Talk:Forbes list of the World's 100 Most Powerful Women

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links[edit]

Would be nice to turn some of these red links blue... AnonMoos 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with Forbes website[edit]

This list seems inconsistent with the one displayed on Forbes' website (following the link provided at the bottom of the article). Only 99 (out of 100) women are listed here - one is missing. 68.42.113.38 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

was vandalism, fixed it.

Indra Nooyi[edit]

Isn't Indra Nooyi Indian??

I agree with who ever asked, "Isn't Indra Nooyi indian?". Technically, next to her name should be written India. She recieved her education from India and considers herself an indian. She is only currently based in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keaneart (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indra Nooyi is a US citizen. If ethnicity is a consideration, then I suggest we use the Liberian flag next to Ms Rice and the POlish flag next to Ms Krawchek's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.64.33 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Carroll has both a British and American flag. Unless someone comes along and changes it, I've decided to put both flags by Indra Nooyi's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.192.163 (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Gandhi[edit]

I dont understand why there is an Italian flag along with Indian tricolor against Sonia Gandhi's name. She is an Indian citizen and should be regarded as such. Same way, Indra Nooyi is an american citizen and should be considered that way.--Praveenkoramkottil (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?[edit]

How is this even remotely encyclopedic? Brianski 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarja Halonen are more powerfull than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom??? Eat my shorts!:D

Your mother is probably more powerful than the at this stage, entirely ceremonial Queen. --217.67.139.104 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When does the 2007 list come out? What time of the year did the past ones come out?

What, no Nancy Pelosi on the 2007 list? I'm astonished. I would have been pleased if Katharine Jefferts-Schori were on the list too, but I'm not astonished she isn't. —Angr 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would me useful to explain what forbes means with "most powerful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.71.18 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is copyrighted[edit]

The quote in the article specifically indicates that the list is subjective, which means that it's a work of the editors of the magazine, and therefore having it here is a copyright violation. Keep the link, that's fine, but don't put the list here. Corvus cornix 17:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. A list of names of public figures is not copyrighted. Neither is the list of Nobel prize winners copyrighted. It is the text concerning the people included in the list which is copyrighted, not the names itself. Halis Sleep 00:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I write that the most powerful women in my opinion is

  • Angela Merkel
  • Wu Yi
  • Condoleezza Rice

these names are not © me. Halis Sleep 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is most definitely copyrighted, just as much as "List of the best guitarists in the world" as determined by Rolling Stone magazine. Any lists which are made up of the personal opinions of the people compiling the list are copyrighted. However, the current use of the top ten for each year seems okay, under fair use. Corvus cornix 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wanna tell me when I decide to write these names down in that specific order, Forbes is gonna come after me for copyright violation? Give me a break! -- 82.198.201.170 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he means that the list in the article is explicitely presented as the list of the "most powerful womens" made by and edited © by forbes, and that WK can't pretend diffusing here a random listing or a self made listing. You may decide to write these names down in that specific order, but not for this purpose. Your list above of is indeed not © because it is explicitely yours.84.185.71.18 (talk)

Copyright issue- January 2016[edit]

There appears to be a confusion as to whether this list falls under fair use. The consensus on other Forbes lists talk pages seems to be that having a part of the list (usually the top 10) falls under fair use, while publishing the entire list does not. Therefore, I suggest that someone edit down each of the respective years lists to only the top 10 to make sure that this falls under fair use.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no confusion: it doesn't. The tables have been removed here as copyright violations, with very clear edit summaries to that effect. Please read WP:Copyright in lists. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the list so that it shows top-10 only. Please don't restore the larger list any more, as it's copyright material. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is a PORTION of the list not copyright material and how is copyright not being violated when the article contains references and links back to the original lists and articles? This article is from top to bottom an effort to make lists that are nothing but political popularity posters and that are invariably loaded with left-wing "celebrities" from every occupation, industry, social class etc and can't possibly be considered neutral, unbiased or subjective. And the lists themselves are meaningless. Can you QUANTIFY how one of these women is MORE POWERFUL or LESS POWERFUL than another or explain how their power level changes from year to year? No. You can't. Its political garbage and its absolutely 100% a "consensus" created by a group of people who are pushing their OPINIONS. Nothing in the article is factual or encyclopedic or scientific or even academically useful. Not to mention like EVERYTHING on Wikipedia, it already exists on the internet, and anyone wanting to learn about it will PROBABLY go right to the SOURCE rather than a second party or third party rehash. The whole article could be deleted and Wikipedia would be improved much more compliant with its own "policies".68.234.100.60 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright. It is the extent of the "taking". Linking or referring does not generally infringe copyright (but see The Shetland News). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Most Powerful WOMEN?[edit]

If anybody knowledgeable about the feminist movement(s) and well-educated about things like patriarchy, rape culture, the oppression and victimization of women and other violations of women's rights, which are HUMAN rights, could put together a section for this article explaining how there can be any such things as a powerful woman period, much less one or women powerful enough to influence the world and justify a major effort to select and publish a list of the MOST POWERFUL WOMEN WORLDWIDE, I think that would do a lot to legitimize this article, the subject of it and the feminist movement in general. In fact, I think that the absence OF such an explanation makes the article completely illegitimate. It's subject matter is certainly of questionable importance, since its certainly not through a consensus of women and men world wide chosen at random or representative of the general population polled and surveyed scientifically that the lists are created. And any polls or surveys of any group of men and women, when a group would have to include both men and women since the "power" the women on the list have would affect EVERYBODY, where the number of women and men is equal and their opinions are equally weighted and count equally, would result in an ELECTION rather than a "consensus". And if someone has to be "elected" to a list to be on a list of "powerful" people, are they really that powerful? Plenty of issues here need to be discussed or else the whole article looks like a political exercise as much as the lists it it contains.10:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk)

The article is about the Forbes list, not an endorsement of it. If you can find WP:Reliable sources that discuss the shortcomings of the list, then a summary of such commentary can be included. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula von der Leyen,[edit]

Forbes magazine has reported the country/ territory of Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, as Belgium. But she is currently a German politician. Could someone confirm her nationality?(Angunnu (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

She is german 193.205.81.7 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags: indicate what?[edit]

I'm hesitant to undo the EU-flag that someone just added to that of GER for von der Leyen (though 2023 only), since:

  1. What exactly all the flags are indicating or ought to represent?
    • Origin or current citizenship? → Germany
    • The "location" that is actually listed by Forbes? → Belgium
    • Sphere of its power? → EU
  2. Hence, should it always be a single flag?

David Schopenhauer (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forbes_list_of_the_World%27s_100_Most_Powerful_Women&oldid=1202080609"