support your claim (he may well have gained most of his money from inheritance, but that source doesn't say it). None of your sources use the word "party animal". End of story. Here's an example. Say you find a couple of pictures of a celebrity in media sources when they are drunk. Would you try to put into their Wikipedia article that they are an alcoholic? It's the same issue. I've tried to explain this clearly now, it's up to you to read the guidelines and policies. As you say, this is an encylopedia. It isn't interested in whether a subject goes to parties. Clear enough? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well i believe its kind of pathetic your debate: here the ref from the new york times with regards to Heinz Berggruen death, heinz berggruen beeing the worlds larges Picasso collector: quote "In addition to Bettina Moissi, whom Mr. Berggruen married in 1960, he is survived by his four children, Olivier and Nicolas from his marriage to Ms. Moissi, and John and Helen, from a first marriage, to Lillian Zellerbach, and two grandchildren." what do you need a copy cat saying that the familly inherited, its obvious this is clear that the familly inherited.

2/ for the party animal... nothing to do with beeing an alcoholic. we have eight references with Nicolas Berggruen attenting and organising parties all over the world.... quote " Happy Birthday to me! My friends Reza and Mayram Ahkan hosted the most beautiful party for me. We had 80 guests seated for dinner and then a DJ and disco to dance and celebrate the rest of the night!

Coming out to party with me were Rena Sindi, Karen Larrain, Nicolas Berggruen, Jonanthan Lourie, Dino Lalvani, Thomas Leclerc, Cynthia Kaufman, Jennifer Raines, Jean-Pierre Murray, Alexander von Furstenberg, Ali Kay, Lawrence Bender and Sabrina Müller." so a person attenting many parties is defined by the oxford dictionnary and other sources as quote " Main Entry: Party Animal Definition: a very sociable person who enjoys lively social activities, a sociable person who loves and goes to many parties "

example betty ford beeing an alcoholic, you have 20 lines on wikipedia with references to that!!!

or kennedy having extra conjugal affairs , also 20 lines on wikipedia about that.... Clear now you have the references and facts and exact words from the references so this is pure encyclopedia and follows wikipedia policy 100%, you want to build a reliable article biography for Nicolas Berggruen pls use all the sources and information and make this article look like something that doesnt look as pure promotional advertisement and marketing..... --Bioplus (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, find a reference that actually says he inherited most of his wealth (that shouldn't be a problem), and then find one that uses the phrase "party animal" (bit more difficult). A reference that said he had a party on his own birthday isn't exactly useful, is it? Most people do that. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
getting there !we only want to say that his fortune and wealth comes from inheritance and business dealings. for the party animal you have tons of references on the net to justify that berggruen is a party animal indeed... looks like this has nothing to do about his birthday, was someone else's birthday and only one more party for berggruen. seems that berggruens life is centered around parties and one can find not one but more than 20 references for this man attending parties etc. here a few examples.. Therefore justified to call this person a party animal re oxford dictionary.!!!

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/4184 ^ http://www.hauteliving.com/2011/07/doris-world-my-birthday-party-in-st-tropez/ ^ http://www.hauteliving.com/2011/07/doriccoperman-st-tropez-simon-reuben/ ^ http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/karstadt-investor-nicolas-berggruen-auf-den-spuren-von-jimi-hendrix-1.982877 --Bioplus (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies in the article

Hi. One of Mr. Berggruen's employee's has pointed out to me several unsourced inaccuracies in this article which I will be removing through the protection. I will be getting an OTRS ticket number presently. However, I must point out I find the "party animal" comment (which has not been mentioned by the employee) is completely out of line. If a third party source does not use a term like that, we most certainly cannot - it has negative repercussions. It also goes against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I will be willing to discuss any of my changes. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also will be removing "Jewish" as he does not self identify as Jewish. The fact that he has a Jewish background (from source) does not make his religion Jewish. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those with OTRS access - ticket number 2011083110014589. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

berggruen's calling wikipedia to clean his reputation

well interesting to see that berggruen can buy wikipedia and promote his fantasi and dreams online on wikipedia. ! all this remains lot of fun!! bravo mr berggruen!!! this is only the first round.

--Bioplus (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bioplus - I'm a wikipedia administrator, following wikipedia policy. I removed harmful information which was either unsourced or poorly sourced - though I did not make all the changes that his personel asked for, as some was well sourced. I'd watch yourself very carefully, because if you are attempting to add poorly sourced negative information to Biographies of living people regularly, you will find yourself blocked very quickly. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WELL NO SHAME TO BE JEWISH AND NO SHAME TO BE A PARTY ANIMAL.

JEWISH IS A GREAT RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY. ON THE HAND SHAME ON BERGGRUEN FOR THINKING THAT HE IS HOMELESS WHEN 20 MILLION PEOPLE LEAVE IN THE STREETS IN THE COUNTRY AND A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE USA. THIS IS JUST A LOT OF FUN NOBODY TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY ANYWAY. --Bioplus (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bioplus, please do not use all caps, as it is considered shouting and rude. Wikipedia is the fourth largest site on the internet, and as such it is taken seriously by many people. I agree that Judaism is a "great religion and philosophy" but that doesn't change the fact that the source you gave described his background, not his religious beliefs. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I am out of this , am travelling to Japan and will be back in a few weeks only got more important things to do! seems that everybody agrees that Berrgruen's money is sourced from inheritance and that this man's life is centered around parties and social events, dreams big, lots of hypocrisy and he is not homeless as he claims, but just a rich kid that doesnt know how to behave!

--Bioplus (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...this is only the first round..." Bioplus – firstly, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Secondly, Mr. Berggruen did not “buy” Wikipedia – we are all volunteers.

I am another admin that reviewed this and its OTRS ticket. Not all requests were carried out. I have also checked the sources you brought forward. Clearly many of them concern parties that Mr. Berggruen has hosted, but as far as I see, none of them describe him as a “party animal”, including the ones not in English. Unless you can provide a source that explicitly states it, this is your own extrapolation, which is not permitted. It's a violation of policy at best and libelous at worst. If you cannot accept this then you will lose your ability to edit Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

small point here re your comments " "...this is only the first round..." Bioplus – firstly, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Secondly, Mr. Berggruen did not “buy” Wikipedia – we are all volunteers. """ no analogy with a fight or winning, just about step one in this disscussion. and for the claim re berggruen buying wikipedia this was only an analogy to berggruen claiming that he bough a dutch magazin that portrayed him to positively !!!???!!! http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,744582,00.html

we whent trought this already Berggruens life style is defined by the oxford dictionary as a party animal. if you dont like the term party animal just call it something else... nothing more. all the links and details for what we want to say is available we whent trough all this many times now THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

THE POINT IS SIMPLE ONE CAN FIND MORE THAN 50 LINKS AND NEWS ARTICLES WITH REGARDS TO MR BERGGRUEN ATTENDING PARTIES SO A NICELY COMPLETE ARTICLE NEEDS TO PROVIDE ALL SOURCES. --Bioplus (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You looking up your understanding of Mr. Berggruen's lifestyle in the OED and trying to insert it here is classed as original research. As I have said, that is not allowed. WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry i am not sure where you are going with this, my point is simple, am focused am a litterature graduate at Yale! I dont know berggruen nothing personal, just made some research and see that this man claims he is homeless, claims he is self made, and claims that he is a great politician and serious business man, look looking further, the article on wikipedia seemed inacurate and bogus. thank you that is my point. now am not god at wikipedia, go ahead with full research and go for the sources and i found that most of it with this man is hypocrisi and lies.

--Bioplus (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only saying that its justified to say that berggruens money comes from inheritance...!! and justified saying that berggruen is a party anymal or call it jet setter or is very social and attends many parties in st tropez and around the world......

--Bioplus (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

his occupation should also be listed as " socialite & businessman "

--Bioplus (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems also appropriate to list berrggruen ethnicity or religion as jewish re his declaration and claim when he was in israel re the link i provided in the previous article version.

--Bioplus (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: your own justification/explanation/opinion/inference/interpretation/argument/looking up in the dictionary is not permitted. No matter how justified you or anyone else thinks it is, if the sources do not spell it out, you may not insert it into the article. WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we whent trough this 100 times now, if you look at the sources you will find several articles to spell that berggruen is a " socialite" a " jet setter " or that money comes from " iheritance " and he was even spelling himself that his roots are " jewish" !!!! read the sources and read the fact if you need an excat copy cat you find this in the sources. how many time do we have to go through the same thing for you to understand.

--Bioplus (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

link to justify inheritance

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dblU78HcqQQJ:money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/06/29/76594/index.htm+berggruen+inheritance&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify socialite and jet setter or partygoer

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVd0KYm5QhIJ:www.welt.de/die-welt/wirtschaft/article7771547/Nicolas-Berggruen-Milliardaer-ohne-Zuhause.html+berggruen+jet+setter&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCyY-9CN5ugJ:www.daylife.com/topic/Nicolas_Berggruen+berggruen+socialite&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify that he is a Party Boy

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LzpfJezZ7YJ:www.uncoverage.net/tag/nicolas-berggruen/+berggruen+party+goer&cd=7&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify his jewish etnicity

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6_7AG3KAaJ8J:www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp%3Fdid%3D1000580741+berggruen+jewish&cd=2&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify that he is an hypocrite

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4eca9d52-1f55-11e0-8c1c-00144feab49a.html

--Bioplus (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read WP:BLP, and more importantly you need to read WP:OR. For example, just because you think that last ft.com article means the guy is a hypocrite is (for the last time) your opinion, and does not belong here. If you can find reliable sources about his inheritance or Jewish ancestry, then that may be valid. Everything else you are trying to insert is hearsay. Also, please stop trying to claim that Wikipedia editors are acting at this guy's request - for myself, I hadn't even heard of him before yesterday, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for other editors here. If you continue to allege such things without any evidence whatsoever, as WormTT said above your ability to edit may be compromised. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we whent throught this 100 times all details are here and facts are here now. if you read and do a good job you understand. The link i provide re his jewish roots is more than valid and clear facts. he is quoted while he whent to israel.

here copy of what was said before re berggruen calling wikipedia..... to answear your questions.

small point here re your comments " "...this is only the first round..." Bioplus – firstly, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Battle#Wikipedia is not a battleground. Secondly, Mr. Berggruen did not “buy” Wikipedia – we are all volunteers. """

no analogy with a fight or winning, just about step one in this disscussion. and for the claim re berggruen buying wikipedia this was only an analogy to berggruen claiming that he bough a dutch magazin that portrayed him to positively !!!???!!! http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,744582,00.html --Bioplus (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

berggruen an hypocrit, if you do a good job and read the article, you will see that berggruen himself acknowledges that he is an hypocrit. read the ft article or search hypocrit in the article to find the quote.

--Bioplus (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bioplus, you've just taken a quote out of context - he's clearly saying that what he thinks is good for most people is not good for him. Calling him a hypocrite does show your true intentions. I suggest that you back away from this article, where you clearly have an "axe to grind" and therefore cannot act from a neutral point of view. There are over 3.7 million articles for you to look at, why don't you work on one of them? Worm^TT · (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as mentionned before wikipedia is a place for everybody to participate... I gave you lots of information re berggruen and now you have to admit that this man is pushing hard in the news to clean his reputation but when one looks further 100's of articles re this man to prove that he is not what he claims. I am active on wikipedia since 2001 using several logs and no worries i am already on several other articles.

I suggest that you upload the facts and show this man's true face... and dont participate in this mans manipulations and lies.

--Bioplus (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again i am on wikipedia on a free basis and at the end you upload and modify the article re wikipedia policy. the reason i am focused on this article is that i am specialist in social affairs and homeless people and develloped a thesis at yale on homeless people in harlem, and this man claiming he is homeless when he inherited more than 1 billion $ makes me puke. it seems clear to me that this man is a party boy, jewish roots, he is not homeless but his home is in a suite within a 5 star hotel, he is not self made but his money comes from inheritance and to many extand he is an hypocrit and he acknowledges that himself.

--Bioplus (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bioplus. You're on very thin ice here. I suggest you walk away. Now. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shame on you for comming up with treats and unfounded claims, i bring lots of information here and all is backed up with valid sources and facts. this account is valid for more than a year and done many edits.

--Bioplus (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Let's keep this there. WormTT · (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC) well again your treats are unacceptable and not in line with wikipedia's policy. as i said i am free to comment and disscus on the talk page and this is what i do , at the end i am the one who requested that this article must be blocked. look at the information i provide and then you can devellop something that looks more realistic. dont be fool anyway anyone who googles berggruen sees imediately what is going on . --Bioplus (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I HAVE DONE NOTHING EXCEPT BRING FACTS I WANT YOU TO SAY THAT HIS MONEY COMES FROM INHERITANCE, REFER TO HIS JEWISH ROOTS, EXPLAIN THAT HE IS NOT HOMELESS BUT HOME BASED IN A 5 STAR HOTEL AND THEN EXPLAIN THAT HE IS A PARTY BOY AND NOT MUCH MORE. --Bioplus (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems now that one can find 100' of articles in the press about berggruen's jewish roots , claiming he is homeless, self made, etc now berrgruen said today this is not true so lets say that " it has been reported that berggruen this and that but today he contacted wikipedia and said he doesnt agree, " well patethic.

GUYS I AM GONE TO JAPAN, HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO.... YOU HAVE ALL THE INFO PLS FOLLOW WIKIPEDIA'S POLICY, I WILL NOT LOOK NOR RESPOND BEFORE NEXT DECEMBER. BEST OF LUCK!!!! --Bioplus (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Judaism it is passed down by the mother. In catholicism it is passed down by the father. Nicolas Berggruen's father was Jewish and his mother was Catholic. Technically, this makes him nothing. He was raised catholic but recogognizes his Jewish roots. He does not identify woith either with any conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBIDawn (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well hahah obviously you are not Catholic, because in Catholicism as much as Protestantism it is also passed by the mother.

--81.159.63.211 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO Thus, if the child of a Jewish father and a Christian mother is raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Reform movement ! --81.159.63.211 (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also we have a sexy girl here from one of the parties she said Nicolas Berggruen he is circumcised! and that is also not Catholic--81.159.63.211 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.211.194 (talk) [reply]

First time I come accross Berggruen and looking at this discussion seems like one needs to look at all the sources to understand this Nicolas Berggruen....... who is he and what he claims doesnt seem to be what he is really.

--86.173.211.194 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases

Please note that the phrase "party animal" is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, as it is highly informal. "Socially active", perhaps? DS (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jet setter or often attending parties I would say. though party animal is to be found in the oxford dictionary,... --86.173.211.194 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jet setter, often attending parties, party animal, none of which you have been able to support with more than your own personal extrapolation, which is not permitted, and is a violation of WP:BLP. WilliamH (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one can find more than 100 references and news article to confirm that Berggruen is a party animal, jett setter, party boy etc.

NPOV --86.173.211.194 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First time in my life I come accross Berggruen and this disscussion though I approve Bioplus and research.... re the references.....

link to justify inheritance http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dblU78HcqQQJ:money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/06/29/76594/index.htm+berggruen+inheritance&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify socialite and jet setter or partygoer http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVd0KYm5QhIJ:www.welt.de/die-welt/wirtschaft/article7771547/Nicolas-Berggruen-Milliardaer-ohne-Zuhause.html+berggruen+jet+setter&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCyY-9CN5ugJ:www.daylife.com/topic/Nicolas_Berggruen+berggruen+socialite&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify that he is a Party Boy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LzpfJezZ7YJ:www.uncoverage.net/tag/nicolas-berggruen/+berggruen+party+goer&cd=7&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify his jewish etnicity http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6_7AG3KAaJ8J:www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp%3Fdid%3D1000580741+berggruen+jewish&cd=2&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

--86.173.211.194 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Homeless Billionaire"

Berggruen's nickname "The Homeless Billionaire" and the accompanying lifestyle is hardly trivial, but is in fact one of the more interesting things about him. I challenge anyone to find a news article about him that does not mention this. Of course it should be included in his Wikipedia article, in a "Personal Life" section if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnordware (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Party Boy" and "Inheritance"

Berggruen's life style and his money comming from inheritance re his father who was the worlds largest picasso collector, is obviously available in numerous references and needs to be added to the article. 86.173.211.194 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with all things in Wikipedia, you just need to be able to provide a good citation. I haven't actually seen an article saying he got a big inheritance. In this one it simply says, "He made a mint co-founding a hedge fund and as an investor with his own Berggruen Holdings and other firms." We shouldn't use "party boy" in the article because it isn't encyclopedic and I don't see any articles that refer to him with that nickname. What I do see often mentioned is that he throws an Oscar party at the Chateau Marmont that a lot of stars attend, so that could be included. Fnordware (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links to justify inheritance (berggruens father heinz was the worlds greatest art collector and left behing a fortune of about 2 Billion $)

http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/01/0502hot.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/arts/design/27berggruen.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1454558.ece

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dblU78HcqQQJ:money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1992/06/29/76594/index.htm+berggruen+inheritance&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify socialite and jet setter or partygoer , st tropez etc..... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eVd0KYm5QhIJ:www.welt.de/die-welt/wirtschaft/article7771547/Nicolas-Berggruen-Milliardaer-ohne-Zuhause.html+berggruen+jet+setter&cd=5&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vCyY-9CN5ugJ:www.daylife.com/topic/Nicolas_Berggruen+berggruen+socialite&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com

link to justify that he is a Party Boy http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-LzpfJezZ7YJ:www.uncoverage.net/tag/nicolas-berggruen/+berggruen+party+goer&cd=7&hl=fr&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.211.194 (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On inheritance: Your links only repeat the well-established fact that his father, Heinz Berggruen, was a billionaire art collector. While one would imagine that Nicolas inherited some if this money, I don't see any articles that actually make that claim. You need that article, or else you are doing WP:Original Research. But for most readers, pointing out that this was his father will lead them to draw the same conclusion you have.

On partygoer: Yes he has been documented at various parties, but I think his description as a billionaire includes that. At the most you could maybe describe him as a socialite.

On Party Boy: Just because a blogger calls him that once is no justification for Wikipedia to do so. It is not encyclopedic. Stick to saying he is a socialite or that he frequently appears at and hosts exclusive parties featuring rich and famous guests. If Wikipedia readers want to think of him as a "Party Boy" based on the verifiable facts presented, that's their business.

Fnordware (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello reading this and dont know Nicolas Berggruen but obviously the article is incomplete almost every news article about Berggruen refers to him beeing Homeless, Socialite, attending parties from St Tropez to LA and also seems that his money comes from inheritance. please update this article as soon as possible and make it realistic.

--62.202.232.81 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to requests to add material

Above this section, there are many requests to include material that is inappropriate for the article. Rather than try to respond in those sections, I will respond here. The proposed material is trivial - and in some instances not even well sourced - and should not be added. Whether he at one time lived out of hotels and had the silly label "homeless" applied by some media is inconsequential and may no longer be true anyway. As for parties he has either given or gone to, none of that is noteworthy. Whether he made his money through investment or inheritance, or a combination of the two, again it is not of any moment and does not belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on most of the topics, but not the Homeless Billionaire part. His Chateau Marmont parties are notable as well. Both of these are included in this San Francisco Chronicle article from only a week ago and numerous other articles you are free to Google. You say those items are "trivial", but that is not a basis for saying something should not be in a Wikipedia article. It doesn't matter if you find something to be trivial, but do the reliable sources find it trivial? Clearly they do not. In accordance with biographies of living persons guidelines, both facts are widely verifiable, involve no original research, and have a neutral point of view. The other gentleman's "party boy" statement violates NPOV and the inheritance part is not verifiable and maybe not NPOV. But his widely-known nickname of "The Homeless Billionaire" and the unique lifestyle it refers to is not a violation of any guideline and belongs in the article. Fnordware (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. A great deal of sourced information is kept out of articles because it is trivial. See WP:NOT generally and WP:IINFO. The article you cite to, although it is actually about Berggruen's political endeavors in California, gives a lot of background information about him, including the "homeless" label and the annual party he gives. Why do you think the fact that he lives a lot out of hotels and throws an annual party belongs in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including links to Wikipedia guidelines in your discussion, specifically WP:IINFO. But his "homelessness" is not "indiscriminate" and it's obviously not one of the three things mentioned there (summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics database, or excessive listing of statistics). Why does Ralph Lauren's article have information about his brain tumor or automobile collection? Why does Mel Tormé's article include his nickname "The Velvet Fog?" Because they are things that those people are known for and are important parts of their public personas. Google Nicolas Berggruen and the first ten WP:RS articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) on him mention his "homelessness," often in the headline or first sentence. So how can it be trivial? I find it bizarre that it's missing from Wikipedia. Fnordware (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to other articles doesn't necessrily support your position. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, I pointed you to the general policy because, above all the different sections on what shouldn't be included and the examples in each of those sections, it says, "information cannot be included solely for being true or useful" and, particularly important, "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Let me ask you something - do you at least agree that his parties are not worth including in the article? Lots of wealthy people give parties - it's hardly noteworthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about the parties. Saying a billionaire goes to parties with other socialites is somewhat redundant. I'm sure Ralph Lauren has been photographed at gazillions of parties, but there's no need to mention them in his Wikipedia article. Same with Berggruen, with the possible exception of the annual Chateau Marmont Oscars party that he hosts, because it is often mentioned in articles profiling him. But people host parties all the time and we don't list them in Wikipedia, and his party isn't nearly as high-profile as, say, Vanity Fair's, so no harm in leaving it out. On the other hand, I feel that "Homeless Billionaire" is a key part of Berggruen's persona, more memorable than the man himself. If his article is considered to meet notability requirements for existing, then so does "Homeless Billionaire" within it. He's probably better-known for being the Homeless Billionaire than for the other stuff. Fnordware (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgment call, so I added the homeless billionaire label to the article. See what you think.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I feel much better now. :-) Fnordware (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

a well constructed encyclopedia should devellop on public and private issues for a living biography- as long as all the references are available, must be included in the article.....

--62.202.232.81 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's something tabloid newspapers do, not encyclopedias. WilliamH (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tabloids comment on personal issues only and do not document nor research, an encyclopedia should develop on public and private issues for a valid living biography with facts and professional research....as long as the references are available, many articles in wikipedia comment on private issues already.....--212.203.115.135 (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist?

How exactly does he qualify for being a philanthropist? He bought a supermarket chain for next to nothing, then was not willing to put his own capital into it thus condemning thousands of people to losing their jobs. Sounds more like a locust to me than a philanthropist. That charity thing he has going on looks more like eyewash to me. 87.159.85.71 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is described in the paragraph is legitimate. Wikipedia is not the forum to file grievances for your job loss.--CharlesDeMint (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]