"== Forbes Magazine's ""Most Powerful"" Ranking ==

There is an increasing number of Forbes Magazine references appearing in the leading paragraphs of biographical wiki pages.  The opening paragraphs of a wiki page should contain important details, not subjective trivia.  Forbes 'most powerful' ranking is merely one American magazine editor's perceived and unsupported opinion as to each well-known person's 'power'.  By rights it should not appear on any wiki page other than the Forbes magazine page or Forbes Magazine ranking page.
It appears the less powerful an important person or celebrity is, the more likely (s)he is to have a Forbes ranking on their wiki page.  Truly powerful people do not.  For example:
Barack Obama (President, USA) - No mention of Forbes ridiculous ranking on his page
Vladimir Putin (Prime Minister, Russia) - No mention of Forbes
Dmitry Medvedev (President, Russia) - No mention of Forbes
David Cameron (Prime Minister, United Kingdom) - No mention of Forbes
Benjamin Netanyahu (Prime Minister, Israel) - No mention of Forbes
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (King, Saudi Arabia) - No mention of Forbes
Nicolas Sarkozy (President, France) - No mention of Forbes
Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader, Iran) - No mention of Forbes
Naoto Kan (Prime Minister, Japan) - No mention of Forbes
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan) - No mention of Forbes
So why do the Forbes rankings keep appearing all over wiki?  Is there a wiki rule to stop the magazine from obtaining free advertising at wiki's expense?
  
Sorry but what does this have to do with the main page? (Also while I have no opinion on whether Forbes ratings belong it hardly seems surprising that the less 'powerful' and important person or celebrity is, the more likely they are to have a Forbes rating. You don't need a Forbes rating to tell you Barack Obama is important. You just need to words, 'President of the United States'. The same with all the rest you mentioned.)   

Why do Forbes Magazine's unsubstantiated rankings garner support on wiki?  They are obviously fabricated.  Many are rubbish.  For example, Forbes rank Michelle Obama as the most powerful woman in the world.  Yet it is Barack who is the president, not Michelle.  As 'First Lady' Michelle has no power whatsoever.
How about the number 2 'ranked' woman?  It is an American food saleswoman (Irene Rosenfeld).  What complete baloney.  Number 3 is an American television host (Oprah Winfrey), and finally at number 4 is a woman with real power, the Chancellor of Germany (Angela Merkel).  Forbes incredibly has ranked an American grocer and an American television host above a head of government.
My question is, why does a supposedly factual encyclopaedia (wiki) rate worthy of mention the suppositions and meanderings of a magazine that specialises in listening to gossip rather than in researching facts?
  

So what does this have to do with the main page?
If you don't think the information belongs in articles the place to discuss that is on the talk page of the effected articles.  You could also be bold and remove it and explain why.  If another editor reverts you then you are into the bold, revert, discuss cycle and you know who to discuss it with.
The discussion does not belong here because it has nothing to do with the main page and that is what this page is for.   fan ~~ 
And if you do want discussion somewhere in a more centralised page, the big header has suggestions. Perhaps start at WP:VPP   

"