Talk:List of heads of state and government by net worth

Citations

Ok, Helen Clacrk the Prime Minister of New Zealand does not have $8million USD or any where near that amount. Where on earth did this figure come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.144.241 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to have citations to substantiate its existence. Otherwise I will designate it as an AfD. I suspect, like the other articles in this category, it is nothing more than a copy of content from Forbes.com

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.22.88.24 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

This List Must be Wrong

I am pretty sure Oscar Arias (current president of Costa Rica) is worth much more than a million bucks. Costa Rica is just a tiny country. This article seriously underestimates the fortunes of may heads of state for sure! I´m also pretty sure George Bush is worth much more than 15 million! --196.40.10.246 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations to you and your Dad! Secondly, as stated in the article, this is a list of the net worth people's liquid assets and does not include property or material goods. Bush's net worth seems about right; most sources on the net state it between $9 million to $26 million. (Compare that to John Kerry's $165 million to $626 million). Hoof Hearted 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

== Putin worth The main difficulty with this list, as I see it, is that it's kind of difficult to know the net worth of certain heads of state, since they do not always have to disclose this sort of information (depending on political systems, regulations, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.30.26 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has at least 20 million dollars one month ago they said it in the Argentine media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.65.113 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sultan of Brunei - Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah - The Big Cheese

Hey this list forgot the Sultan of Brunei at US$38,000,000,000. He should be number one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_wealthy_historical_figures

He was once the richest man in the world. Bill Gates was the richest before AND after the Sultan.

By the way Mister Millionaire junior you should delete your comment about your dad being a millionaire. Its both a boast and not a big deal at the same time and unless people are supposed to know who your dad is (and would assume he is not very rich) it does not illustrate a point very well.

His Dad probably isn't a millionaire and he's just boasting!

Removals?

I think dead people should be removed from this list--Greasysteve13 05:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And retired ones too, otherwise why can't I add ex-Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin who is known to be a multi-millionaire? Kevlar67 23:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, their should only be current Head of state/government on the list imo. Brian | (Talk) 08:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Koizumi is no longer Japanese PM. He should be off. --Jickyincognito 07:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Former Leaders?

I think this list is fairly shabby. What about Former President Clinton didn't he get a huge book deal? And didn't the times run an article saying that he is poised to gain some 30 million in a hedge fund deal? Let's get cracking wikipediaers!

this list is comprised of current heads of state 98.196.78.26 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No no no, this list is for current heads of state with wealth tied to their position. If you want to make a list of former heads of state and government by net worth, then be my guest The C of E (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Data??

What's the source? one million dollar isn't much for a head of state: I think data must be wrong! --190.10.26.136 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For real, and anything under a half a million is just surprisingly low, even if we only count liquid assets. I'm sure an upper middle class family/person often has more than that... Most heads of state earn above a quarter of a million USD a year (yes, I am making this up, but I know that the average salary + other income of a member of the German Bundestag often exceeds that). Having savings of two years worth of income seems like a given. ...Or maybe I'm wrong, bit without a source this just isn't convincing at all. 84.44.185.172 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article as a whole

This article is worthless without references, as certainly several if not most of these are wrong. The entries also has to state at what time these numbers apply.

Even if we got references for all of the entries, they still are uncertain as even magazines generating such lists (like Kapital) have admitted that even after lots of research such numbers often have to be based on guesswork and assumptions. Delta Tango • Talk 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

the Queen

Elizabeth II isn't worth nearly as much in her Wiki article, this article does not appear to be factual. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure why you saw fit to remove her completely. If you find something you think is inaccurate on Wikipedia, mark it as citation needed with: ^{[citation needed]}, or find a source yourself.FusionWarrior 15:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (I'm not the IP above by the way). If information is clearly wrong (and one of them has to be), you may tag it for a while, but at least add a note that it's disputed. Things that are highly questionable and unsourced should be removed, at least when it's a major claim rather than a minor aspect of an article. "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page." BLP kind of applies.84.44.185.172 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some truth to the original statement. I have no idea where that number came from, considering that the article clearly states that wealth included in Crown assets should NOT be included. Her Majesty is likely worth closer to 260 million. (http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/26/0626queens.html) If no one objects, I suggest redoing the figures and positions. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that assets of the Crown should be included with the Queen's wealth, she does own the title of Queen by right of inheritance after all, and that her personal wealth outside the Crown may be noted within parentheses. This should be the model for all hereditary heads of states, whose wealth is tied in part to the state. For sovereigns that hold absolute power, the personal and Crown wealths are the same thing. But for European sovereigns, that power has been limited over centuries, and the wealth of the Crown and personal king are easier to separate because of this. So it is disingenuous to apply a standard to European monarchs that can not be applied to absolute monarchs found in the Eastern world. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this one.. Absolute Monarchs don't tend to have "Crown Land" or "Crown Assets", but land that belongs to them as a person, not to the Crown. Dphilp75 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Crown seems to be only a European idea that developed, oh, beginning around the 16th century or so. It is not a fair comparison when there are two separate types of systems, this separated concept in Europe and the singular idea elsewhere. It seems a miniscule difference between, "I own this," and, "My government owns this and I own the government." That an absolute monarch can include a palace paid by taxes that a constitutional monarch can not is an unequal comparison based on a philosophical idea that is localized to one continent. It is like us trying to count apples, but I am allowed to only count those without a brand sticker on them while you are allowed to count any with or without. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

reformating

this article needs to be completely reformated into a 'current head of states' and 'former head of states' otherwise the data is completely useless as far as i can see 82.11.195.211 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

king of thailand

the article of bumibol the current king of thailand says that he is worth an estimated 2.2 to 8 billion usd??????????? so where is his name can someone please answer that question?????????????????????

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Forbes does not have any reference to the Turkish Prime Minister's wealth. Forbes' lists are public and no reference to Erdogan can be found in them. This entry is therefore bogus. It was first entered by Yukselgurbuz on 8:54, 28 July 2007 as a 'former head of state' and thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page talk pagehree minutes later as the 8th most richest head of state. While the Turkish prime minister's wealth is of speculative nature in Turkey, this entry just serves to fuel the speculation by giving it a self made 'wikipedia reference'. 157.95.211.50 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. --81.214.18.78 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your playground

It belongs to everyone on this planet. Abusing this entry to show off your stupidity will be deleted. Get a life!

Otomatikportakal (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New 2008 rank by Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/20/worlds-richest-royals-biz-richroyals08-cz_ts_0820royalintro.html?partner=links http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/20/worlds-richest-royals-biz-richroyals08-cz_ts_0820royal_slide_2.html?thisspeed=25000 What's about update. Should we have made a legend icon for the change like List of the 100 wealthiest people???--J-Government (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

liee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.124.130.226 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama??

wow. Barack Obama is not worth 15 billion. stop messing around with this!

Barack Obama!!

Is not, nor has ever been a head of state; yet. What about Bush; he must be worth at least a couple mil. He used to be the owner of the Texas Rangers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.7.41 (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sure Kevin Rudd PM of Australia has 100 millon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.84.172 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Milo Đukanović

Prime Minister of Montenegro has some stocks in Prva banka Crne Gore worth few milion, so he should also be included. --Helios13 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove it? The C of E (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's no secret, everybody in Montenegro knows about it --Helios13 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But are there any certifiable sources on the internet that can back it up? The C of E (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[1](title: Family of Millionaires)[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios13 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Why is Puerto Rico listed on here? Puerto Rico is not a country. Thus its governor is not a head of State. Barack Obama is the Head of State of Puerto Rico since Puerto Rico is U.S--173.87.187.46 (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC). soil.

The page is in regards to Heads of States AND Heads of Government. Luis Fortuño is undoubtedly the Head of Government in Puerto Rico, thus I think his inclusion here is completely appropriate. By your reasoning, if, say, the Chief Minister of Jersey were to be worth a few million dollars, he shouldn't be included here. The Chief Minister of Jersey is with out a doubt the Head of Government in Jersey, but Jersey itself is not a "real" country. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

okay so then by your reasoning we need to include the net worth of every governor and mayor of every state, every city, every town, every hamlet! Good grief! I suggest that the list be limited to heads of state and heads of government of sovereign nations only - and/or have a minimum ante to make the list. I mean really, do we want the mayor of Armpit, Saskatchewan on here? Are you guys trying for the Guinness Record for longest list on Wikipedia, or what? ;) LOL Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of going for the Guinness Record, but that's a thought! LOL However, to answer you point, let me ask you a question. I had pointed out on another comment that the Provincial Premiers of Canada would be appropriate to list as they ARE Heads of Government. Canada is not a "country" per se, but a confederation of Provinces who have agreed to join and allow the Federal government powers.

So, the question is, why shouldn't they be included? You mentioning the Governors of the various states would fall under the same category in my opinion. Mayors on the other hand would not, as Cities are traditionally "creatures of the Province/State". That is, (At least in most of the Western world) they derive their authority from a higher government, not from themselves.

Although, I would totally agree with you that perhaps we should come up with a minimum Ante... That would go a long way to keeping the list a little more succinct... Wadda think? Dphilp75 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On sober second thought, limiting the list to heads of sovereign states as recognized by some international group such as the UN is probably well advised. Otherwise, too much of a Pandora's box. As far as Canada is concerned, it definitely IS a country. So continuing with that example - the head of state until we send all the monarchists packing is still the Queen of Canada (as represented by the Governor General) and the Head of Government (at least for the time being) is Stephen Harper. Premiers need not apply for inclusion on this list, IMHO. Would make the list too long if projected to a global scale. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy titles

The scenographic list of titles of Elizabeth II neeeds a clean-up. A Head of State, the word itself explains it, refers its title to a sovereign and independent State. The Falklands are not a State, but only a dependency of UK. They can't neither be considered a Commonwealth realm, because UK as whole is a Commonwealth member. Then, a title of "Queen of Akrotiri and Dhekelia" is a pure invention, and an original research. Can Obama be titled as "President of Guam" or Sarkozy as "President of Mayotte"? I think these ones would be ridicolous expressions.
The list must include only the members of UN, in my opinion, to avoid confusion. --Cusio (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it needs to show the nation's head of state no matter who it is in order to show the heads of other places. Crown Dependency's for example are the property of The Queen and not part of the UK and so are separate nations The C of E (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In Middle Ages, maybe. Nowadays, Crown Dependency's are the property of The Queen as the same way that the Queen chooses her Prime Minister.--Cusio (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Crown dependencys are not part of the UK and are under no other juristiction than the Duke of Normandy who is The Queen. And the Queen does still chose the PM and choses the one that the public want The C of E (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence exercize their authority over the Crown dependencies. The situation is not different from the link between US and Porto Rico or between France and Wallis et Futuna. --Cusio (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that there is no need to include the Crown Dependencies, as they are defacto, if not dejure included with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Crown Dependencies are NOT property of the Queen, but of the Crown, which are two separate entities. The Crown in this case, is meant as Her Majesty the Queen In Right of the United Kingdom (et al), which is the ultimate symbol of Her Majesty's Governments; no matter if we are speaking in right of the UK, Canada, or any of the Dependencies. While it is true that each of the Dependencies have their own governments and own heads of government, they are all CLEARLY part of the British Isles which, again, defacto, if not dejure, can be included with the UK as a whole. Besides, the listing is of Heads of State and Government; None of the Crown Dependencies are considered States unto themselves. It is also well accepted that the STATES which her Majesty if Head of, make up the Commonwealth Realms, hence including either the Dependencies or the Overseas Territories is even less applicable to a page dedicated to a list of Heads of States. Further, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in regards to the difference between a British Overseas Territory and a Crown Dependency happening here... Dphilp75 (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on this matter, I will remove the titles that are not referenced as the Commonwealth Realms. Dphilp75 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is rather cumbersome to have sixteen governments listed for HM, most of which are small island countries. I would prefer using the "UK and Commonwelth realms", however I was told this may imply subjugation to the UK Crown and so I am going to simply list "Commonwealth realms" for HM. Listing all 16 only adds dead space, and the link to realms should suffice. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be a fair compromise. However, I have changed her title from "Head of the Commonwealth" to Queen. The Head of the Commonwealth is actually an elected position and is not synonymous with the Crown. It is recognized by the Non-Realm members of the Commonwealth as a symbol of Free Association, and by design suggests no power over any member. Dphilp75 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)\

Head of the Commonwealth is one of the titles of Elizabeth II, which is not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Nations, coincidentally of which she is also the Head. Her title in Right of Canada is, "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc." (emphasis added). She can not use the title of Queen of the Commonwealth as a matter of technical difference, as such a title would confer her singular sovereignty over all sixteen nations rather as a sovereign sixteen times over. It should be implied that the Head of the Commonwealth is the Queen, and should suffice to cover all nations equally. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misreading your statement, but I do not agree with the conclusion you have drawn in so much as I believe her title being "Queen" on this page is more appropriate than Head of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Members of which HM is also Queen are clearly separated as Commonwealth Realms, which is the current link. I am uncertain how you are drawing a difference between her Titles with in the Commonwealth Realms and her Title as Head of the Commonwealth as a whole. That is, there is no legal or appreciative difference that I am aware of to suggest that the title "Head of the Commonwealth" are two different titles depending on if we are discussing the Commonwealth of Nations or the Commonwealth Realms. They refer to the same person and the same position; Unlike "Queen" which refers to 16 different titles and 16 distinct Crowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth of Nations are two separate but overlapping things. From the Commonwealth of Nations website, "When the Queen dies or if she abdicates, her heir will not automatically become Head of the Commonwealth. It will be up to the Commonwealth heads of government to decide what they want to do about this symbolic role." She may have the title Head of the Commonwealth of Nations by agreement of the association, but she is the head of state of 16 of those nations de jure and her heir will automatically become the head of state of those sixteen nations whether or not he is voted in as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations. Perhaps 'Queen and Head of state of each Commonwealth realm and territory' would be better, which seems to avoid the idea of a singular title as Queen of the Commonwealth. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AH! Ok! I see where the confusion is coming from now. The title that HM holds within the Commonwealth Realms in relation to "Head of the Commonwealth" *IS* in Reference to her position as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations. Where the confusion is happening is that such a title was PROCLAIMED upon HM's accession to the thrones of the Commonwealth Realms. Thus, when HM dies, "her" title as "Head of the Commonwealth" in relation to the Commonwealth of Nations will die with her. Should (As is largely expected to happen) The Prince of Wales be elected "Head of the Commonwealth" each of his future Realms will also "have to" PROCLAIM him to his title as (in Canada, presuming he keeps his Christan name) "His Majesty, Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith." This is to say that "Head of the Commonwealth" is PROCLAIMED at the time of a Sovereign's accession to the Throne, AND election to the post and *IS* in reference to that Sovereign as being Head of the Commonwealth of Nations; it is NOT a separate Title to the rest of the Commonwealth, it is merely a title that is included upon the proclamation of a new Sovereign. There is nothing stopping (again, for example) Canada from proclaiming Charles as King, but not including Head of the Commonwealth as well as not proclaiming Defender of the Faith in his Canadian Titles, whereas the United Kingdom may choose to do so.

Thus, Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth of Nations are NOT two separate but overlapping entities, they are one entity. As a matter of fact, you will find no LEGAL reference to "Commonwealth Realms" and "Commonwealth of Nations" as being indistinguishable from each other. "Commonwealth Realms" is merely the commonly accepted term to show that SOME of the members of the Commonwealth are also Reigned over by HM. Dphilp75 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Since I know there are going to be further debates on the changes I made, I thought I would start the ball rolling. I have removed the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories as they are CLEARLY not States unto themselves, nor do they "belong" to the Queen, but to the Crown. I also removed Duke of Normandy for clarity (If we use this in her title, we need to include Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith ETC) as well as Paramount Chief of Fiji as that title is an unofficial one, granted to her by the traditional Chiefs of Fiji. If we include that title, then we would also need to include the titles given to her by the First Nations of Canada, the Aboriginals of Australia ETC.

Further, I changed her position as the position Her Majesty was in had OBVIOUSLY included Crown Property,(That is the Crown in right of the UK) which the list makes clear should not be included. I have cited Forbes as the source or ERII's personal wealth. I have also added "Disputed" with a Reference link to hopefully help clear up some of the confusion, given that Buckingham Palace hasn't publicly commented in Her Majesty's personal wealth in almost 18 years.Dphilp75 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign nation according to whom?

Further to my comment about heads of state and heads of government being limited here to those of sovereign nations, I must play devil's advocate to my own comment. From the perspective of the common taxpayer, at least one whose thought patterns occasional intersect mine, the primary interest in a list like this is to match up the list to a world view that incorporates Balzac's famous observation "Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu' il a été proprement fait."

Therefore, I'm more interested in the size of the fortunes amassed due to positions of political privilege, than whether or not there is a consensus amongst member states of the UN (or some other group) as to whether the leader is head of a sovereign state, or just another local tyrant. So, if, for example, hypothetically speaking, either a separatist (PQ) premier of the province of Quebec in Canada or the leader of the First Nations in Canada had amassed a huge fortune from the blood, sweat and tears of his people, or for that matter the premier of Alberta had done the same, I'd be more interested in seeing those names on the list than some king-of-a-tiny-island-I've-never-heard-of who has amassed enough to be considered a petty millionaire. IMHO. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point you bring, but I think such an undertaking would run contrary to the spirit of the article/list. Sovereign Nations are generally pretty easy to define (with the admitted exception of places like Tibet etc) and even easier to define who the Head of State and/or Government is with in those frameworks.

It is interesting that you bring up the Canadian Premiers, as they themselves ARE undoubted Heads of Government, I think their inclusion would be appropriate to this list.

However, including First Nations would be ridiculously problematic at best. While the First Nations are at the very least dejure recognized as a Nation unto themselves by the Government of Canada, the First Nations of Canada aren't recognized as a Sovereign Nation by the United States, or the United Kingdom, or France (etc etc etc). You would also run in to which First Nations "Government" are you willing to allow to be included? Just the Assembly of First Nations? How about the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs? What about the Clan Mothers or the Warrior Nation? The Men's Fire Council? Even the First Nations of Canada do not agree among themselves who can speak for all the Tribes/Bands so how can we decide which people are "legitimate" Heads of Government?

I think based on these examples you can see why I feel its best that we stick to reasonably recognized Sovereign Nations, as recognized by the UN or some other "World" entity. (The EU/NATO/OAS etc) I look forward to your response! Dphilp75 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There will be some debate, no doubt, with regard to such entities as, for example, any of those "countries" that used to be included in the region formerly known as Yugoslavia, and of course anyone else who claims sovereignty that is not widely recognized or that is otherwise disputed. UN probably the best choice. How much is the leader of Taiwan worth, anyway? And I'm not talking Chinese bounty here, either! ;-) Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Income

I was pondering over something and I wondered what others thought. If you know what a head of state is getting in income but not has in current finances, could we find a way of maybe finding a way of adding that person to the list in some way The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should stick to Wikipedia's standard of trying to only contain information that can be reliably cited by outside sources.

If you are referring to annual income in specific, say the Civil List paid to HM, I think that should likely be a different list.

It would be some interesting reading though. For example, Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who is (within his own government) more powerful than most of the G8 leaders (Within their own governments) and yet is one of the lowest paid, making only around 300k a year...! Dphilp75 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

admin must not take ER seriously! it's not a credible website by any measure!

Unfortunately, the Ethiopian Review website has hijacked this discussion page and the admin must be aware of it ...

admin is protecting Ethiopia's dictator

an admin with username Beeblebrox has sided with supporters of Ethiopia's dictator by removing a credible info about his networth for the thugs repeatedly vandalized the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to use credible sources of information as a reference. You cited an anti-government blog website named ethiopianreview.com When you google the website, it says the website Editor "Elias Kifle" was "charged in absentia" by the Ethiopian government http://www.ifex.org/ethiopia/2006/01/30/internet_reporter_held_without/ So that webpage can not be a reliable and impartial source of information on the topic. Dave666d 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave666d:

The government in Ethiopia has banned Ethiopian Review because it is the most credible and powerful Ethiopian media. If your criteria for being reliable is that a journal doesn't criticize a government, then may be 90 per cent of the references used in wikipedia could be disqualified. On top of that, some of the references used are laughable, compared to Ethiopian Review. For example take a look at ref #3. Do you consider that web site more credible than Ethiopian Review? It is more like a spam web site. But it is kept as a reliable source. Ethiopian Review, on the other hand, is the oldest and longest running independent Ethiopian journal with the highest number of readership. It is widely read because most Ethiopians consider it to be reliable. Supporters of the Meles regime attack it and put a death warrant on its editors because it exposes their crimes and corruption. If Ethiopian Review is not a reliable source of information, the government would not pay attention to it. It is a travesty of justice that Wikipedia admins suppress credible information about the brutal dictatorship in Ethiopia. This is nothing less than a collaboration with the dictatorship that is suppressing the media in Ethiopia (http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/31302) for your reference. You can also Google about the condition of independent press in Ethiopia under the Meles regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let us keep this talk page professional. Enawga, Regarding the government and the journal "Ethiopian Review," you might very well be correct. But the simple fact that the journal's editor was charged by the government and the two are on opposing viewpoints, polar positions, means than the "Ethiopian review" can never be used as a reliable source of information on topics related to that government (or govt officials). It goes against wikipedia's rules. Ofcourse, if independent and other media sources can verify and confirm the opinions or reports of "Ethiopian review," you can add any information on this article. Thank you. Dave666d 07:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, there is no and never be independent Ethiopian media outlet. The regime in Ethiopia is mor repressive than robert Mugabe. Ethiopianreview is also extremly polarized media, however it has highest Ethiopian reeders because it usually exposes crime infestd ethiopian ruling party. Meles's wealth can be dedacted from EFFORT the manglomaniac series of campanies ouwned by the Junta.

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.3.42 (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave666d, if one follows your logic, CNN cannot be used as a reliable source of information on the Bush Presidency, and Fox News cannot be used as a reference in Wikipedia when it comes to any issue concerning the Obama Administration. Book authors, newspapers and other media around the world have been quoting or using Ethiopian Review as a source for the past several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

We need a consensus on this.. The Edit War continues since the page was released from lock down.. Dphilp75 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• The fact the source cannot be classed as reliable makes me think that it should not be included unless a more reliable source can be provided The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not accept Ethiopian Review as a credible source. The website actually cites Wikipedia as proof of its claim being legitimate, which Wikipedia cited from their website to begin with, and is nothing more than a circular argument. Ethiopian Review goes on to claim that editors that do not agree with their information and want to remove Meles from the Wikipedia article are members of the Adwa Mafia, friends of or relatives of Meles. Of course, there is no proof given that a single editor is part of such a group of individuals, and for spreading such ridiculous rumour simply because their website was called into question only further discredits them as a viable source. I have searched and can only find Ethiopian Review or Wikipedia (which still means Ethiopian Review is the source) for the billion dollar figure.

Putin is a good example to compare to. He only claims $150,000, but there are claims of a hidden wealth of $40 billion. The range is shown and is given two sources, though one can find more if need be. The sources do not come from anti-Putin websites, but from news websites. Ethiopian Review is not a news website, but an anti-Meles and anti-government website. So, unless a news site makes the same claim, Meles should not be added to the list based on that one source that has reason to discredit Meles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

End this Edit War once and for all

The Edit war is continuing despite the consensus here for it not to be included with that source and it seems like the editor in question will not listen so unfortunatly If he reverts again then I would have to suggest that we push for a block on that editor. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also reccomend pushing for a perminant semi-protection lockdown if it persists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The C of E: why are you trying to cover up for the looting of Ethiopia by Meles Zenawi. Also please corroborate your claim that Ethiopian Review is not a news media. Ethiopian Review is been the primary source of news for Ethiopians around the world since 1991. Every years it is selected as the most read Ethiopian news media. Please do your homework before you make such a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never made such a claim, I am going by what the majority of editors are saying. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

C of E is absolutely correct. The majority of editors on this page have agreed that the Ethiopian Review in and of itself is NOT sufficient enough to warrant the changes you KEEP making. Rather than challenge us as to why we do not agree with it validity, why don't you find other sources that support the Ethiopian Review? I am certainly no expert on Ethiopia or its political issues, but as confident as you seem to be in its authority, surely you can find supporting claims from other resources? Dphilp75 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I made the claim that the Ethiopian Review is not a news organization based on the information provided that says the site is discredited by the Ethipian government. Unfortunately for the website, governments have the authority to make such distinctions. Also, given that the website claimed the editors of Wikipedia to be part of a mafia, relatives and personal friends of Meles, it goes to show that the site makes ridiculous claims without any evidence or want of truth. The site is the cause of its own dismissal as a legitimate source.

I support banning Enawga, and protecting the article from unregistered users in case Enawga asks friends to make the edits for him. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it may have started, Xanderliptak because theres just been an edit the same as what Enawga was doing and the unidentified IP also accused me of vandalising the page. For that to stop before it becomes a problem, I have applied for semi-protection of the page The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for 24.30.50.38, consensus among "Ethiopian observers" that Meles is worth $1 billion does not make it fact and still needs a credible source before it may be included. Nor are Ethiopians given more weight to their vote over other editors. Also, if 24.30.50.38 is indeed a different editor than Enawga, that still makes the count stand at 3-2, against including Meles. I would suggest Enawga spend his time finding another source, because if the “fact” reached a Washington, D.C. based website from Ethiopia, then surely such a fact would have been published, say, in Ethiopia or its surrounding nations first. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the IP's edit history, I have my suspicions that the IP and Enawga may be one and the same so it throws up the idea of sock puppets The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

THis damn leader is sucking the blood of Ethiopians.Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world but this monkey owns 1.2 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.41.129 (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

top billionaires page

according to their net worth, the first few on this article should be in the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_wealthiest_people, but they aren't. why?85.144.133.46 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere down the line it was decided to keep Heads of State and Heads of Government separate from the other list... I suspect, but can't prove, that there were issues on the other page in regards to people being added with Crown Property ETC.. Dphilp75 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about the same thing. None of the top five heads of state seem to be on the billionaires list, yet Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is on it. It may have to do with different methods for calculating assets (which would be odd, since both lists are compiled by Forbes), but does anyone know why? 198.53.106.84 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I just looked again at the list of billionaires page, and it states that "The list does not include heads of state whose wealth is tied to their position", which would apply for all billionaires on this page other than Berlusconi. 198.53.106.84 (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A time restraint on the formers

It could be beneficial to provide former heads as a guide to compare the current against. Or to show discrepancies between, say, Castro who decried the evils of capitalism and promoted socialism, yet was estimated to be worth over $500 million. However, we have no need to go back to the Caesars, nor to the Tsars. Perhaps including the heads only back 50 years to whatever present year would suffice? maybe less? What say everyone? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If there was one I'd have to say anybody from earlier than 1900 should be ommitted as there can be many people in the 1900's that have potential to be included that should help the list be a better list (Queen Victoria, Hitler, Nicholas II etc.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Putin's extreme worth is nonsense

There is not a slight of evidence that Putin is worth $40 billion. Those are just random speculations from a small number of "news" sites. If every wiki article would use such subpar sources, wiki would become a junkyard. Whats next, Obama is not a real U.S. citizen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.225.243 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So that you know, The Guardian has won several British Press Awards. If one of the best and celebrated British newspapers is not a good enough source, what is? Also remember that this list is comprised almost entirely of speculative figures. Toss out a valid source like The Guardian and others like it for ‘speculation‘, and then we might be left with two or three people to this list. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Guardian article itself does not assert that Putin's net worth is US$40 billion. It cites a claim by Stanislav Belkovsky, who based his assertion on information obtained from unnamed "sources inside the president's administration". The fact that Belkovsky's claim was cited in a reputable source like The Guardian makes it worthy of mention, but perhaps a footnote clarifying the source of the US$40 billion claim would be appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is wha the citation is for. The whole list is based upon estimates and unanmed sources, from Putin to Elizabeth II to anyone else. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

richest president in world 2010

the list of all richest president in world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.92 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is already included in the article. It has no need for it's own article The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 88.250.150.119, 7 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} SELÇUK MERMER]]||/ BUSINESMAN/TURKEY||$20 billion (June 2009)||Thailand

88.250.150.119 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That source does not list a Mermer around $20 billion. Celestra (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sonia Gandhi is not a head of state/govt

Ms.Sonia Gandhi is in no way the head of the Indian state.She is the president of the political party currently in power(INC), this being different from someone being the head of state(The president or the Prime minister) as the president of party in power need not always be the prime minister.The official head of state of India is the president, currently Her Excellency Pratibha Patil, although most of the power rests with the parliament which is headed by the prime minister, currently Mr.Manmohan Singh. Since Ms.Gandhi holds neither of the above positions, I do not see how she qualifies to be on the list.

Also, the references do not seem very corroborative and the facts are very sketchy regarding the amount of her wealth.

sabari 19:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabarinathwarrier (talk • contribs)

Putin is richest head of state alive

Few sources:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3 http://sweetness-light.com/archive/putins-secret-40-billion-fortune http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1573354/40bn-Putin-is-now-Europes-richest-man.html

Estimates about 40 billion, and it's like 3 years old story, would be a lot more by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.78.90 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Added and ^{[citation needed]} tags, due to bad sourcing B-watchmework (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing Putin in the near future.B-watchmework (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats the deal with Putin still on the list, someone put him back on the list.B-watchmework (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed, and Added some new names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Gaddafi

I have doubts over the claim that Gaddafi had a personal wealth of 200 Billion USD, This story appears to be little more then wartime propoganda, as it would be virtually impossible for a single man (even the head of state) to amass a wealth of more then twice the country's GDP

121.73.48.216 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and there's no proof given about it yet, which can be believable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.2.220 (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)