Talk:Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

message: This article  is a significant study on the influence of this Foundation on influential sections of the media. Could it be quoted to present a more balanced picture? 117.204.137.243 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence in the media

message: Ok, I found something, and if it's true, I admit to being completely wrong in my cynicism. I found the following:
"BILL GATES HAS SAID THAT WHEN AN AIDS VACCINE IS
produced, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will fund the vaccine’s
distribution around the world even if the foundation has to spend down
its $24 billion endowment."
I found this in the following:
http://www.law.umich.edu/CentersAndPrograms/olin/papers/Fall%202003/klausner1.pdf
The paper in PDF form I found is by Michael Klausner and is called "when time isn't money"
If this is true, if it is in the foundations charter, then I must be wrong about the Gates motivation in building the largest foundation for the sake of power and pride.
I think this quote, if correct, should be included in the article. It says a lot about the nature of the Gateses.
Once again, I apologize for being so cynical and unfair.
24.206.125.213 07:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: my apology

message: I couldn't find anything in the Gates Foundation article on the topic of Microrate:
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2014.html
This looks like a good project.
24.206.125.213 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Microrate

message: Does someone know where to find the foundation's last published investment portfolio so that it can be anylized for ethical investment practices? 
24.206.125.213 03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: transparently operated

message: I found the following statistics on the Foundation's website:
Statistics*
Number of employees: 241
Endowment: $29.2 billion
Total grant commitments since inception: $10.5 billion
Total 2005 grant payments: $1.36 billion
If the foundation gave 1.36 billion and had 29.2 billion in assets, by my math that means they gave 4.657% to charity. I'm guessing that the foundations endowment was less at the beginning of the year; so the foundation gave around the minimum 5% needed to maintain its tax exempt status. Shouldn't the article point this out?
--------
If I understand this, it's worse on second glance. Below is the foundation timeline taken directly from the Foundation's website. It shows that less than 5% of the foundtion's endowent has been given as new grants awarded each year. unless some grants are ongoing year to year and so not counted, awards seem to be under the required 5%. See below:
Foundation Timeline
2006
The foundation reorganizes into three program areas—Global Development, Global Health, and U.S. Programs—and a core-operations group.
Endowment: $29.2 billion 
New grants awarded: $325.4 million (through 3/31/06)
2005
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and foundation CEO Patty Stonesifer announce that the foundation will build new headquarters on land near the city's landmark Space Needle. The foundation plans to move into its new campus in the winter of 2010.
Endowment: $29.2 billion 
New grants awarded: $1.6 billion
2004
Endowment: $28.8 billion 
New grants awarded: $1.5 billion
2003
Endowment: $26.8 billion 
New grants awarded: $1.1 billion
2002
Endowment: $24.1 billion 
New grants awarded: $1 billion
2001
Endowment: $23.3 billion 
New grants awarded: $748.5 million
2000
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation merges with the Gates Learning Foundation. The goal of the merger is to increase efficiency and communication between four main initiatives: Global Health, Education, Libraries, and Pacific Northwest. Patty Stonesifer and William H. Gates Sr. serve as the foundation’s co-chairs.
Endowment: $21.1 billion 
New grants awarded: $1.3 billion
1999 
With a broadening commitment to education, the Gates Library Foundation becomes the Gates Learning Foundation. The William H. Gates Foundation is renamed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill and Melinda Gates contribute nearly $16 billion to the foundations, which move from offices in Bill Gates Sr.’s basement to a new facility in Seattle.
Endowment (foundations combined): $16.9 billion 
New grants awarded (foundations combined): $2.5 billion
1998
Endowments
William H. Gates Foundation: $312.4 million (as of 3/31/98) 
Gates Learning Foundation: $265.2 million (as of 7/31/98)
Combined new grants awarded: $252.5 million
1997
Bill and Melinda Gates launch the Gates Library Foundation to bring computers and Internet access to public libraries in low-income communities in the United States and Canada. Former Microsoft executive Patty Stonesifer takes on the foundation’s leadership. The William H. Gates Foundation continues as a separate entity.
Endowments
William H. Gates Foundation: $296.6 million (as of 3/31/97)
Gates Learning Foundation: $1.4 million (as of 7/31/97)
Combined new grants awarded: $35.4 million
1996
Endowment: $191 million (as of 3/31/96)
New grants awarded: $14.6 million
1995
Endowment: $107.3 million (as of 3/31/95)
New grants awarded: $28.8 million
1994
After years of contributing to charitable causes, Bill and Melinda Gates consolidate their giving to address two main initiatives: Global Health and community needs in the Pacific Northwest. Bill’s father, William H. Gates Sr., agrees to manage the new William H. Gates Foundation, formed in December 1994 with an initial stock gift of about $94 million.
Note: Endowment figures includes total assets
--------
:Not sure where this "5%" number is coming from. It's a lot more complex than that when you look at how a private foundation retains its tax-exempt status. Also, something for the naysayers in this thread talking about Gates escaping taxes, private foundations still must usually pay a ~1% excise tax on their investment profits. JD79 15:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it; I am challenging it and requesting that someone elaborate. There should be a Wikipedia Rule that one must assume that other users are at least mildly intelligent.
Sorry, I see what you mean. I don't know the law in detail either. Based on the fact that the amounts given (mostly) are less than 5%, you are probably right and the law is different. I'll try to have thicker skin and be more thoughtful nexttime.
24.206.125.213 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to be misunderstanding the 5%. The 5% is the amount the foundation has to give away each year (actually according to the above it's more complex then that). Note that Bill Gates himself still pays whatever taxes he owes on his personal wealth which probably isn't much since I suspect he's using numerous tricks to avoid paying tax as do most of the wealthy (although the foundation isn't one of those tricks). Nil Einne 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving the minimum

message: Did Bill Gates donate dollars or shares? If shares were donated - as is the case with the Berkshire H. shares, doesn't that mean that no tax would be paid to the US government, the shares could be sold to diversify the total assests controlled by the Gates without tax consequences, future profits would be free of taxes, and the world's richest man would still control the worlds wealthiest foundation?
:This is basically correct. When one donates an appreciated capital asset to a NPO then the donor is allowed to take a tax deduction for the fair market value and the recipient then holds the asset at this stepped-up basis. Of course when the foundation sells the asset it (usually) will not be paying any tax because it is tax-exempt. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with your comment...you seem to be implying that Bill Gates is somehow "avoiding" tax, but if he did not sell the shares and personally see the cash proceeds, then he did not actually receive any money (an "accession to wealth" in tax parlance), and therefore has nothing that can/should be taxed. The "future profits" (do you mean dividends?) would be flowing to the NPO, not to Gates, and the fact that he controls the "wealthiest foundation" is not really relevant because he does not personally profit it from it in his duties as a trustee. (He may take a director's/trustee's salary from the Foundation, but I highly doubt it.) (Really, a lot of this goes back to valuing someone based on their "paper" worth vs. their actual "cash" worth.) JD79 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, whatever your opinions on Bill Gates and the foundation, the fact remains the foundation is intrinsicly different from the Ikea/INKGA case. They operate under a different set of laws. It's quite clear that most of the money the foundation makes goes to charity purposes. While you could argue that Bill Gates benefits from the foundation via the clout, power and perks he receives, it's not anywhere like the INKGA case. Also, be aware that if the foundation wants to last, it has to control the rate it gives away. If it gives away 100% of it's assets, the foundation will be bankcrupt unless someone puts more money in. Bill Gates' networth is currently going down so eventually he is going to run out of money if he keeps giving it away. Also the Warren Buffet case is different. AFAIK, after 2 years, ALL the money he puts in has to be donated/given away. The charity is NOT going to get much (any?) richer via Warren Buffet. Nil Einne 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct but at the same time confused. The idea of a charitable foundation is to help people which indeed includes giving out money. This doesn't mean it makes for a foundation to give all it's money away in one go. Since there is not an endless supply of money, if a foundation gives all it's money away then there is no more money and it can no longer help people. For you perhaps it's a good idea for a foundation to only help people once, for a lot of other people it makes sense if a foundation tried to help people for a long time. As it stands, under the law the foundation perates it has to give away 5% of it's assets which means that without investment or additional funding, the foundation will eventually run out of money. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How were monies sheltered

message: Should the article mention that Time magazine is owned by one of Microsoft's strategic partners?
 No, because that fact is not directly relevant to our article "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation". Microsoft's current business activity and any "strategic partnerships" it has do not impact the Gates Foundation's activities directly, and any indirect effect from those partnerships would have to be mentioned in a reliable secondary source before we could consider mentioning it in our article. --loupgarous (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: AOL Time Warner are strategic partners with Microsoft 

message: Is this charity currently investing its assests in a socially conscious manner?
----
I found an article on Warren Buffett in the Financial Times. In it Bill Gates makes the following statement when asked about ethical investment:
"dismissing a question on Monday about the need for ethical investment. “You need to seek out people with a talent to distribute money in the same way as you do for those to accumulate it,” he said."
I don't understand what he means here. Is he saying that it is alright to exploit people and the planet?"
Does he suggest that the best way to run the plantation is a tough overseer who shows results?\
I think something about this should be added to the article, but I don't want to get it wrong. Has anyone else seen similar quotes? I just can't believe that this isn't some sort of mistake or misquote.
Here's a link:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a8ce47ae-05fb-11db-9dde-0000779e2340.html
24.206.125.213 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing the links to secondary sources which could be cited in a section on public reactions to the Foundation's investment portfolio.  But the lengthy discussion which went with it questioning the ethics of that portfoio seems to push a POV. It's legitimate to invite us to consider a section on our article dealing with the investment ethics of our subject. Statements about how bad some of the companies held in the Gates Foundation's stock portfolio are not WP:VERIFIABLE and not helpful in making an encyclopedia unless they are confined to statements made in verifiable sources. --loupgarous (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Investment

message: I think that charity has to be looked at from two sides: How much does a man give and how much does he take? Is a man generous if it really costs him nothing? For example, Mr. Gates has enourmous amounts of personal real estate. He must have rooms in his house that he never uses. How can this sort of consumption be justified when so many are so many homeless?
I found this text in an article printed in the Seattle Times:
...Over the past decade, Bill Gates has quietly bought up 11 properties, including nine houses, that surround his 5-acre Medina estate, creating a buffer zone that is increasingly turning a small hillside neighborhood into a private holding of the richest man on Earth. 
Enormous houses—dubbed "megamansions"—are nothing new to Medina, including Gates' 48,000-square-foot spread, which he moved into in 1997. But this is the first evidence of one of the town's many industry magnates actually buying portions of a neighborhood. ...
This over consumption might easily be seen as greed gone rampant. It seems to me that a further analysis of the foundation should be considered before naming Mr. Gates "man of the year." How many people have been disposessed by market changes due to the acquisition of these properties - either directly or indirectly? How many acres of rain forest or similar ecosystems were pillaged to make his 48,000 squarefoot palace? How many employees maintain the status quo rather than producing food?
Additionally, if all moneys donated are sheltered from paying any taxes, and if only 5% of these funds must be spent yearly to maintain the charitable status, isn't it the case that Mr. Gates is able to keep much more of his assets under his control through this charity? How many tax dollars do the people of this country lose each year because of tax shelters for wealthy charities? Wouldn't these monies be spent on social programs, etc. if paid into the government? How many fancy offices are maintained by this charity? How many friends and relatives of the Gate's have high paying jobs in the foundation?
I have seen too much in my life to believe without more evidence that this charity is so right.
Should I add a consumption section in to keep this article NPOV?
----
nah.
-- Please reply seriously or not at all
:That material doesn't really belong in the article on the Foundation. Information about Gates' consumption might go in his personal entry, if anywhere. -- pde 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be confusing several things. Whatever Bill Gates may have done with properties around his house, he almost definitely didn't do it with the foundation but with his own money. Therefore bringing it into the discussion is completely missing the point and suggests you are simply pushing a POV. And as people have told you numerous times, while Bill Gates does have control over what the foundation does, he is limited by law as to what he can do, and he can't generally use the money to benefit him. In any case, you appear to be more generally criticising charities then having any reliably sourced criticism of the B&MG Foundation. If you have a beef with charities as a tax shelter for the rich then you should take that to the charity page and not here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: OP, this article is about the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation.  It is not about the Gates family's lifestyle at all, and your remarks about their consumption are irrelevant to their charitable foundation's history or current activity.  Please confine your remarks in this talk page to ways to improve our article's coverage of the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation with information from verifiable secondary sources.  While your views on consumption may or may not be of use in other articles, they don't conform to the project's WP:NPOV ethic when applied to this article. --loupgarous (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Consumption

message: I was very interested to read how the Gates foundation wants to help high school students. Is the Gates foundation working to put curricula on the web? I have been following MIT's commitment to open courseware for the improvement of educational methods and open access to first class materials. It is fascinating to me that with the billion dollar budgets of the various states' departments of education, the federal department of education, all the charitable foundations that focus on education, etc, only the corporation for public broadcasting, the Annenberg CPB (www.learner.org) and the opencourseware offerings fom MIT, Carnegie Mellon, and some few others, have put open access videos of mathematics lectures on the web. Is the Gates foundation currently working to put high quality video lectures for high school mathematics on the web? Does the Gates Foundation or Microsoft donate high bandwidth server space to teachers who would videotape their lectures for high school students? It amazes me, that there does not seem to be a single governmental or charitable organization currently offering a series of calculus lectures online. The closest I can find is the Carnegie Mellon Applet based Calculus I course.
How is it possible that the Gates Foundation that owes its existence to Microsoft's domination of distributed technology has not joined the crusade to open education and provide students, communities, and the world the materials needed to obtain a basic education?
I have found a large number of lecture videos being served by Microsoft, but they do not seem to be targeted to junior and senior high school students.
It is a wonderful thing that Nobel prize winner's lectures are freely available in abundance on the internet, but basic education is not offered in an intelligent systemized manner.
As a result, there are many many companies like Neil Bush's Ignite Learning cashing in on the United States' failure to distribute high quality lectures, applets, and textbooks. Other countries seem to be doing a much better job. Consider Irelands skoool.ie and the BBC's asguru online programs.
These seem to be cost effective programs available globally. These programs even offer homework assistance via chat.
I believe this article would be much more interesting and helpful, if any of these kinds of activities could be pointed out. That is, if the Gates Foundation is actually active in this kind of educational assistance. I did have a look at their web site. Like the various DOE websites, there are nice pictures and text about how they are helping students, but I can never seem to find links to material that is actually helpful and usable.
For example, where should a student go who is having trouble? To whom should he or she talk? Is there a chat site? What governmental agencies are available that actually help? What should a troubled student expect if he or she contacts a particular agency? Will he or she get help or the run around?
==
Question: How much did bill gates donate in total? 20 billion
If Bill Gates sheltered 20 billion and the charity is currently worth 27 billion, how much could this foundation have given to the needy? What percentage per year has spent on actual charity?
:OP, answering your last question first, other editors in this Talk page have cited secondary sources which show the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation gives amounts which are about equal to what its investments earn - a pattern of investment-supported charitable giving that can be sustained indefinitely. 
:When discussing specific ways in which the Foundation's investment income are spent, the single most useful thing you can do is search for reports in reliable secondary sources about whether and in what specific ways the Foundation supports Web-based curricula (to use the specific example you ask about).  Those sources are what we would need to cite in answering the questions you raise in a verifiable way we can use in our article. --loupgarous (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: *"Is the world's largest charitable foundation" in terms of WHAT? Assets? Endowments? Donations? Flunkies? - Jerryseinfeld 18:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: US dollar or UK pound? There is no compromise. Tomtomtomtomtom 03:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: US pounds... didn't you hear at some point of time while everyone was sleeping the American Government what the courntcy to pounds and then back to dollars within 0.0000001 seconds. 220.233.48.200 11:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Please see my comment on the Bill Gates discussion page. --Haruo 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the Foundation founded? 

message: Hi, I have added some info to the article, I have refractoried it a bit, and have uploaded an image.
I have a bullet list in the top of the article, I'd like it to have an infobox along with the image, but have no idea how to make an easy one.... thanks —Mineralè 2006-06-20 04:04Z
:You would use . An example of where it is used is at Autodesk. Or if you don't want to do it yourself ask me on my talk page :-) --Commander Keane 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Here are two key paragraphs I introduced:
*The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest transparently-operated charitable foundation in the world. It was founded by Bill Gates, and as of 2006 it has an endowment of approximately $27 billion; based on one estimate by The Economist, this is second only to Stichting INGKA Foundation in valuation, though the Gates Foundation "wins hands down" when "measured by good works."
::This paragraph attempts to highlight key findings from the Economist story about the foundation established by the IKEA founder. The lack of transparency for the INGKA Foundation and its acknowledged lack of emphasis on what the magazine calls "good works" led to the language I chose. More details about this comparison could merit a section of its own if someone wanted to do so, but such details don't belong in the introduction.
*In June 2006, Warren Buffett announced plans to set aside 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares for Gates Foundation contributions, worth approximately US$30 billion at the time of the announcement. The Gates Foundation will receive 5% (500,000) of the shares in 2006, and will receive 5% of the remaining earmarked shares each year (475,000 in 2007, 451,250 in 2008, and so on).
::Class B shares as of the announcement are worth about 30.7 billion. Note that the shares really are being donated with the idea of being spent right away, and thus they don't affect the valuation comparison vis-a-vis INGKA Foundation. They do very much affect the "good works" that Gates Foundation will continue to emphasize. Note also the number of shares declines each year.
66.167.136.215 06:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you've read the Economist article if you're bringing up Stichting INGKA but if you draw any comparisons between it and the Gates Foundation it is absolutely essentially that you include the part of the article where it discusses the extemely twisted accounting/governance issues of Stichting INGKA. After reading that article Stichting INGKA appears to be nothing more than a tax shelter due to the various tax-shelter jurisdictions that it winds its way through. Compare this to the Gates Foundation where, contrary to what some people are saying on this Talk page, the assets are truly out of Gates' personal control (in that he cannot benefit from them directly). JD79 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what was mention is he can't use them for his direct personal gain. For example, whatever control he may have of the foundation, he couldn't AFAIK get the foundation to upgrade his extremely large house. Nor could he use the foundation's money for his daily life if he bet's all his money on England winning the world and loses. Etc etc Nil Einne 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, Nil Einne. Gates may control the Foundation, but it's not as if he can use it as his own personal pocketbook. He does not have a "pecuniary interest" to once again use financial lingo; if the Gates Foundation were to dissolve tomorrow, the billions would not be allowed to go back to Bill Gates without being heavily taxed. He could vote himself a large salary as an officer of the Gates Foundation, but this could cause a problem with the tax-exempt status. Also, to the person above, please sign your comments. JD79 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes he potentially could. But that's quite different from what you were originally talking about. In any case, the key point is that you need references. You can talk as much as you want about how evil Bill Gates and the Foundation is, but unless you have reliable sources then it doesn't belong in the article. Indeed you appear to be soapboxing rather then having anything serious to add to the article so people would be entitled to remove your comments if they were to continue Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points about Ikea comparison, Buffet donation 

message: I was looking for the 'Gates Award for Global Health' which was awarded to the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research ref, could some info about that be added here? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: The endowment in the infobox and the figure on the first page to not corroborate TheAngriestPharmacist 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endowment 

message: Grant Size     	Use                                                    	Time Frame  	Link
US$33.3 million	Decrease hunger - Mexico                               	October 2007	http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalDevelopment/Agriculture/Grants/Grant-45783_01.htm
US$13.1 million	R&D water quality test University of Bristol           	October 2007	http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalDevelopment/SpecialInitiatives/WSH/Grants/Grant-48599.htm
US$2 million   	Support a capital campaign - Woodland Park Zoo         	October 2007	http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/SpecialInitiatives/Grants/Grant-48373.htm
US$250 thousand	Support an endowment - St. Mary's Dominican High School	October 2007	http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/SpecialInitiatives/Grants/Grant-48840.htm
US$50 thousand 	Discuss HIV/AIDS                                       	January 2007	http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/OtherInitiatives/Advocacy/Grants/Grant-47038.htm
table by , merged from deleted article ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]] - Grants (sample list)

message: I deleted this section has all sources are blogs, making it hard to assess how notable this criticism is. Furthermore the section is quite biased, asserting that the South African government is a repressive government and that institutions like the World Bank or USAID pursue anti-poor policies (sic!). If someone has reputable sources for the criticism feel free to re-add, but some random blogs don't do it. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Support for Slum Dwellers International 

message: I removed POV (abortion industry, relatively substantial) to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in general and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in particular.--Svetovid (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So does the Gates foundation have ties to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.86.169 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia discussion boards are not forum for discussion what an organization does or does not do. If you would like to edit an article based on reliable sources, then be bold and start!  Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It is a reliable source for presenting the perspective of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which I believe is a notable perspective worthy of inclusion. I would not say that it is a reliable source for reporting how the Gates Foundation operates, but I do think it is representative of how a significantly large demographic views the work of the Gates Foundation.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ties to Planned Parenthood

message: I realize that Stichting INGKA is the largest "foundation", but who are two and three? How is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation number four?!
There are good arguments that Stichting INGKA is not a charitable foundation, but I realize that is arguable, however they are *not* "transparent". That much is certainly true. So, really the Gates Foundation should be number one. If one asserts that Stichting INGKA is number one, then Gates is number two. Why is it called the "fourth-largest"? Supertheman (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia lists it as number one: List of wealthiest charitable foundations. What gives here? Supertheman (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth Largest? 

message: there is a bit of mention of philanthropy here
is it still philanthropy if one is only nice to some charities, and deforming to others? --Steve (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "deforming" ? Smartse (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  philanthropy 

message: I work for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Global Development Program and I want to highlight some inaccuracies in a recent edit (7 September 2009 (UTC)) to the Agricultural Development section:
"A preference for the foundation is to make grants which benefit multinational agribusiness, such as Monsanto, which do not take into account many local needs in Africa."
We believe that this phrase would fit better in the “criticisms” section. If not, it could be edited for accuracy.
Here is some more information for you to consider regarding the foundation's grantees:
*Our grants fund a breadth of solutions—from investing in improved seeds and healthy soil to supporting effective farm management practices and expanding small farmers’ access to markets.(http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agriculturaldevelopment/Documents/agricultural-development-strategy-overview.pdf) The vast majority of the foundation’s grantees are NGOs and public entities. (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx) Obstacles to agricultural development span sectors; so do their solutions. We seek to partner with organizations in the public and private sectors—foundations, governments, NGOs, and businesses—that can help revitalize agriculture for small farmers in the developing world.
*The “uniquely African Green Revolution,” called for by African leaders in 2004 (http://www.africangreenrevolution.com/en/green_revolution/addis_call_to_action/call_to_action/index.html), recognizes reducing hunger and poverty begins with small farmers and their families. We are working with our partners to listen to farmers to ensure their voices are heard and their needs are met. Ultimately, it will be up to countries and farmers to decide what approaches are right for them.
--Bmgf (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Agricultural Development Inaccuracies

message: The Criticism section talks about Gates's concept of "creative capitalism." How is that a criticism? Is Gates criticizing his own charity? 24.24.232.140 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: the section is very unclear. The wording "manipulates the ideas" is nonsense. Quite a bit of the criticism section may be original research and possibly should be removed (if adequate secondary sources are not found). Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, it looked OR when I read it, and needs rewriting and a proper reference.. but noting that the foundation has a different philosophy from many other charities and demands something in return for it's largesse is a valid point; Gates himself describes this (check the reference) and it should be in the article. And yes.. it is a demand, if you cannot cannot put back something material yourself, you must publicly acknowledge this as an act of Gates's charity, if you do neither you get nothing. That's actually quite insulting to the people who practice genuine charity; where the gift is given even if unacknowledged (and sometimes unwanted or unneeded.. but that is another topic), and the only demand made is (usually) a lack of violence or aggression towards the giver, or maybe a prayer.. EasyTarget (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very likely that many charities have no long-term beneficial effect on the targeted local population. At any rate, enormous efforts of charity have often failed to provide an environment where the targeted population is capable of existing without charity. A new approach is needed if charity is ever to be effective. Gates is not suggesting that companies get a return on their charity "investment" simply to benefit the companies: the suggestion is an attempt to mobilize sufficient resources so that an actual long-term benefit to the targeted populations would occur. To attract serious business involvement, you need to speak business language. The speech given by Gates outlined some thoughts on how a wide range of businesses might be motivated to become involved in serious development projects; the speech is not a statement of how his Foundation operates. That is, an attempt to use parts of the speech to criticize the Foundation (in this article) is doubly misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: The article speaks of the center as something that will be built in the future. The building is already open for business. Will update article with more current info.Ds1GIG (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates Center for Computer Science 

message: According to Bill Gates the lifespan has been reduced to 20 years. I don't know how to properly quote this but you can see him say that at 33:50 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBHJ-8Bch4E  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.170.171 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In this talk Bill Gates says that the Gates Foundation will complete winding down no later than 20 years after both he and Melinda have died. The Gates Foundation will not exist after that point. This could be cited.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: Any opinioins on the recent edits (diff) which added an
investments section listing some information (mostly unsourced) about six companies? It does not seem helpful to me—I imagine the Foundation has hundreds more investments, and listing them would require a lot of work and would be pointless. Selecting a few to list is very much original research—we would need a secondary source highlighting some investments with some specific commentary showing why they are generally significant. I'm thinking the new section should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust Investments 

message: The word billion in : "It had an endowment of US$38.3 billion as of 30 June 2013 (...)", links to 10 to the power 8. A billion means 10 to the power 9, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,000,000,000. There is something wrong here and this should be changed. I don't know whether the number that was meant was 10 to the power 8 or to the power 9). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenthy (talk • contribs) 2014-11-16T17:48:01 (UTC)
:Thanks, I fixed that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billion 

message: On a tangent, how does "Under President Allan Golston, the United States Program has made grants such as the following: De-funding abortion" make sense? -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  145.228.61.5 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150423110945/http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html to http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111164923/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9101858&intsrc=news_ts_head to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9101858&intsrc=news_ts_head
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414095646/http://www.polioeradication.org/content/general/HistContributionWebMay06.pdf to http://www.polioeradication.org/content/general/HistContributionWebMay06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150509054021/http://www.gates.scholarships.cam.ac.uk/ to http://www.gates.scholarships.cam.ac.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121129050721/http://www.gatesfoundation.org:80/Grants-2011/Pages/The-Teaching-Channel-OPP1040433.aspx to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Grants-2011/Pages/The-Teaching-Channel-OPP1040433.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080815085113/http://www.gatesfoundation.org:80/aboutus/announcements/announce-061129.htm to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/Announcements/Announce-061129.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130523090108/http://www.fundacionprincipedeasturias.org/ing/04/premiados/trayectorias/trayectoria807.html to http://www.fundacionprincipedeasturias.org/ing/04/premiados/trayectorias/trayectoria807.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619230935/http://www.microsoft.com:80/presspass/press/2006/jun06/06-15CorpNewsPR.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jun06/06-15CorpNewsPR.mspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602194755/http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Susan-Desmond-Hellman to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Susan-Desmond-Hellman
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516015458/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/localnews/2003517601_gatesinvest10.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003517601_gatesinvest10.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407090439/http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Christopher-Elias to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Christopher-Elias
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407090436/http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Trevor-Mundel to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Management-Committee/Trevor-Mundel
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109083214/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/20070101faessay86103/laurie-garrett/the-challenge-of-global-health.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86103/laurie-garrett/the-challenge-of-global-health.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010163118/http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/4134 to http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/4134
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is fairly biased. Upon initially skimming the piece to see the broader topics that were to be discussed, I immediately noticed that there is no “controversy” section, which is normally included in a politically-charged article such as this one. I thus began a more in-depth read, searching for any opposition arguments or alternative perspectives provided within the article. I came across one line that stated that “the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations” and a citation at the end. I followed the link provided and found it led me to the home page of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s official website. This attempt at providing a more critical evaluation of the foundation was delegitimized by the clearly biased use of citation. Further into the article, a paragraph discussed a 2011 survey of grantees that found many believed there was a lack of transparency in the foundation’s goals and strategies, and that its communications could be improved upon. The author’s only discussion of this critique was that the foundation’s response was to improve upon these problem areas, and that they launched a podcast series to do so. Although this inclusion of critique makes for a stronger article, the lack of unbiased perception throughout weakens the general arguments being made. 
The article is thus missing a stronger counter-argument or alternative perspective. For example, while Bill and Melinda Gates have won countless awards for their fight to eradicating some of the world’s deadliest issues, their foundation is currently subject to an international investigation. Rather than being a “neutral charitable strategy”, the Foundation is focused on promoting big business, its ultimate influence dangerously skewing aid urgencies. According to the Wikipedia article itself, the organizations that the Foundation gives most funding to are mostly giant corporations such as UNICEF HQ, WTO, Invitational Food Policy Research Institution, and so on. The article also states the great influence that the Foundation has in aiding the Green Revolution, specifically investing $100 million in the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa, while failing to mention the problematic nature of the movement and the resulting consequences. I believe that the article would be much stronger and more reliable if it were to include some of the key contestations that many have with the Gates Foundation. 
Nicolelaporte (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting. Can you add relevant paragraphs with reputably sources backing up any statements? I would be interested to read such a balanced and well-referenced section. EvMsmile (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Bias and Adding Alternative Perspectives to Strengthen Overall Argument   

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416161359/http://www.maravipost.com:80/life-and-style/people/9143-apm-meets-melinda-gates,-philanthropist-and-wife-to-the-richest-man-in-the-world.html to http://www.maravipost.com/life-and-style/people/9143-apm-meets-melinda-gates,-philanthropist-and-wife-to-the-richest-man-in-the-world.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407085007/https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/virulence/OneWorldVir.pdf to https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/virulence/OneWorldVir.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723190426/http://gateshillman.blog.cs.cmu.edu:80/?p=122 to http://gateshillman.blog.cs.cmu.edu/?p=122
*Added  tag to http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/22/210318.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220226/http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2006/11/2006112901.htm to http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2006/11/2006112901.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080815085113/http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/Announcements/Announce-061129.htm to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/Announcements/Announce-061129.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone recently changed on this page the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation" to "Gates Foundation". I am thinking of changing it back to its official title which is actually "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" (or using the "and" instead of the ampersand if people prefer). Does anyone have any objections against that? EvMsmile (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the long name in a few places (but not everywhere). EvMsmile (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ then you can see an image on top left stating "Bill & Melinda Gates foundation", so I think this is the official name. We'd only know if we would look at the official filing of the foundation (paperwork). I think part of the confusion is actually that the homepage is on "https://www.gatesfoundation.org/" which only mentions "gates"; but the full name is indeed the longer variant, and I think the longer variant should be used, or if abbreviated, I'd use B&M Gates foundation or BMG foundation or something like that. The ampersand is indeed annoying, I always have to find it on the keyboard ... 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, good points. But if we use the abbreviation it should be BMGF, as that's how they normally abbreviate it. EMsmile (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling out Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

message: So after seeing a suggestion about https://vipulnaik.com/sponsored-wikipedia-editing/ in the Signpost suggestions, and seeing how this article was edited by at least one "sponsored" editor, I wanted to ask, A banner? COI? ....the thing is that we would NOT want to say that it is a self-dealing COI, (like spamvertising), but it surely is teetering on "astroturf" and or WP:SPA? So how and should there be labels/banners for this work?
JFTR, I am not anti-paid-editing, but I am interested that our readers are informed about paid edits and in general I am HIGHLY interested in full disclosure for "paid for messages" especially where political and charitable astroturf is concerned.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really not clear what you are referring to since this article isn't mentioned on that link at all. Looking around though are you referring to edits by ? They made a grand total of two edits to the article in 2012, neither of which are even slightly controversial. SmartSE (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok now I see. One of the users listed here presumably edited the page. Which one? SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't want to get into any kind of witch hunt here because I am not saying that anyone did anything "wrong". Just the fact as stated, that it appears that at least one sponsored editor has edited this article or a SPA. To be truthful, I don't even know for sure if this article was on the "bounty" list for sponsored/paid edits, I'm mainly looking for some discussion about what do we say to our readers when sponsored/paid editors edit articles? EX:--a "normal" COI would imply that the paid edit was generated by the topic of the article. That would NOT be the case with a sponsored/paid edit, so one-should there be notification in article-space, and two which should it be so-as NOT to give an impression that the topic itself COI-edited or sponsored such edits?TeeVeeed (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  should only be used when there is a problem with article content, not to simply notify the reader that someone with a COI edited it.  can be used on talk pages but that doesn't quite fit these edits since they aren't connected nor are they conflicted. Unless there is a problem with this article, this should be discussed at WT:COI. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Please focus on article content. Are any problems known? Is anyone (paid or not) editing this article in an unhelpful manner? If there are no known problems, there is no reason to start a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you that is exactly what I was looking for. COI when the article is possibly or is COI and then Talk Page for basically a notice--(if there does not appear to be a problem).TeeVeeed (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sponsored editing vs Paid editing" What kind of banner if any should be used? 

message: The article says that the Foundation promotes greater class sizes, and also that it spends money of reducing student-to-teacher ratios. This appears to be inconsistent. Is one of the statements incorrect? Lavateraguy (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  class sizes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maravipost.com/life-and-style/people/9143-apm-meets-melinda-gates%2C-philanthropist-and-wife-to-the-richest-man-in-the-world.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/index.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grameenfoundation.org/resource_center/newsroom/news_releases/~story%3D168
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203145910/http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Agricultural-Development/Golden-Rice to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Agricultural-Development/Golden-Rice
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317082223/http://abettertoilet.org/toilet-technologies/ to http://abettertoilet.org/toilet-technologies/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407082202/http://www.finddiagnostics.org/about/what_we_do/successes/find-negotiated-prices/xpert_mtb_rif.html to http://www.finddiagnostics.org/about/what_we_do/successes/find-negotiated-prices/xpert_mtb_rif.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://gateshillman.blog.cs.cmu.edu/?p=122
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005013401/http://www.grameenfoundation.org/resource_center/newsroom/news_releases/~story%3D168 to http://www.grameenfoundation.org/resource_center/newsroom/news_releases/~story%3D168
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102051550/http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2126576/bill-gates-gives-750m-help-african-children to http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2126576/bill-gates-gives-750m-help-african-children
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219114756/http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates to http://www.wssinfo.org/data-estimates/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421023056/http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf to http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wikipedia should stop permitting the use of articles to support spam. I'll repeat the usual suggestion (so it can be ignored again). There should be an easy way to report such spam and flag the articles with anti-spammer warnings. In this case, linked to an article explaining the details of 419 scams. Even beyond the abuse of Wikipedia's reputation to give credibility to their cock-and-bull scams, the scammers may be motivated to actively vandalize some of the articles if they can add plausible details for their lies. "Live and let spam" is a bad philosophy, but I think it's even better if you have a better solution approach. Shanen (talk) 07:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to explain what you are talking about, with a brief example. Do you have any reason to believe whatever the problem is occurs often? Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is being used to support spam 

message: Right now the article isn't quite critical. Does it hold any patents? If so it would be nice to mention this on the main page OR link in an additional article as-is.
Also I remember the outrage about this foundation was high a few years ago. There is also no mention on investment into e. g. MediaNews Group or Warren Buffet 
giving money to the foundation either. Right now the article is too uncritical as-is. It's ok to not have this all on the main page, but then there should be
a separate article. Perhaps even link in to it from the "criticism" part, because right now that seems sooooooo brief that it is almost suspicious. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you mind providing a reliable source that backs up your claim about Warren Buffet? What are your other suggestions on improving this article? X-Editor (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: I agree with including some more criticism, especially since this happened during the pandemic. https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukovles (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already included in the article, using that exact reference. Kuru (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include criticism 

message: Columbia Journalism Review made a great article about Gates’ influence on the media that I think should be incorporated into this article . X-Editor (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gates’ media influence 

message: A user has recently added a 'Warning: phishing scam' template twice to this article. I have removed it. The only source for the statement that 'Some scammers are even mentioning a link to this Wikipedia article in order to appear more legitimate.' is a forum post. We don't consider forum posts reliable for content inclusion, and I question whether they should be usable for such a template. Without a statement from the WMF that this is a significant concern, or other, recent coverage in WP:RS, this tag has no place on this article.Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phishing scam notice 

message: On 12 May 2008 it was announced that Raikes would replace Patty Stonesifer as the CEO of the BMGF.
Who is Raikes? They aren't mentioned (or Wikilinked) anywhere earlier in the article, and so the reader is left wondering who/what this is. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could fix this with their full name (with a Wikilink if they have an article).  MrAureliusRTalk! 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence in History section 

message: ... which provides as support for the statement of being the second most capitalized non profit financial statements of novo nordisk which is not a non profit foundation. In fact apparently it is the largest non-profit. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddment in current second sentence ...