# Talk:Bill Gates

A heading entitled "controversies" is inherently POV and also an issue of WP:UNDUE. These topics should be incorporated into the rest of the article. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC), Wiki link added by PerLundberg (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC).

Seconded. Even outside of that section, a lot of this article seems critical in nature, particularly in the "Political positions" section.  Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Was reading the controversies section - Maybe we can merge #Antitrust litigations and treatments towards coworkers part into the Microsoft section?
For Epstein stuff I have no idea. I don't know what section should it belong to even if we were only going to mention it in a passing sentence. Personal life? Seems odd. Political positions...? This section itself is POV...
Maybe we should create a section named "Outside Microsoft" or something like that. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I've moved everything in the controversies section into more appropriate locations. The question now is whether those sections need paring back, or whether they are appropriate. If/when we are content that the coverage is appropriate, the POV tag can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This phrasing, when read in the present context, seems to suggest that Gates was urging to make masks a permanent practice, which I don't think the source supports. He said that it was a helpful practice at the moment. 2601:642:4F84:1590:7490:A4D1:C346:7E78 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for the paragraph, to put it in the appropriate tense and avoid the aforementioned misrepresentation:

In a November 2020 interview with Rashida Jones, Gates endorsed the wearing of face masks as a means to public reopening, derisively comparing anti-mask activism to "nudists" who oppose wearing pants.(Miller ref)
 Done Day Creature (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Bill Gates recently published an update on his views on climate change:
[1]
Despite the irony (as of this writing) that his blog has the functional equivalent of a BSOD, multiple main stream news sources are covering it:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Surely 1 or more of these secondary sources should be deemed acceptable. The New York Times seems to garner favor here, in general.
While this only represents his opinion, the article already contains his opinions on climate change. This primary source should be trustworthy for his opinion, once you can get past the BSOD-like error.
The item of note here is his change of opinion on whether climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.  This is a marked change in his opinion and is therefore noteworthy in this article.  He makes additional claims as well which should also be reflected here.
The article should be updated to reflect his current opinions accurately.
I would make the changes myself but I fear potential push back based on prior experiences here and wish to avoid any conflicts with other editors in this regard.
Please consider correcting his now out of date opinions on climate change. 129.222.112.40 (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Change/Remove the following sentences in the "Controversies" > "Climate memo in 2025" section. Numerous spelling and grammatical errors! 
Relevance of the hurricane on this page is also questionable.
"It was also in the days when hurrican Melissa strengtened by climate change caused destruction in the carribean islands,[260] costing Jamaica alone a 30%-250% of its annual GDP,[261] and worsening the situation with migrants in the USA, as many migrants from Jamaica that Trump want to send back, now does not homes to return in,[262] and the storm can create more migration." ~2025-31348-40 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Toast1454TC 15:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)