Talk:List of female billionaires

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business: Accounting Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Top entry[edit]

The top entry looks suspiciously like a joke. The person Alison Fitzgibbon seems not known by google and the company seems not large. Jclaer (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this entry:

Michele Ferrero and family US$10.0 billion Italy Ferrero SpA

because according to the information on their website http://www.ferrerousa.com/history.htm, Michele is a man. DariaBlack 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we may be missing someone, I was under the impression that Christy Walton had a greater net worth than her sister-in-law, Alice Walton, but don't see her listed here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Helmsly should be removed..She's dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonore Annenberg needs to be removed as he died March 12th, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.195.70.39 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Correcting[edit]

Gina Rinehart appears twice on the list and as two separate ages, someone needs to find the correct information and amend the original table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.199.166 (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figures are different on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires#2015 Pdmack (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question[edit]

How many of these ladies are self made? I.e. didn't inherit the fortune? Pubuman (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None, not a single one. They're all heiresses. The source column is misleading, since it's not describing the source of their wealth (inheritance), but their current main financial asset. 2A02:8108:1BF:CC2C:1D9B:7640:6284:3DC5 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question is absolutely irrelevant for the scope of this list according to its title. They are billionaires. The source column is (as a pattern, not definition) the majority of their assets, not the means of acquiring it. --5.57.21.161 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstituted this change—the data point was out of date and the same source's most recent study does not replicate this data point. Burphole (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list needs to be updated. Gina Rinehart is the richest woman in the world and she didn't inherit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading Kiran Mazumdar Shaw to be the richest Indian woman but she isnt anywhere on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.240.22 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Oprah?Genius6756 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth years?[edit]

Most entries list two years for their birthdates. Why is that? Also, this list is rather incomplete. No need to have numbers since that will change as their wealth grows or lessens over the years, and new people rise to take the current spots of some. Dream Focus 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Walton[edit]

...is said on her page to be the wealthiest woman in the world but is absent from this list. Her fortune is independent from Alice Walton's one. Un historien (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes lists her at #285 with wealth of $5.5 B, just outside the top 20 females listed in the article. (You need to allow cookies from forbes.com and scroll down to make lower rankings appear.) I wonder where all that money went! Certes (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who took it ;) Thank you Certes for the answer. Un historien (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie Bezos[edit]

37bn: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48436622 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

↑↑↑ The above. Why is MacKenzie Bezos not in this list? For information, it already is the case in other languages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.209.116 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list uses the static rating published once a year by Forbes, usually in March. She acquired her wealth after March 2019. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now she is in the list why is her fortune's source listed as "divorce settlement" and not "Amazon"? It seems to me that while she was allocated her billions by the divorce settlement, the actual source was the work she put in to making Amazon a success with her husband. She worked for the company directly and indirectly from before its official foundation through to the divorce. The settlement merely recognised that fact. I didn't want to edit in case I am missing something.Lukkea (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was allocated her billions by initiating a divorce with her then-husband Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, and then awarded a settlement.

You wish to see she is credited for earning her billions through work, that the source be Amazon instead of her persued divorce. She suggested the company name, drew up a business plan (~1995), packaged and sent sold books, and negotiated a deal with a supplier. Although, since 1996 she had little involvement, instead spending her time on admirable philanthropic pursuits. In 1996 Amazon was valued at 15.6 million, up from 511,000 the previous year. Amazon wasn't valued at 1 billion 'til roughly 2001. So, given the aforementioned, to instead state the source of her billions was instead 'Amazon', would be suggesting she is significantly responsible and credited for earning the company such billions.

I suspect, and so, suggest you consider– honestly– how differently you'd feel if this was a male instead. 90.240.159.37 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she became wealthy through "marriage" or "divorce" is dependent on one's perspective. However, I would say "marriage" comes before "divorce." --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B8B7:9906:5A50:C48B (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Screenshot 20210613-140051 Chrome.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source of wealth?[edit]

Exactly why is the paragraph about inheritance and/or self-made wealth important at all? I don’t see how it is relevant to an article with the sole scope of listing women billionaires? 122.161.80.97 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, instead, it is not irrelevant. You said yourself, it is an article, not exclusively a list of names. So, it states (or, for most listed) credits the source of their billions. This provides the reason, and more context, to how/why they made the list of female billionaires. 90.240.159.37 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billionares[edit]

Where's the list 84.69.21.254 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samiira mohamed ali[edit]

@Samiira mohamed ali@ she is the Richest women 192.145.168.57 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]