Talk:Charlie Munger

Comments

Munger would not have earned a J.D. in 1948, as the article states. He would have earned an LL.B. It was not until 1970 that most major law schools switched to calling the basic "undergraduate" law degree a J.D. What happened surely was that Munger was offered the opportunity to change the name of his degree later, or the change was made for him when most law schools went to offering J.D.s in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The article includes this quote: "Good businesses are ethical businesses. A business model that relies on trickery is doomed to fail."[6] But if you go to the article it references, you will find it is not a direct quote. It should be paraphrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.54.91 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm mistaken about this, but I believe that the picture of Charlie Munger in the main article may actually be a picture of Warren Buffett himself.

Charlie appears to be a more,,,,.,/,/ / / / /

portly gentleman, from other pictures that I've seen.

I do see how a mistake can be made, however: if one does a Google image search for Charlie Munger, the search returns many images of Warren Buffett.

Again, sorry if I'm incorrect about this.

---Tom Nally

I'm pretty sure that's not warren buffett. They look pretty similar, but Buffett's got a much less "neutral" appearance.

---Dave Munger (no relation, dammit)

See this picture of Warren Buffet from Forbes... [1]

...compare it to this picture of Charlie Munger from money.cnn.com... [2]

Wikipedia's picture of Charlie Munger looks more like Warren Buffet to me.

---Tom Nally

On the other hand, here is an apparent picture of Charlie Munger in which he looks substantially more like Wikipedia's picture of Munger... [3] So, I'm officially confused. ---Tom Nally

The last two links above are indeed Charlie Munger. They are from two different periods, and he is a long time, so he might look a little different but those are both him. The Forbes link is not Munger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowthenews (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I watched many videos of Charlie Munger at YouTube and his words " I do not follow the details of certain banks" were great as it pushed me to follow the details of many banks create website and spread and discover the world of banks. Bezos26 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Drivel

Munger's Effect and philosophy are silly drivel and should not be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.17.133 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1976

It is not clear what happened to Wheeler, Munger in 1973, 1974 and 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.17.133 (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Origin

I don't know which language the name "Munger" is in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.87.185 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a place in India with this name, but there seems to be no connection between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Signature of Charlie Munger

Since there is no general agreement according to Wikipedia and the uploading of signatures of living people, then why are you (Pinkbeast) reverting my edits on Charlie Munger's page? That is his signature. I have backed it up with a source even to prove its authenticity. And if there is no general agreement, why are you reverting it? The page did state that if the person themselves uploaded or a reliable secondary source, then it can be up there. I added his signature because his partner, Warren Buffett, has his signature uploaded, minus well have Charlie's there as well. I did it for the betterment of Wikipedia and you are reverting my edits. And if there is no "consensus", it should be allowed. Aviartm (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The person themselves has not uploaded it, nor has a reliable secondary source - you are not one. There is only any consensus for signatures of living people where those signatures are already well known, such as Obama's. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Define "well-known" because that is highly subjective. In the Business World, Munger is very well known. Yeah, many people known who Obama is, but I promise you less than 1% of them know and have seen his signature. In addition, I do own a book that he has signed and even shown you, directly @Pinkbeast, his signature from another piece of art that was signed by him to prove the authenticity of my image and you still deem it "inadequate". Aviartm (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The question is whether Munger's signature, specifically, is well-known. Presidents' signatures appear on documents images of which are then extremely widely distributed. Obama cannot possibly feel that his signature is a private matter which he would prefer not to have appear on Wikipedia lest people start passing bogus cheques with it on - it's already out there, anyone in the world can readily obtain a copy of it if they please. Munger's is not in even remotely the same way. This is, of course, one of the concerns discussed at WP:BLPSIGN. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but you are comparing a former President of the United States to a Billionaire Businessman. I see your point. Yes, those documents can be splattered all over the place, but still, less than 1% of the people that known that Obama exist know what his signature looks like. Munger's signature is on all sorts of books and media. Minus well add it. It is not private, because if it was, he would not be charging more for his signature to be on books that he signed. Aviartm (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This figure of "less than 1%" is one that you have simply made up, while ignoring everything written in WP:BLPSIGN. As with your overlinking, vandalism, and copyright violation, just because you feel we "minus" (sic) as well do something isn't actually a reason to do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is made up but surely very true if you thought it about it thoroughly. Go do a questionnaire if you really wanted to since you do not take my word. Then again, WP:BLPSIGN, deliberately states that there is "no consensus to reproduce signatures in Wikipedia articles". So, it is really up to the Wikipedia users. It does state secondary sources, which I have proved, yet you still detest my efforts. Aviartm (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No, actually, things you have made up don't become proven just because you'd like them to be so.

"There's no consensus to do this, so I'm going to do it" makes no sense. Do things there _is_ consensus to do.

Please look up what is actually meant by a reliable secondary source. You copying it out of a book isn't one. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I never deemed it to be so unless I have evidence to back up my claim, which I do. You seem to have a strong trust issue. And this "copying it out of a book" is a legitimate source. It is his own almanac. Signed and everything and you still cannot comprehend it. And, I have done the research for secondary sources and that is difficult to use for a signature. I am no Charlie Munger historian but I am a follower of his. I own his book. I physically see his signature in my book. I bought it from his own website. I bet I could give you the receipt of the purchase and you will still deem it "inappropriate". Since, I do not know how you would reliably use a second source. Technically speaking, I am one. The source that I even provided is one. Do I even have to contact his company to show the legitimacy of it because of your reluctance? Aviartm (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. That it _is_ his signature is not in dispute. The question is whether it, as the signature of a living person, should be included; that is discouraged where it does not appear in reliable secondary sources. This signature does not; hence it should not be included. It's really as simple as that. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Ok. Then what would be a reliable secondary source? Aviartm (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. No, you're not it. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That still does not really help. The signature comes from his own book, which he authored and everything. How is that not reliable? Aviartm (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a secondary source. You seem to be getting back onto insisting that it _is_ his signature, which again, is not in dispute. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that. I am now asking what is a "reliable secondary source' which is appropriate for signatures? Because when I added Bill Ackman's signature, who also isn't very prevalent in very general terms, the source behind the image was a website which he donated to the organization. Aviartm (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bluntly, finding one is your problem, not mine. In all probability there isn't one. Thanks for the reminder re Bill Ackman; I have removed it there for the same reason. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty messed up. We even discussed about this and you lost that dispute. Again, if there is no "general consensus" for signatures, then I could technically as easily revert yours. I even had a source. It was Bill Ackman himself who wrote the letter and added his signature to the website. Aviartm (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No, we didn't discuss it; that's not true. Once again, don't do things there is no consensus to do, like vandalism and uploading copyvio to Commons. Do things there is a consensus to do. You seem once again to be confusing the idea that the signature may not be legit (which is not in dispute) with the idea that it's not appropriate to include it (which it's not). Pinkbeast (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we did dispute. I remember so. And if there is no *GENERAL* consensus, if my actions are rendered redundant, shouldn't yours be too? Again, the key word is general. Aviartm (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to produce a link to this nonexistent dispute. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ackman_Bill_Signature_300dpi-1.png "Nonexistent". Aviartm (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite. Nonexistent. That is not a discussion between us, and it is not about whether that image is appropriate to be added to the page; it is a deletion request on Wikimedia Commons for one of your very few uploads there that turned out not to be copyvio. I was quite correct to say we didn't discuss this before. You are confusing the question as to whether it's copyvio (which it turns out not to be) with whether it's appropriate to add to the page - not that we have discussed or disputed either of these issues beforehand, but you are linking to what you incorrectly suppose is the former when the question at hand is the latter. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should remind you of the discussion here where you are completely convinced you added 3 citations even when I show you a diff which shows that is not true, and then you embark on a tangent where you call me "moronic" while spitting out a positively Trumpesque "Very quite sad". You are manifestly not competent to remember or refer to previous discussions - unsurprising for a vandal. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• When you resort to pity drivel between me and you and bring up redundant occurrences when I prove you wrong.* And, if I am not "competent" to bring up previous discussions and dispute, why did I just do it? Your rebuttal is quite the weakest that I have witnessed. Seems like if I declare nonexistent edits as my own, then you declare "nonexistent" interactions which very much so exist. I have already apologized about my behavior and my mistaking(s). This is highly redundant to bring up and inappropriate for the talk page. The purpose of my proposal to add his signature is the matter at hand, not this unnecessary drivel back then. You have also resorted to neglect my questions which still need to be answered. In my stance, this is a slippery slope because it is difficult to pinpoint reliable secondary sources for signatures, in the meanwhile deeming it whether the person is "popular" or not, even though the vast majority of popular individuals today, their followers or fans do not even know what their signatures look like. In short, cannot back up a signature because of a lack of discretion on what reliable secondary sources and no *GENERAL* consensus for signatures. In conclusion, the signature should be on Charlie Munger's page. Aviartm (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of that is too incoherent to reply to. You might try rewriting it in English. I do recommend you not do things you are manifestly not competent to do, such as refer to previous discussions (that don't exist or that you have completely misremembered). It _is_ difficult to pinpoint reliable secondary sources for signatures, yes; that is why in general they should not be added to Wikipedia pages. When I have the time I'll seek dispute resolution over Ackman; I'm quite confident as a result the signature will be removed there as well. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What I written is coherently constructed. I never claimed that I was "manifestly competent". And you are still disbelieving that dispute? I linked it to you and you are still in-denial? Hmmm... Since, signatures are not horrible nor are they detrimental to Wikipedia. It makes the page better and gives more general information. I believe it is important that prominent individuals in any field should have their signature on their page. Obviously, some semi-pro soccer player's signature should not be on their Wikipedia, but prominent individuals that are well-known and have made a change in the world. It's not detrimental. It should just be there to show you what their signature looks like. I guarantee you that people use Wikipedia just to see what someone's signature looks like. It's unique and crafty. It helps Wikipedia more than it harms it. Aviartm (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not coherent - like many of your "grammar improvements" to pages which actually make matters worse. What you have linked to is a) not a dispute between us - I at no point reply to anything you have written - and b) not a dispute over whether a signature should be added to a page; it is a deletion request on Commons. Hence you are completely wrong to say we have discussed whether it should appear on a Wikipedia page before, because "whether a file should be on Commons" and "whether it should appear on a Wikipedia page" are two distinct questions.

Once again - as with overlinking and your other errors, your personal opinion as to what is best is not gospel. (And you may "guarantee" that but things you have made up still do not become true simply because you would like them to be). Pinkbeast (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Never said that I was the 'Holy Wikipedian'. And I am not demanding for the signature to be there. I just stated my stance on the issue. What's your stance? Signatures are not detrimental to Wikipedia. Aviartm (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Service

How was it possible for him to enter service in the United States Army Air Corps in 1943 when the Air Corps became the United States Army Airforce in 1941?

Book Recommendation on "Influence"

I've found multiple web sources saying that Charlie Munger used to gift the book "Influence" by Robert Cialdini to friends and it seems plausible reading the wikipedia article ("In the Tupperware party, you have reciprocation, consistency, and commitment tendency, and social proof.", describing principles the book is about), but all I've found are second class references (https://fs.blog/charlie-munger-recommended-books/ and https://www.twominutesummaries.com/books/influence#key-insights). Is anybody aware of where this comes from so maybe we can mention it in the main page?

I'm not sure if it fits there, but the page already talks about other books about mental models, so I don't think it would be completely out of place either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau121 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Remove current picture of Charlie Munger, and replace it with this one: "https://img-cdn.inc.com/image/upload/w_1080,ar_16:9,c_fill,g_auto,q_auto:best/images/panoramic/charlie-munger-GettyImages-1486171103_535391_jgfn3r.webp" Add text underneath: "Charlie Munger in March 1988. Photo: Bonnie Schiffman/Getty Images" Random user fromdk (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done No copyright license has been provided so it is unlikely that it would be suitable. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)