Talk:Naveen Jain/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Easy cleanup

The article needs more WP:MOSBIO work and expansion. I've provided a number of Talk:Naveen_Jain#Potential_sources_for_expansion. His education information might take some investigation to unravel: the sources we have don't completely agree, at least at a glance. Whatever we mention, if anything, about his pre-Microsoft work does not belong in Personal life and the mention of the New Jersey climate is unencyclopedic, as Science&HiTechReviewer has pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
You say that but anytime someone tries to edit anything in, you come and undue it out of various and changing reasons (Undue Weight being the one you fall too when your claims to the edit not being reliable fails), even the latest edit about his activities you tried to remove even though it was properly sourced and the only reason it is there is because someone overruled you about the undo (as was the case when I tried to edit the MS patents in, which required someone else's opinion on the validity of the "need" to put this info in). It is clear to me that you have something against this guy and that this page need to be either worked on properly (with no intervention from you) or removed because as it stand now it is definitely not a proper bio page about a person, I hope that this renewed interest might bring more unbiased editors to this page and maybe some balance can be achieved (on my part I'll try, again, to drew attention to this page as well as edit some thing in). Nightseeder(Chat). 22:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Take your baseless attacks to a proper forum, rather than disrupting this talk page with them, per WP:TALK, WP:DR, and WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede section

WP:LEDE: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic."

I tend to leave working on the lede until there's consensus on the rest of the article. I have no problem with editors taking a stab at it in the meantime, especially when we had so little there, but it's not a place for explanations or details that are not elsewhere in the article. --Ronz (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEDE as stated above is correct. The lead is now factually correct and summarizes the main points, and it even includes a comment that his "business practices are not without controversy," which is the best one can state in a summary without going into an unsubstantiated or biased pov. That sums it up, and if anyone wants to read more, they can look it up, and come to their own conclusion. Wiki is not a Court for such determinations. It is a biographical source, which presents summaries of lives and events, and conclusions if they have been legally decided. Otherwise, you get into libel issues, especially against living people.
Furthermore, one must be careful to keep in the most essential and important part of information: context. By removing proper context, you can provide a distorted account.
Examples: To only state that he was on the Forbes list with a wealth of 2.2 billion dollars.
This was a fact true at one point in time. He dropped off that list and is no longer a billionaire.
To leave off the fact that he dropped off the list, along with many other dot com billionares, leaves out the important historical context, and the Forbes article lists his drop-off along with other dot com billionaires, and does not single him out.
His affiliations with the X PRIZE and SIngularity University are significant, and do not need to be repeated elsewhere.
The statement "His business practices are not without controversy" sums up the issue with Jain, and is factually correct. Any further conclusions based on events/personalities, which are highly complex, are not the place of Wiki, and need to be avoided, unless proven in a Court of Law. Anyone who is interested can check out the references, do the due dilligence, and come to their own conclusions.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged the article as being non-neutral. I appreciate the beginnings of focusing on the source material. We now need to work on consensus-building. Asserting significance, ignoring WP:LEDE, and producing original research to summarize are not proper ways to approach issues of neutrality. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about the "non-neutrality" of source material, then that "standard" needs to be applied across the board in your judgment calls and edits. This does not appear to be the case. You will allow the negative stories to be cited, but sources that are neutral or factual, but do not have a negative slant to it are dismissed. This is why the red flag of being unbalanced has been raised with regard to your edits on this page.

The factual error associating his role as CEO, dropping of share price during the dot com bubble, as well as his replacement of CEO has now been properly corrected. He was not CEO of Infospace during the period of the stock crash. I have used as a reference the SEC public filing. In going through the articles, it appears that a good amount of blame for the troubles of Infospace during that period, were laid at the hands of their new CEO, which is why he was removed, and Jain took the reins again. You can argue all you want with the "neutrality" of the SEC document, but as it is a public filing of a public company, it needs to be accurate, and serve as source material. The swirl and controversy surrounding Infospace and the other CEO come from the very same sources you cite. As I stated elsewhere on the talk discussion, he was replaced at Infospace because they were unsettled by his forming a new competing company, Intelius. I think I read somewhere, that the intelius offices are in fact, even across the street from Infospace.

I used as cites references to the websites of the X PRIZE Foundation and Singularity University, which list him, and you can follow the links. These cites are entirely credible. My cite correcting the adjusted settlement amount, and the fact that the SEC came to his defense, is from a later article, but same news source, that you cited, i.e, the Seattle Times.

The article has been vastly improved now. Let us now leave it be.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are focusing on editors rather than content. Please stop.
We make decisions by consensus here, not by all-or-nothing application of policies and guidelines, and not by decreee and assertion. If you see a problem, discuss it, ideally referring to past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed it at length on the talk pages and elsewhere. You continually tamper with the edits. You complain that his affiliations were not to primary sources, and when I went to the trouble to cite them, you complain because they are primary sources, and not secondary sources. If one cites a primary or secondary source you immediately question it, but do not apply the same standard to your own cites. This gets tiresome. Changes are made on the basis of merit.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You've not gained consensus. Sorry that you don't like editors trying to assess sources and their proper use. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with editors. I have a problem with vandalism. That is what you are doing to this page with edits that are clearly not appropriate, and we will take this to a formal level if you don't stop. The point of having multiple editors is that factual errors, misinformation, and disinformation is corrected. When such corrections are made, and someone reverts them back to the incorrect status, and knowingly and continually does so, it becomes vandalism.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus for your viewpoints, and they are becoming more and more disruptive. Please try to focus on the content, the sources, and the relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have focused on content. That is the entire issue. I am frustrated with the constant reversions back to inaccuracy, and undoing of productive work trying to improve the overall quality of this article. I don't like nor need my time wasted.

Part of the ideal of wikipedia is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken.

That applies to you too.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in the consensus-making efforts here and follow WP:TALK if you want your perspective to be a part of our final consensus. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerns on editing

Extended content

Part of the ideal of wikipedia is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken.

Vandalism occurs when someone deliberately tries to tamper with the facts relating an historical event or profiled person. This can be done by inserting improper facts, removing important contextual information, unfair juxtapositions of unrelated events giving the false impression of cause and effect, and also by revising corrected inaccuracies and errors. Vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

The term vandalism can also be applied to the unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources. When a standard for source material is not equally applied across the board, then it becomes biased, and falls into the vandalism category, especially when such edits appear to have the impact of distributing only negative information or removing positive information (or the reverse).Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who continues to revert the article to their preferred version before getting consensus risks being blocked for WP:Edit warring. If you find that you can't reach agreement with the other editors, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Your definition of vandalism above ('unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources') is quite adventurous and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please use the term vandalism correctly, because people can be sanctioned for misusing it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Early professional life

I've split the "Personal life" section, moving it to the bottom and trimming it only to personal information. The rest I used to create an "Early professional life" section, based primarily upon the Businessweek.com profile. I didn't include the other company Businessweek mentions, UniLogic, Inc., because it doesn't have an article. I'm guessing the discrepancies between sources are due to lack of fact-checking or using company names as they where when the articles were published rather than when Jain was employeed with the various companies.

As I already pointed out, we need to get his education in. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit is fine and helps with the flow, and so finally I agree here.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice that we can make some progress. --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. I would love to have this calmed down and make some progress. This whole thing is a mess, but not the biggest on here, as I am observing a couple of other contentious profiles (one living one not), which are really stroking some emotional cords. But seriously, this guy isn't that important, and we are wasting a lot of time fuxing around with his profile, which if read now, is pretty much in keeping with other profiles on Wiki. I noticed you took out my comment about his business practices being controversial in the opening paragraph. That would have summed it up. Less can be more. However, the some of the issues here, as I am getting into this, are quite complex, and there is obviously a lot of garbage in the system, and so sorting it out is not an easy process. It doesn't take long to see that there has been an obvious cyberwar going on, behind the scenes with his detractors, and what I presume are his own efforts at search engine management. Again, we are obviously dealing with a living person, who has feelings and all the rest. And, of course, there are his detractors, who may have been hurt in some way, and also spread stuff. It's difficult, and why it is in our best interest to just stick with factual material, affiliations, etc., and not issue judgments. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to InfoSpace info

I've reverted the changes to the InfoSpace section and it's Shareholder lawsuit subsection, to the last consensus version:

We've gone through the facts very carefully. I don't know how much detail we need to go into with his positions between 2002 and 2003, but we're certainly not going state what appears to be contradictory information, that he "served as Chief Executive Officer until 2002" and "In the end of April 2003, Jain was removed as CEO."

The legal problems are complicated. We've worked hard to unravel them all (See Talk:Naveen_Jain#Proposed_Edit). If there are incorrect assumptions, interpretations, or reporting, please point out the problem and the source that justifies the changes.

We have plenty of sources that mention his personality, enough that removing all mention would be a BLP violation. Do we need to make a list of the sources and what they say?

I'm probably overlooking other important changes. Please discuss them. --Ronz (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Seattle Times article corrects the settlement amount to $65 million, and discusses the "unusual" move taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to come to his defense. That was a "fact" that was reportable, and is definitely appropriate in this case for inclusion. Furthermore, by removing such information, once again, is removing important context. The SEC wouldn't have come to his defense without reason. It shows, in the very least, the complexity of the matter, and that there was something to his defense. Appeal Court issues are tricky, as they do not relate to merit, but to technicalities of law in lower court decisions. It may be that the SEC got involved too late, i.e, at the Appeal's level, and not in the lower court level. I am not privy to the case, and so I don't know, but I do know something about the Appeals process. The case was settled for a smaller amount defined in the article, and which is why the edit was undone to reflect the correct amount.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue with the "confusing" dates with his being CEO of Infospace are admittedly that, but they can be sorted out by just reading the source material.
He was CEO of Infospace from 1996 until 2000.

There was another CEO between 2000 and 2001. When the stock price fell for Infospace, Jain was not CEO. After the fall in share price, Jain resumed his role as CEO until Dec 2002. He resigned from the Board of Directors of Infospace in April 2003.

Therefore, to link the drop in share price to his being replaced as CEO is not factually correct, and directly implies a falsehood. According to the newsarticles, he was replaced as CEO in 2002 because of starting up a competing company Intelius, not because of share price drop.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait, he started Intelius to compete with Infospace while he was CEO of Infospace? That's very surprising. --Habap (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In getting into the knickers of this, that is where the problems and some of the antipathy towards this guy appear to stem from, and there appears to be a lot of fuss about it. Naturally, others are probably upset because they lost money investing in the rising star of Infospace which he founded, when the bubble burst, but lots of people lost money during this time by investing in all sorts of companies that faltered. He was by no means the only one. This wasn't DEN for example. Jay Walker of Priceline fell in worth even further than Jain. In any case, Jain wasn't CEO during the dot com crash and the fall in share price, and the juxtapositioning of previous edits led to a false conclusion. For example, I pulled this from the web:

" In April 2000, Arun Sarin resigned from Vodafone-AirTouch and took the CEO position at InfoSpace, an Internet infrastructure company based in Bellevue, Washington. As CEO Arun Sarin led the merger of InfoSpace and Go2Net, a consumer-portal company, for approximately $4 billion in a stock swap.

After an eight-month tenure at InfoSpace, Arun Sarin resigned." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Another article on this period (and one that is not favorable about Infospace) details the CEO role of Arun Sarin during this very troubled time. The reference, one of many, can be found here: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/45119Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just found the SEC filing online: http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=39251&SessionID=kXRfHqxOZWy6c27 Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010

Jain's personality

As I said, "We have plenty of sources that mention his personality, enough that removing all mention would be a BLP violation." (06:52, 31 December 2010) If no one is going to respond at all, I'll be restoring the information. If instead, someone would like to engage in consensus-building, let's begin. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The articles I saw as references the last time indicated his high energy, which I thought "manic" did not characterize properly as it has negative connotations. The sources I saw listed at that time did not mention quirks. --Habap (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. Let's look at the sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Found a link to an article that does talk about his personality as manic. --Habap (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a slight edit of Sunday Business (May 28, 2000) ref already cited, so it's no help with weight. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Shareholder lawsuit

Again, this is another episode in Jain's life that has received a great deal of press, so removal or reduction appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as a result.

Additionally, the facts are unclear, and have been discussed in great detail in the past. Ignoring the discussions and cherry-picking sources is not proper consensus-building. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the "dubious" tag to the $65mil figure. Previous discussions here and here have established consensus for $105 mil. If there's an error somewhere, no one has yet explained what it might be. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the most recent article, which you had already cited earlier as a reliable source repeatedly, and it is by the same reporters. The latest article in this series stated:

"It isn't often that the SEC weighs in on behalf of an executive accused of wrongdoing. Under that unusual pressure, attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, with the judgment against Jain slashed to $65 million."

It actually helps to read the articles you cite.

So, case closed, and I will revert your incorrect edit.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You're repeatedly removed the most recent source [1] [2], and you've ignored the discussions. There is no consensus for your edits. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not "ignored" the discussions. In fact, I quoted your own source! that stated (see above) that stated that the judgment was slashed to "$65 million."

Show me a reliable reference where it states that "after slashing the judgment to $65 million and settling the case, this was reversed back to either 105 million or some higher number. If you can't do this, then stop.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I already pointed out that you removed the sources above. Specifically it's Court turns down appeal from Infospace founder. You removed the sources and changed facts without looking at the sources?!! --Ronz (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I will have a look at this latter, as it is New Year's and need to take a break from this. Perhaps you too, but thanks. In looking quickly, however, is it possible, as it is mentioned that there were two shareholder suits against him. If so, then this should be clarified in the section and perhaps expanded upon. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This source is mentioned in both previous, linked discussions. Clearly then the information should never have been changed, much less edit-warred over. I've restored the merged version, tagged it, and restored the $105 mil figure while we work on this dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I admit that there is a dispute here.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CEO

I think we're making some good progress on details of his position at InfoSpace. We should probably just provide a full timeline within the article - provide the positions and brief context, being careful to avoid undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards

The new version of the InfoSpace section states that he received "many" awards, though the only one we've seen evidence of this far is the Albert Einstein Award. What are the "many" other awards? --Habap (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is strongly against mention of the Einstein award (See Talk:Naveen_Jain#Technology_pioneer) Looks like more copying from Intelius press releases - always a problem here and why we need to be careful in our assessment of sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus against listing this award. See the discussion about this elsewhere.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

All sources are contested, and no better ones have been offered to address the concerns given. That's strong consensus against. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
S&HTR, check WP:Consensus for what we mean by consensus. It doesn't mean that absolutely everyone agrees. Currently, you seem to be the only one who disagrees. --Habap (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Net worth in lede

His net worth peak of $2.2b and subsequent drop shouldn't be mentioned in the lede if it does not appear elsewhere in the article. See Wikipedia:Lede#Relative emphasis. Perhaps it should simply mention in the lede that he was once listed among the 400 richest Americans by Forbes and leave both the Entreprenuer and specifics of his ranking to a subsection. --Habap (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The lede is full of inappropriate information, which I tried to remove then tag. I'll be restoring all the tags, as it is real vandalism to remove them without properly addressing the problems. Hopefully, we won't have to block anyone for such disruption. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Big cleanup after all the disruption

I've made a large number of edits [3] to the lede, "InfoSpace," and "Shareholder lawsuit," sections; and removed "Philanthropic Activities" completely. I tried to get back something where we had clear consensus, while trying to keep non-controversial and uncontested changes. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Where are we with disputes?

The lede needs work. Again, I'm one for leaving it for last...

We need to continue working on the concerns with his personality as reported during his InfoSpace days.

I'd like to continue working on his philanthropy, and expect others will as well.

What else do editors want to continue working on? --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Herring

Did Red Herring exist in 1999? Does it actually exist now, or is it part of the experiment? It seems that nothing has been posted on that "News" site since 15 November 2010. There is also some duplication at http://www.nicetrends.com/tags/finance

So, is it really a Red herring? --Habap (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was only a red herring prior to May 1993, and briefly in 2003. The rest of the time it is simply Red Herring. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, missed it on the disambiguation page. Ooops. --Habap (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll take simple mistakes to lighten the mood any day. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Intelius settlement

While I was against any mention of the $1.3 million settlement based upon this reference, other sources have more detailed coverage of Jain's involvement [4] [5]. While I'm still against including it with these new sources, it might be worth discussing. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO this definitely should not be here since it is about Inteliuse and not about Jain, especially since being sued and later settling instead of going through a prolong legal process is a common accurance (regardless of validity of the suing) with businesses since it ends up costing less (and bottom line is what usually matters for businesses). --Nightseeder (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We agree. What I'd like to hear from others is at what point do we include it? The new sources above have more coverage of Jain than the one I rejected. If someone finds sources with still further coverage of Jain in the context of the lawsuit and settlement, then a good case could be made for including it. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from reading the article, this has nothing to do with this person's biography. Since the decision was made by this editor to not include it already, why is it being discussed? Or is it just a method to load this information into the talk page since it doesn't fit in the article? "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." WP:BLPTALK ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting a list of refs. Given the amount of coverage and attention this brought Jain, it should be mentioned. It's far more prominent than what was written about him while at Microsoft. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we might be through with this, but here's another ref: --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just a reprint of the Hicks article above. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources for expansion

Starting a list... --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Katz, Marty (February 13, 1997). "Microsoft Deserters Bet Web Is a Cash Machine". The New York Times.
  • "Hoover's kills copyright injunction". CNET News. April 14, 1997.
  • Devasahayam, Madona (June 28, 1999). "Starting a Company Is Like Having Sex". Rediff On The NeT.
  • Gimein, Mark (March 20, 2000). "To Cash Out? Or Not To Cash Out? That's the dilemma facing CEOs of hot dot-coms. Some don't worry about it". Fortune.
  • Streitfeld, David (May 1, 2000). "Bill Gates's Executive Style Inspires a Cult Following; Tech Firms Adopt Microsoft's Winning Ways". The Washington Post.
  • Greene, Jay (May 24, 2000). "Naveen Jain: His Portal Packages Are Going Unplugged". BusinessWeek.
  • Welles, Edward (July 1, 2001). "Options, Equity, Rancor". Inc.
    This article mentions an Upside article published two years earlier and an eCompany Now article from December 2000. --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Gimein, Mark (September 2, 2002). "You Bought. They Sold". Fortune.
  • Atal, Maha; Thai, Kim (November 02, 2009). "Where are they now? Naveen Jain". Fortune. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Naveen Jain". Free Encyclopedia of Ecommerce.
    Probably most useful for its list of references. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Executive Profile:Naveen Jain". BusinessWeek.

Here are some more: --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources for expanding and cleaning this article

This Article really needs to be rewritten. Here are lots of credible and reliable sources that we should use to rewrite this article.

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2002
  • Jain, Naveen. Gale Encyclopedia of E-Commerce. 2002. Retrieved January 04, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com.
    Useful for info up to the boom. Shows the perception of what was going on at InfoSpace before the actual facts became well-known. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Naveen Jain". Free Encyclopedia of Ecommerce.
    Mentioned above (17:15, 17 August 2010). After looking at it further, I'm not as sure we can do much with the references it uses. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    This appears to be a copyright violation from the Gale Encyclopedia of E-Commerce. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
2006
2008
2009
2010
No date
  • Another version of the old Google profile. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Other

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some are press releases and the like. Could you number them and provide citation information as in Talk:Naveen_Jain#Potential_sources_for_expansion so they're easier to assess? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Source of the above list?

I notice that with this edit and this one, User:Wiki-expert-edit has signed the list posted by User:70.103.74.8, an IP address registered to INTELIUS.COM, founded by Naveen Jain. Wiki-expert-edit, was that a mistake, or do you also edit Wikipedia as 70.103.74.8? If so, you should declare your conflict of interest here on this page so that it's known to others editing the article. --CliffC (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that it is well established that User:Wiki-expert-edit is COI, but he does seem to be acting appropriately at this moment by engaging the editors on his talk page and not editing directly. Lets hope that it will remain this way.Nightseeder(Chat). 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
When assessing the list, we should be aware it may be biased because of the source.
Wiki-expert-edit doesn't have to declare his interest, but he needs to follow WP:COI far better than he has in the past. --Ronz (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fairness in looking at sources for contribution to this Article

Off-topic discussion

RonZ has very biased view of what sources he thinks are reliable. For example, he is fine with press release by Freei which has nothing to do with Mr. Jain to be used as valid reference. His also has some interesting way to interpret the information t suit his views. The source refers to investment by Infospace in Freei but he easily makes it to mean that investment was made by Mr. jain. How does one get to that conclusion. Why is it even important to list that he was on the board of Freei when there is no source to even provide evidence to it.

Additionally, He has issues with listing patents by Mr. jain even though they are granted and listed in the official web site for Patent and Trademark office. He considers it as a primary source rather than the official source of the information.

Similarly, RonZ has consistently deleted information about Mr. jain's other board positions. Another editor mentioned that he is on the board of Singularity University and provided the reference from official website of singularity University web site listing him as such. Who would know better than the organization whether Mr. jain is on their board or not. Similarly, another editor pointed out that Mr. jain is also a Co-Chairman of education and global development at xprize foundation and provided a reference to the official website of xprize foundation. several other editors provided other examples of Mr. jain being on the board of Flow Mobile and coastal Aviation Software with the reference to official website to these organizations. RonZ continues to discount all of these sources because it doesn't fit well with his views of Mr. jain.

i am worried that wikipedia is now becoming a place for virtual mob lynching by few people who work together to discount other editors opinion by lynching them as a group.

Let's bring back the vision of wikipedia as a democratic source of information rather than few people trying to control the information on the weebsite by acting as a group aka mafia members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.124.18 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was focused on the content and provided very specific examples. Please respond to the content and not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.124.18 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent the last hour reviewing the discussion and revision historry and I agree with unsigned editor above that RonZ has very biased view of Mr. jain. RonZ has overpowered all editors in the past and used his friends to neutralize any view that's contrarary to his personal belief. I think wikipedia processs seems to have broken down in this particular case. My suggestion is to disallow RonZ from editing or making ccomments on this page so other editors can help in improving the quality of this and other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.166.194 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please find an appropriate venue for your comments per WP:DR. This is for discussions on improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede

We've expanded the lede from

Naveen K. Jain is a business executive and an entrepreneur, founder of InfoSpace and Intelius.

to

Naveen K. Jain (born 6 September 1959) is a business executive and entrepreneur. He is the founder of InfoSpace and Intelius. During the Dot-com bubble in 2000, Jain was ranked number 141 on their list of 400 Richest Americans with a net worth of 2.2 billion dollars.

More on his time at InfoSpace seems appropriate for the lede and article, given the huge amount of press. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RonZ, you just deleted the information from Lede about Mr. jain being top 100 entreprenueur because you couldn't find more than one source to verify the information. I am okay with it. What I don't understand is why do you leave the sentence "While on appeal in 2005, Jain settled the case for $105 million, while denying liability." in the article. One of the reference (#13) has a amount of 83 million settlement and the dispute is not just with Mr. Jain but several officers and insurance companies. Why not use the same standard as Lede and delete this whole section until we can find other sources that can confirm the same information. Would you agree to deleting the section until all the facts are clear. i know you think they are clear because they are in one source that you personally like even though all other sources seem to dispute this information including the sources quoted in the article (see #13). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.166.194 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the top 100 information because 1) I couldn't find a reference for it at all, and 2) the lede section is for summarizing the most important aspects of an article.
If you'll review this talk page, you'll see multiple, detailed discussions on the lawsuit. The most recent is here. You'll note we have multiple sources as well. Editors regularly try to remove information and sources on the topic. I do my best to restore the information and sources to a neutral state. Did I miss something that last time I cleaned up? --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RonZ, I hope you will keep an open mind to this section. There are 3 references to the sentence ""While on appeal in 2005, Jain settled the case for $105 million, while denying liability." Here is reference # 11 in the article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002200298_dotcon3mainsec08.html). This reference says that the case was settled for 65 Million. Reference #12 has no mention of any amount and I already quoted above reference #13 which says that it was settled for 83 Milion and the dispute was with several officers of the company and not with M. Jain alone and insurance comapanies paid for the part of the dispute. Would you mind reading these sources again and agree to possible deleltion of this section until we have all the facts.

Similarly, I still don't see anywhere in reference 15 and reference 16 in the article that mentions that Mr. jain invested 5 Mllion on FreeI. There also seem to be no otherr source to even verify that Mr. jain was on Freei board.

Would you agree to removing these unsourced and unconfirmed information from the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.166.194 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on one item at a time, and focus on content. See WP:DR and WP:TALK for more details. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I simply meant to ask you to keep an open mind (i have corrected my wording above). can you please repsond to the comment above on Shareholder lawsuit and freei. Do you agree with my previous comment on settlemt amount and freei? 207.41.166.194 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's break up the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More on shareholder lawsuit

The past discussions are pretty clear, as is ref #12, which seems to get overlooked or removed: The Seattle Times, 9 March 2009. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

what about reference #11 and #13 which cleary contradict the amount and the parties to the dispute. Let's not just pick and chose the reference to make a point.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Those were previously published. As the previous discussions here show, it did get complicated. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RonZ, I was going through the clean up you made after the last issue with one of the editor and I noticed that "shareholder lawsuit" was never a separate section before the clean up. You can verify its "non-existence" by going back to the copy before your dispute with "Science&HiTechReviewer". Would you be open to removing the shareholder lawsuit as a separate section just like it was at the time of last consensus. 207.41.166.194 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a separate section until it was removed 31 December 2010. Given the amount of attention it received, it could be easily expanded as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever a separate section for this. I verified it again and you should go back and verify it. Additionally, the seattle times article was just an opinion of one biased reporter and no other newspaper ever covered the sotry because it lacked any credibility. The tone of the article was full of venom to have any independence and credibility.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've proven with a diff that the section did exist, correct?
If you're going to overlook facts and dismiss reliable sources, then our discussion is at an end. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the last version as of December 1st http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naveen_Jain&oldid=399902606. Please review it. As you can see someone created Philantropic activities and shareholder lawsuit section on Decemberr 22nd and soon after there were lots of changes and undoes etc. You undid the Philantropic section but kept the separate shareholder lawsuit section. Do you agree? should we remove the shareholder lawsuit section?
207.41.166.194 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we in agreement that both sections "philanthropic activities" and "shareholder lawsuit" were created on December 22nd. You removed one of them but left another. I thought our intent was to remove them both to bring it back to the original consensus.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect, the section dealing with the shareholder lawsuit had been in existence for several months. On December 21 (EST) a heading was added to that section (diff here) to distinguish it as a subset of the other InfoSpace information. Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily. --CliffC (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There are hundreds of articles about infospace and Mr. Jain. I don't think we want to add subsection for each topic.

Additionally, every company and its CEO has shareholder lawsuits. Here is an example for Jeff Bezos and Amazon. I don't see shareholder lawsuit even mentioned on Jeff bezos page. Every public company from amazon to Yahoo has had shareholder lawsuit. This is just how our society works.

Here is a link to settlement of Amazon and Jeff Bezos shareholder lawsuit. The case was settled for $27 Million. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/12/business/fi-rup12.1 Here is the second lawsuit against Amazon and Jeff Bezos. http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/8340.html?wlc=1293760507

I can provide examples for any public company that you want. I think the shareholder lawsuits belong to the company web pages and not individual CEO.

Do we all agree to remove this section? 207.41.166.194 (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with removing the section. The shareholder lawsuit happens to be one of the most notable things about Mr. Jain. Removing it would be inappropriate. --Habap (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you agree that we should add a shareholder lawsuit section to every public company CEO page so we follow the same guidelines? I still think that shareholder lawsuit should stay but should be moved to infospace wiki page. Can we agree to that? If not, why not?
207.41.166.194 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, where such lawsuits are notable, it should be added. It should not be removed from his page, but I have added it to the InfoSpace page, since it is relevant there as well. --Habap (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we should not be duplicating the content. we should remove this section and add a line under infospace to link to this content on infospace page. Here is what I propose. "Mr. Jain as a CEO of infospace was involved in a "shareholder lawsuit". We can link this to infospace wiki page. Do we have an agreement on this?
207.41.166.194 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, because the suit was filed against Mr Jain and he paid money out in the settlement. It shouldn't be removed to avoid duplication, as we aren't worried about space. Information should be included where it is relevant and left off where it is not. --Habap (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you read reference #13 in the article. The money was paid by the insurance company just like in all class action lawsuits such as Amazon that I quoted above. Did you read those articles? There is still a dispute on the parties involved and the amount of settlement (see reference #13 says 83 Million and Reference # 11 says 65 Million and we use 105 Million) as I keep mentioning but that seem to be keep getting ignored. Why is this not an issue and why should we not delete the mention of amount and parties to avoid providing misinformation.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Two more sources verifying $105 million:

--Ronz (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 207, let's look at the dates on the sources and the dollar amounts:
  • InfoSpace press release hosted by the SEC, December 22, 2004: $83 million (#13 in the article, but published first)
  • Seattle Times "Dot-con Job" investigation, March 6-8, 2005: $65 million (#11)
  • Seattle Times "Court turns down appeal", March 9, 2009: $105 million (#12)
Since the $105 million is in the latest source and is backed up by two other sources that Ronz lists above, there should be no confusion about which is the most valid. --Habap (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we mention it was appealed all the way to the SCOTUS? --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think we should. --Habap (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble coming up with a clean way to include the info:
We have, "Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed."
Something like, "Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed, despite appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was refused." --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Freei

Is this just another case of us losing a reference? Let me look and see what happened. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Added 2 March 2008 --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Removed 27 July 2010 with this comment --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Restored 13 August 2010 then added/updated refs.
Yes, it looks like we never addressed investment concern, only the board membership. I've already updated the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do we need the infospace investment on Mr. Jain's wiki page. It doesn't belong herre at all. We should at least move that infospace page if you think it's really important. Additionally, I think we are devoting too much space and providing too much weight to this board position by descriving the company and creating a separate section. From the discussion above and quick Google Search, it seems like Mr. jain is on severral boards like "Singularity University", Xprize foundation, Flow Mobile, Coastal Aviation Software and many others. Ae we going to add a separate section for each of them once we verify all of these baord positions.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a general agreement that Freei section doesn't belong here and should be removed. Any objection to it. It's very superficially related to Mr. Jain if at all.
207.41.166.194 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you are the only one who thinks it should be removed. There is no consensus to remove. --Habap (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't even see relevance of this section to Mr. Jain at all but whatever. So you think we will add a section for every company that Mr. Jain has ever been on the board of. As I pointed out that he is currently on the board of 4 companies (Xprize foundation, Singularity University, Coastal Aviation Software and Flow Mobile) so we agree that we will add a section for each of them. Right?
207.41.166.194 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The references do not explain his role, so right now, I am uncertain whether it ought to be included. --Habap (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We have three independent, reliable sources that mention Jain. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reference highlights Jain's position on the board. That's enough to deserve mention, though we could be giving it undue weight. It does tie in nicely with the InfoSpace information. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Though they all mention him, it doesn't explain his involvement other than that he is on the board (and the connection to InfoSpace, leaving the personal involvement in the connection only implied and not explicit), so I do wonder if it merits any more attention than the other Board seats he has held.
Of course, all of this is tempered by wondering if we're still on the petri dish, still being examined as part of that "test". --Habap (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's not much there. Still, three independent sources is better than most of the proposed additions we get for this article. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's very obvious that this section doesn't belong here. Maybe we can add a section for board positions and list Freei and other board positions. I think the official website of the organization that he is on the board of should be the best reference for it. do we have an agreement on creating a section for board positions and list the boards?
207.41.166.194 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think listing all of his Board memberships in one section would be valid, leaving details about the companies to their own wiki pages, though keeping the refs to each (i.e. triple-ref the Freei board membership). I see no reason not to allow the actual company websites to be used for the fact that he is on their Board. If there were something editorial about his role on the Board, we'd have to go to independent sources, but simply comfirming the fact shouldn't violate WP:SPS. --Habap (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Is being on a board inherently worth mentioning despite a complete lack of independent sources? If so, how to we give the deserved weight to positions where we do have independent sources? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
He is either on the Boards or he isn't. Each company's website can be considered a reliable source about itself (see WP:SPS), such as the membership of its Board or its officers. There is nothing notable mentioned about his membership on the Board of Freei in any of those three articles, so either we include all his Board memberships or we include none of them. When I checked Bill Gates, Alan Mulally and William Clay Ford, Jr., I didn't see any of them listing Board memberships. I don't know if it's common in BLPs for executives to list their Board memberships or not. So, I'm entirely open to dropping it altogether because there is no mention of Jain's role in Freei other than that he was on the Board of a company that went bankrupt. (I suspect that's pretty common in Silicon Valley, considering how many companies have failed and how many Board members they'd each have had....) --Habap (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that board memberships usually aren't listed in articles. If we remove it, we need to be clear why. Looking closer, the Jan 2000 ref is a press release. The other two probably mentioned Jain because of the concerns at the time on how InfoSpace was going to weather the internet bubble collapse. These two independent sources contain only slight mentions of Jain, so maybe it would be best to leave it out. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So it would seem that there is a general consensus that the Freei section shouldn't be in... no?, how about someone be BOLD and remove it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.205.2 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Habap removed it. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Honors, Board Memberships, and other Accreditation

I've removed this new section [6], given the discussions above and the lack of any independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand your line of reasoning here, Partner. You're saying that since these sources all directly support the statements made (granted, primary sources, but appropriate since these are facts 'n' all), they shouldn't be in the article? And your reason is that some or all of these sites were discounted by you already? *scratches head* I must've fallen outta the saddle once too many times, since it sounds to me like you're sayin' I should just throw the WP guideline book out the window. Before'n I do that, though, how's about you and me take one more look at it? Especially WP:RS. Now don't it just sound opposite to what you said when you read those parts out loud?LinkBender (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Amigo, while we're havin' our friendly little chat here, I went ahead and put the edits back. These facts aren't contentious, defamatory, or harmful to this fella near as I can tell. 'Course, if you have some strenuous objection, this would be the venue for it.LinkBender (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying, nor what has been said on the matter. Have you reviewed the past discussions, and the relevant policies brought up in those discussions? The overruling policy here is WP:BLP. The problem with self-published sources in this context are WP:SELFPUB items #1, #2, and #5. See WP:BLPSPS for why we don't use self-published sources in BLPs.--Ronz (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed all that discussion. Whew boy was that some excitin' readin'! Ace-high! I'm still balled-up though. These are primary sources that support facts. Near as I can tell, these ain't published or controlled by this fella. What am I missin' here, Buckaroo?LinkBender (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess you're missing everything. I'll remove it per BLP while we discuss further, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

References below: --Ronz (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. Singularity University, List of Trustees
    Noted above (17:27, 11 January 2011), this is an earlier version of Jain's Google profile. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Xprize, Education & Global Development Prize Group
    This is an interesting little profile, with information I don't recall seeing elsewhere. It might be worthwhile to see if we can find independent, reliable sources for the material there. --Ronz (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Overlake Service League, 2009 Step Up to the Plate Honorary Chairs, Naveen and Anu Jain
    Noted above (23:55, 7 January 2011), this is not a reliable source. Like the Singularity ref, it is directly from a profile of Jain by Intelius. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. dBusinessNews, Finalists for the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award Announced in the Pacific Northwest
    This is a press release. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. The Free Library, Pacific Northwest Entrepreneurs Honored; 1999 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award Recipients Announced at June 24 Gala
    This is a press release. --Ronz (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Friend, I've asked you nice to not take it out while we're talking about it. This material ain't contentious. It makes claims supported by these organizations and sites and so on and so forth. All very legal and legit. Why do you want it gone so bad? Oh yeah, you mentioned these BLP points. So let's have a look at those. #1 It ain't a self serving claim, it's a pure supported statement. #2 The only claims made about these 3rd parties are supported by said 3rd parties. #3 The article ain't based on said resources. I welcome a thorough discourse if you've got some more BLP issues?LinkBender (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Press releases from organizations about themselves is a primary source, Compadre. Or you disagree on principle?LinkBender (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
All the claims are self-serving, and self-promoting. See WP:SOAP.
All the claims are self-published, so we've a section based entirely upon self-published sources. See WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how these claims are self-serving to the sources cited. I fail to see how this fella has published these sites and pages. If you have that kinda info, reveal it, Partner! Seems like you got an itch you can't help but scratch here. No offense, Amigo.LinkBender (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can help you see further. Without independent, reliable sources, the information doesn't belong. In the case of board memberships and the like, past consensus is that not only do we need independent, reliable sources, but we need at least one source that mentions something notable about that role. --Ronz (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Tell ya what, Kimosabe. If'n you feel so strongly that this material's violatin' BLP, go ahead and pull it. I won't argue with ya on it fer now. But I do reserve the right to continue our friendly chit-chat as I'm not sure we've had a full-on meetin' of the minds yet. How can we build consensus without full-on mind meetin'? *tips hat* LinkBender (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like another editor stepped in. I've asked for him to comment here. --Ronz (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ronz that this information doesn't belong. It is unduly self-serving information from self-published sources. Is this yet another test? --Habap (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with Ronz and Habap. If there are no reliable sources, it doesn't meet our verifiability standards. Even if it is verifiable, it's not significant. If there are better sources for this information, please provide them. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags?

Is there any opposition to my removing some of the tags on this article? Not much has happened in a long time, and I think (but can't be sure) that the issues have been addressed? If not, what needs to be done here?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this article need to be expanded a bit, especially on the person itself (as oppose to is occupation), as well as some fact finding in regard to conflicting resources.--Elderbree TM (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
NPOV and COI most certainly belong, and RefImprove is tied to them. See article history and past discussions. I'd like an experienced biography editor to work on the article before we remove the LikeResume and Cleanup tags. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Has this fella tried to edit his page since February of 2010? If not, wouldn't that suggest he's got the message and make the COI tag unnecessary? LinkBender (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed source

Hi, Just found this article out and though it might be a good source to drew from, I'll see if I can extend the article a bit using this source if no one objects to it.--Elderbree TM (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The source I've found says (and I quote) "In 1983, Burroughs accepted him for a business exchange program in New Jersey and in 1989, he was hired by Microsoft, where he later worked on the Windows NT and Windows 95 operating systems and was on the management team that launched the Microsoft Network.", that seems to conflict with the Early Professional Background section stating he left India in 1979 . Thoughts?--Elderbree TM (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's an interview. Without better sources, it should be used sparingly if at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm re-looking at the article and it doesn't look like an interview to me?!, while there are quotes from Jain, it is expected as he is the subject of the article, and I have avoided using anything that was a quote from him and only used statements made by the article writer, Richard Springer.--Elderbree TM (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"But all that the serial entrepreneur wanted to talk about while being interviewed here by India-West on the sidelines of the Economist conference (I-W, April 8), was h is philanthropic work" --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, missed that. Though that doesn't make the writer's statements less valid, just enforces the need get other sources for the quotes before using them (which I have not used anyway) so it shouldn't effect this source as a reference to the edits I used it for.--Elderbree TM (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
All I see here is more of Ronz' strange reasoning that anything that might reflect well on the man must be excluded. The idea that we can't use this because it is an interview of Jain is - to be blunt - ludicrous.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking for a better source, rather than one where the interviewer comments on how Jain only wanted to talk about his philanthropic work. Sorry that some editors have difficulties in assessing sources with BLP in mind. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a perfectly good source. You've raised no policy-based objections to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose Edit - Other Positions and Achievements section

I propose editing in to the article an "Other Positions and Achievements" section to list Jain's awards and recognitions as well as other positions Jain hold.

The source I provided says that Jain is part of several boards and that the Times Group has awarded Jain the “Light of India Business Leadership Award” for “visionary entrepreneurship”.

Is there a reason why it should not be included?--Elderbree TM (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Good day. If you take a gander at the section called "Honors, Board Memberships, and other Accreditation", you'll see some of this information was edited by yours' truly previously. It was removed because some other fellas called it BLP violatin' material. I couldn't follow their line of reasonin', no how. Seems like facts to me. Still makes me scratch my head if I think on it too hard. I finally just gave up on it and figured I was doin' it wrong or somethin'. LinkBender (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would try to edit it back in and see if it is still objectionable, but I think proper decorum calls for me to wait for the person that reverted said edit to give the reason for the revert.--Elderbree TM (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As discussed before, we need better sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The source I used is independent and should be OK I would think... no?--Elderbree TM (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the discussion above about the source, see discussions at Talk:Naveen_Jain#Honors.2C_Board_Memberships.2C_and_other_Accreditation. In general, such trivia isn't worth mention, especially when we've reduced his most notable experiences to a few sentences. See WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
As I disagree with the fact that the source is not usable (remember I'm not using any quotes from it, only facts stated by the article writer, which presumably like any other news source has verified those statements before putting them down to paper (so to speak)). And also I don't think it is a trivial matter that a person has won an award or is a member of a board when you right an article about said person. so I will try the WP:CONSBUILD I read and see all the participating editors opinions on the matter :).

Proposal

There should be a mention of Awards and other less prominent positions held by the article's subject [Jain]| so I propose the following edit to be added to the article

Other Positions and Achievements

Jain is part of several boards focusing on Science, Technology and Education, amongst them the X Prize Foundation, Singularity University, and Kairos Society.

On April 25th, the Times Group has awarded Jain the “Light of India Business Leadership Award” for “visionary entrepreneurship”.

Elderbree TM (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:VOTE. Anyone have reasoning based upon policies/guidelines? --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's one: WP:BLP. You can't have a biography that cherry picks negative information and then wikilawyer to keep out positive information. There is absolutely no dispute that the awards and less prominent positions are real, there's only some (fanciful, in my view) dispute about whether they are notable or not. I'm not persuaded.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
But what we have here is just the opposite. SPA editors ignoring the weight of sources, cherry picking information from poor sources and presenting it in a way that doesn't present the weight of the individual sources or the sources overall. It's the reason this article has been semi-protected since Jan 2010. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Such as an editor that edits charged words and phrases back into an article for negativity rather than neutrality and clarity? "Dot-com bubble" in the lede; "Shareholder lawsuit" as a title for a section of three lawsuits, the inclusion of specific lawsuits at all being unclear as to the value in a biography; "short swing insider trading" in a section to suggest this fella was some sorta crook. Or the inclusion of dubious references for the sole purpose of stacking more negativity onto this page? Is that the sorta weight-ignoring cherry-picking from poor sources you mean? 'Cause I'm scratchin' my head here now that I'm seein' a pattern of edits. LinkBender (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The information you personally object is well-sourced. It's such personal objections that are the problem here. Thanks for the example. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Terms like "Dot-com bubble" and "short swing insider trading" are plain English, the use of which is highly encouraged 'round these parts. --CliffC (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've read my words over and over and I can't find a personal objection in there anywhere. Just pointin' out some powerful words that seem to find themselves in this fella's article over and over and over, whether they are plain English or not, they are charged. That's my whole point, nothin' further. Much obliged for the clarification.
What y'all have done, though is lose sight of Mr Wales' point about "wikilawyer to keep out positive information" and "cherry picks negative information". Seems like that issue needs to be tended to, don't it? 'Less, of course, you're sayin' that's "highly encouraged 'round these parts" too? LinkBender (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Considering Jimbo Wales response I would think that it is appropriate to put this edit in. So I'm going to edit the article to reflect that.--Elderbree TM (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering the relevant policies, guidelines, and discussions; no. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, please go read WP:OWN. Elderbree, this is not Ronz's decision. I would add it myself, but I'd rather let you do it. Please do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Go read WP:BLP, WP:FOC, and WP:AVOIDYOU. --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could simply focus on policies and details of past discussions. Looks like it's too much to ask with this round of editors...
If editors would rather focus on other editors, then let me point you to WP:DUCK. Granted, the latest round of WP:SPA accounts here haven't demonstrated any obvious WP:COI, but they're still acting to whitewash this article as has been done since this article was first created. They're still trying to remove sources and sourced information. Still trying to highlight trivial or poorly source information, while de-emphasizing information that they personally do not like. Still trying to rewrite the article so it reads like Jain's websites and press releases. Heck, we've even had editors threaten to go to Jimbo, when they couldn't get away with their pov-pushing, as if an appeal to authority outweighs all the relevant discussions and policies. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Myself, I'm going to continue to "be very firm about the use of high quality sources." --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that you take a break from editing this article entirely. No one is trying to whitewash anything here. You have been sitting on this article coming up with every excuse in the book to keep out anything positive about the man, on the flimsiest of grounds. You're reading this situation wrongly, I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the situation, I recommend the same for you. You appear to be acting as a meatpuppet for a disruptive editor that contacted you to help him push his pov against numerous policies.
So, anyone want to focus on policies and sources? --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

During the dot-com bubble

I wonder when this was added to the lede, by whom, and how many times it's been removed? Any past discussions, or just edit summaries? Who was it that stated it shouldn't be capitalized? Someone want to weigh in on the capitalization? --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential references

Seattle Weekly has a listing of their articles on Jain here. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelius criticism and lawsuits

While it's just a single sentence, I'm not sure why this is introducing this information to article once again. I believe there was more discussion than just edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you arguing that we shouldn't mention the troubles he has had with his new company at all? Why not?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
We've discussed before briefly here and in more detail here.
It's nice to see the Intelius article is no longer so whitewashed. However, I'm not sure why it belongs here. There are sources that compare the problems at Intelius with Jain's problems at InfoSpace. How far do we go with it and why? --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think no more than a brief mention is necessary, but I do think a brief mention is necessary. I would say that this is a biography of him and not the story of Intelius, so loads of detail is unnecessary. But failing to at least mention that his new endeavor has run into some controversy would seem to fail to give a complete picture of the man.
As a side note, I chuckled when I saw you termed Intelius as "no longer so whitewashed". While I didn't read it in the past, I think "no longer so whitewashed" is not an accurate description. It's a hatchet job. I'll turn my attention to it in due course, if I get the time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hatchet job? Absolutely! I'm just surprised that it has improved as much as it has, unlike the skeletal mess that is InfoSpace.
Thanks for giving more details on the Intelius info. Given the small amount of info in the article and multiple references, I think it can stand. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Positions at InfoSpace

I believe we've been through this before, and the sources are likely in the article still:

but was forced out by InfoSpace's board as chairman and CEO in December 2002. He remained a member of the board until 2003, when he resigned.

--Ronz (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Related discussions: Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_1#Ragan651_explains_some_of_his_edits Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_1#Clean_up_and_edits Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_1#Clearly_notable Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_2#CEO --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not replace this contentious content without specifically adding a WP:rs that supports it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Nothing contentious about it that I can make out. Just needs to have better indication of which sources support it. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    A comment that asserts he was "forced out" needs either well sourcing and possibly attribution to who claimed it to be true and or where it was reported. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    He wasn't just forced out, he was sued by InfoSpace. Let's see what the refs say just in case. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    Part of the problem was caused by moving the lawsuit info into it's own section, against NPOV as well. I've restored the previous organization.
    "InfoSpace's board forced out Jain as chairman and CEO in December, though he remained a member of the board." - "InfoSpace severs final ties with founder Jain". Puget Sound Business Journal. April 28, 2003. That's most of it. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    I found a ref for the remaining bit, so reinstated it, adding April to make the timeline clearer, with the new reference. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found InfoSpace stockholders face storm of change while looking for a source for the board resignation. Might be useful for expansion and weight. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

disputed - discuss

Hi, whats disputed about this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

While the case was in appeal, attorneys at the Securities and Exchange Commission urged the appeals court to reverse the ruling. Under that unusual pressure, attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, with the judgment against Jain reduced to $65 million, adjusted to $83 million, and finally settled at $105 million as of March 2009.

[disputed – discuss]

comments

I don't have time to search the talk page and article history. If I recall correctly, editors simply had trouble following the references. Additional references might help settle this. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The InfoSpace press release had been removed here. I restored and tagged it. It's a primary source used in conjunction with a secondary source. I see no problem with it. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.iloveindia.com/indian-heroes/arun-sarin.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_2&oldid=1137039756"