Talk:Naveen Jain/Archive 3

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

verify credibility

Hi, which of these two or is it both, requires investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[unreliable source?]

comments

I don't have time to search the talk page and article history. If I recall correctly, editors disputed the credibility of the moconews.net source. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps - its only used about thirty times here - we could remove it and leave whatever the other external supports. I removed it, an additional reliable would be nice to replace it but the street article appears to support the content - http://www.thestreet.com/story/10469309/court-turns-down-appeal-from-infospace-founder.html - Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I restored and tagged it in response to it's removal here. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob removed it [1]. I'm concerned that we've not actually addressed the question of it's reliability. I'm taking it to WP:RSN to see if we can get someone to look at it more carefully. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
RSN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the analysis at RSN, I think it should be restored. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Board Memberships

I restored the information about the board memberships, as it is relevant to his biography and well-sourced. I gather there is no question about the veracity of the material? And it is clearly sourced to third-party sources.

Before removing it again, I hope we can have a conversation with policy-based justifications for excluding it, if any exist.

The relevance of the material is simple and clear. He's a well-known businessman who is involved with these two high-profile organizations (both of which have their own Wikipedia entries). Given that what we are struggling with here is attempts to paint an unremittingly negative picture by excluding everything positive about the man, we need to have some pretty strict scrutiny on the removal of well-sourced information that reflects well on him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because User Ronz was objecting to it. I was looking for the place were he was happy with the content with the idea in mind to rebuild and replace from there. I have no objection to it myself at all it seemed well enough sourced to me. Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Expanding upon my edit-summary where I mentioned refimprove, likeresume, recentism, undue weight, and promotional concerns:
Such information is simply not encyclopedic. It's significance is trivial in comparison to the other information we include about Jain.
It is by its nature recentism. We don't mention even significant board memberships when he no longer holds the position, such as that for Freei (Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_2#Freei).
It certainly is resume-like though, and mirrors Jain's multiple websites and the pov-pushing of many, many editors here. If we include the information, let's be sure to make a clear policy/guideline argument for it so we don't look like meatpuppets for past pov-pushers. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Stop attacking other people as being "pov-pushers" and provide policy based rationale. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid justification. Here's my argument, you may address it if you like: "The relevance of the material is simple and clear. He's a well-known businessman who is involved with these two high-profile organizations (both of which have their own Wikipedia entries). Given that what we are struggling with here is attempts to paint an unremittingly negative picture by excluding everything positive about the man, we need to have some pretty strict scrutiny on the removal of well-sourced information that reflects well on him."
Your ongoing bias is outrageous. If it's positive about the man, you want it out. Simple as that. This is well-sourced positive information, there's no reason to take it out. It isn't resume-like, it's been covered in quality sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Care to WP:FOC?
"let's be sure to make a clear policy/guideline argument for it" --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Litigation Section

I'm editing the article so all the litigations Jain was involved will be under one section. which I hope will improve the page overall neutrality and also confirm with other biography's layout I've seen in the Wikisphere. --Elderbree TM (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You should at least attempt to address the concerns raised when this has been rejected in the past. Otherwise, it's simply edit-warring and can result in your being blocked. --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, knock it off. Your threats against other users trying to have a productive discussion about how to improve the article are unacceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo, please follow WP:FOC. Thanks!
We've probably enough references for Dreilling vs. Jain et al to be it's own article. Perhaps we should do that instead so we follow NPOV properly, placing information in context in this BLP?
The lawsuit by Infospace is trivial in comparison. I'm not sure how to present it properly. I think the previous organization was superior. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Me follow WP:FOC? You're the one threatening another editor with a block, and I'm the one telling you to knock it off. So, knock it off and focus on content.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit-warring is a blockable offense, we've blocked many of these SPAs for edit-warring, and we have the article indefinitely partial protected because of their edit-warring. Sorry that some editors don't like to be faced with these policies and the history of the pov-pushing on this article.
It appears some editors appear to prefer to edit-war or spend their time focusing on other editors instead. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, anyone want to discuss how to best present the litigation? --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I still think it would work better if it would be it's own section that includes all the litigation in it, like I tried to do before, and the title "Notable Litigations" looks like the least charged while staying the most informative option I can think of. So far the only opinion against such layout was that the current layout was, and I quote, "it's all related to InfoSpace and fits timeline nicely". any other opinions on the matter?--Elderbree TM (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Whats being suggested here? Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have edited the article before so that all the litigations mentioned will be in one section called "Notable Litigations", here is a link to that version of the article. It was reverted on the grounds that the earlier version, which is similar in this regard to the current version, is better because, and I quote, "it's all related to InfoSpace and fits timeline nicely". I don't find this reason superior in layout to my idea and would like to see other editor's opinions on the matter so we can reach some sort of consensus.--Elderbree TM (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I prefer your edit, imo it improves the overall readability and focus of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:STRUCTURE. There are two different events that absolutely should not be presented together. Doing so confuses the two, making it appear they are somehow related in violation of WP:SYN, and places too much emphasis on the noncompete suit while removing it from the context and timeline, in violation of WP:UNDUE.

The noncompete suit should be further incorporated into the InfoSpace section, rather than being left on the end.

Dreilling vs. Jain has enough references for it's own article, and many more are available. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • - So go for it, go write yourself an article - no one else supports your POV here, and there are comments about your NPOV - if you find support for your desired edits then fine until you do - consensus is against you. As in Jimmy, me and everyone else here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a WP:VOTE. No one's pov matters here. The relevant policies certainly do. Please address the policy concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and try to incorporate the noncompete info better as a start. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He're a few potential refs for expansion/rewording:

*http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Intelius-files-for-143-million-IPO-1261263.php

--Ronz (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • - Clearly you have POV issues here, there are at least three editors that oppose your position here, just go create yourself a litigation article and let this BLP alone. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Still no response to the concerns raised. Consensus says we follow policy and work on improving articles. Anyone care to join me in doing so? --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I've put the stuff back you just took out. You removed a whole lawsuit, which is questionable, so you could change the section heading. Problem is that'n there section's still about multiple articles. Makes no sense what you're doin' here. Not to me, nohow.LinkBender (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No I didn't remove a lawsuit. I removed the confusing, nonsensical repetition of the Infospace noncompete lawsuit that has absolutely nothing to do with Dreiling vs. Jain et al. The rest of the section deals with Dreiling vs. Jain and the related suit against JP Morgan, and is presented in chronological order.
See WP:STRUCTURE, read my comments above, look over my edit summaries and edits in light of the discussion.
Mindlessly edit-warring will get you blocked.
If you don't understand, ask questions, seek clarification.
Why has this this noncompete lawsuit repeatedly been placed together with unrelated lawsuits? Why has the noncompete lawsuit, that took place from March 2003 through January 2004, been repeatedly placed before the Dreiling-related lawsuits which took place from June 2001 through March 2009? --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is it's a notable litigation section to hold a whole bunch of litigations. Here's the lawsuits I've found so far:

Drielling vs Jain, Infospace et el; Jain vs Perkins Coie; Jain vs J.P Morgan; Jain vs. Insurance companies; Jain’s appeal to the supreme court against Perkins Coie. That's five lawsuits, plus the noncompete between Jain and InfoSpace makes it six.

And please, stop threatenin me and callin me names. Some folks take name callin personal. Lucky fer you I'm not one of 'em. Making edits seems to be the only way to get you to discuss edits and discussion is what I'm hopin to see here.LinkBender (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again, no response to my policy concerns. No answers to my questions.
"Infospace et el" refers to what?
"Jain vs. Insurance companies" refers to what?
Generally, we're not detailing the individual lawsuits related to Drieling vs Jain. That's something for an article on Drieling vs Jain. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading from [link] about all the lawsuits that were settled and how they were settled and who paid for what. I think that there's cogent to this article and will try to make appropriate edits.LinkBender (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
That's not the final settlement. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • - note - removed attack comments against the subject and personal information. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ms Anderberg, what's yer purpose in posting this information here? Are you tryin' to do this fella harm by it? All due respect, ma'am, this is an encyclopedia.LinkBender (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Current state of templates

What is the issues with all these templates, please state exactly the issues for them , all or singular. It seems they were replaced by User:Ronz with the comment"restore tags"?thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


  • 1 - It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since December 2010.

The article has a lot of citations and where there is one requested a citation required templates are in the article so , what is the need for this? Huge templates like this at the top of the article put readers off reading, if the problems are not severe we should not leave large templates like this at the top of articles for unnecessary lengths of time. Lets work together to sort this out and get rid of them Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


  • 2 - Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since December 2010.

It looks neutral enough to me, what is not neutral? Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why's the tag back in the article? What's not neutral about it? Question's been asked with no answer, yet tag is back, so I'm askin' it again.LinkBender (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Concerns related to WP:NPOV have been brought up at 16:29, 17 June 2011; 16:45, 17 June 2011; 21:38, 17 June 2011; and now 15:21, 18 June 2011. Given that, I felt the tag warranted. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Great. What are your specific concerns with the content of the article that make it not neutral? Citing dates and times isn't helping me understand what your concerns are or why you've got the tag in there.LinkBender (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


  • 3 - It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2010.

What kind of clean up is so severe to require a article top template? Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the cleanup issues is getting the references consistently formatted and filled. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I will format all references later today. Although, looking at them they are not too bad and better than many other articles, I would say the citation issue is anyway unworthy of an article top template. Off2riorob (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


  • 4 - It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since February 2010.

Is this confirmed? Which is the account you are accusing? What benefit is this template to the article content now? Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've had multiple editors editing this article confirmed as having a coi. The indefinite partial-protection preventing the the Intelius ip editing.
How long should we keep the coi tag? Dunno. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
COI templates are only beneficial for short periods of time when the editing is occurring. Are you suggesting the subject of the article has edited the article? Can you please provide a link to the COI editor. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"COI templates are only..." According to?
According to my experience of editing such situations. Because a company IP has previously edited the article is no reason to insist on keeping a COI template on the article for lengthy periods, if it was we would have COI templates all over the project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything. I believe you can search these talk archives to find the details on at least some of the coi problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the recent edit history there doesn't seem to be any problems and the article is semi protected so we should easily be able to deal with conflicted issues, lets remove that one, its been there sixteen months and its not really benefiting the article in any way at this time - if we get COI issues again we can replace it then. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


  • 5 - It is written like a resume. Tagged since July 2010.

It looks pretty fair to me, no better or worse than thousands of wwikipedia bios. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this article looks like a resume he will never get a job, this template is pretty much redundant when combined with general cleanup - I don't see this template to be of any benefit at all, does anyone object if I remove it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


comments

See WP:AGF. I believe even a brief skim of this talk page should answer most of your questions. Please let me know any that aren't addressed on this talk page or are directly related to a current dispute. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
What has AGF got to do with it? Please post your specific issues to assist in removing the templates. This is article improvement, nothing more, nothing less. Please post in between the five bullet points. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
old discussion
recent discussion --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
old discussion --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • - I am simply requesting you to respond now to what the specific issues now are that you have added the templates for after I removed them - in this way we will easily be able to work together and get them removed. I am not interested in historic disputes, lets deal with the "hear and now". Please help by posting between the five bullet points when you have time - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Here and now we have multiple disputes, and I believe the current talk page indicates this. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you add templates and are not willing to be specific to relate your issues for me to resolve them them you have no right to add them. Please be specific above when you have time, if you don't I will remove them again as unexplained drive by tagging. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've restored templates removed before disputes were settled. Please AGF. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You added them - I don't see any benefit to the article or a need for them either and I removed them - the wheels did not drop off, just you replaced them - they belong to you now - please explain the reasons for each one above. Lets work together to resolve your issues and remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
They aren't anyone's issues. I think a review of WP:TPYES might be helpful here. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You added them so they must be issues you have with the content - if you don't have issues corresponding to the article content and the templates then please remove them. I am not reading any of that, I am only here to improve the issues and remove the templates, is there a problem with that? Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't take Wikipedia editing so personally. I agree that related disputes are not resolved and I agree that those disputes include legitimate concerns with the article content based upon the relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If you didn't have specific issues yourself you should not have replaced them. What content do you say is uncited ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Description of the charity

The reason I included a description of the charity he supports is that I think it is not well-known (it does not have its own Wikipedia entry, for example), and so the reader will naturally wonder what sort of causes he supports. This goes directly to an encyclopedic biographical understanding of the whole man. For now, in deference to Rob's removal, I've simply restored it to the footnote, but I would argue for including it in-line in the text of the article instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries from me, I don't see an issue with including it in the body of the article but as above user Ronz thinks its promotional and primary sourced reading like a resume. IMO it was fine and no different from hundreds of thousand other wikipedia bios. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Ronz has a particular view on this article which I find problematic and inconsistent with policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Heaven forbid anyone concentrate on following BLP and NPOV. Let's just get rid of these core policies and all will be well I guess...
Maybe instead we can WP:FOC? Or should we dump WP:CON too?
Yes, I have concerns, but it was Off2riorob who removed the info. Jimbo then restored it, and provided additional rationale.
Anyone have further comments based upon policies/guidelines? --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. My point is that you have not been following policy. You've spent plenty of time attacking others, even calling me a meatpuppet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:FOC and WP:CHILL. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have further comments based upon policies/guidelines related to the content? If not, then I think we're done. Thanks for the work everyone. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify myself here. Jimbo disputed an edit by Off2riorob. Off2riorob's rationale for the edit was his interpretation of my comments elsewhere. Rather than the dispute ending there, or editors asking if I still held those concerns, Jimbo chose to make bad faith assumptions about me. Sorry that I responded by focusing once again on relevant policies and guideline, and did so in a sarcastic manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dreiling v. Jain

Working on expanding the section for proper context. Should be it's own article:

--Ronz (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You want to remove all the litigation from this page? What is it you're suggestin'? I don't follow how this biography talk page is the forum for the discussion of new articles. Can't ya just make it if you want it? Or is there a COI issue blocking you on the article or somesuch? What is yer agenda here, Compadre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkBender (talk • contribs) 05:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anyone suggesting to remove any or all litigation, and doing so would be improper.
Please WP:FOC and consider The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
My agenda is to follow WP:BLP and the other applicable policies and guildelines of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion over information appearing to have been removed from the article

You just removed a whole lawsuit from the article! And you don't see no one suggestin it. It's cause yer just doin what you want and callin foul on everyone else. It's gettin old. We can't FOC when your behavior is a problem. Please consider engagin in discussion. What yer doin isn't discussion.LinkBender (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not remove any lawsuit from the article. Continued, baseless, ignorant accusations are disruptive and may result in a block. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Now you're threatenin me? Nice behavior, Amigo. [[2]] That's the lawsuit you removed, right there.LinkBender (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocks happen when editors repeatedly misbehave. Get over it.
I removed a duplication of information, indicated so in my edit summary, and indicated there was a related discussion. You can see the edit summary, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You've moved the lawsuit into the InfoSpace section. My apologies, must've missed it. I'm takin' a break since ya seem riled up what with the threats and such.LinkBender (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing for your mistake. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Ronz, I have issued a warning to you on your talk page. Your threats and insults against others are not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No diffs still. Sad that editors spend so much time focusing on others. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued work on Dreiling v. Jain

Given the past confusion we've had over the Dreiling-related litigation, and the lack of sources that provide historical context and insight, I think it would be helpful to list the individual lawsuits. It will also help in finding more sources. I'll work on it later. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

  • "Youtz v. Jain" was filed March 19, 2001. It was amended and renamed "Dreiling v. Jain, et al."
  • "Naveen Jain and Anuradha Jain v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.; and Perkins Coie, 08-838" is the name of the case appealed to the Supreme Court. --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A Fistful of Litigation

I knew there was a reason I put that lawsuit "InfoSpace, Inc. v. Jain, Intelius, Inc., et al." in that section. The one I was confused about Ronz movin. In [[3]] that lawsuit was part of a whole mess of suits settled in the settlement agreement. It should be noted, which I don't think it is, that both sides sued each other in just about every court forum it seems. The more I dig in this stuff, the less I feel like we're givin a clear, neutral article about what went down. Call it a gut feelin on my part. Nothin to back that up at the moment. Guess I'm sayin the article could just as easily take Jain's point of view instead of the other side's point of view, if there were newspaper articles written that direction. Anywho, point is I feel it's appropriate for that lawsuit to be included with all the other "notable litigation" as it was settled along with all the others. There were lots of 'em. Clearly that lawsuit was connected to the whole mess. Thanks. I'm gonna try to get in some link bendin now.LinkBender (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the NPOV template?

There is obviously some sort of debate going on here, but it is hard to follow. I know nothing about Jain, but reading the article and checking the sources, it seems to me that the article has a balanced enough tone and the NPOV template puzzles me. The arguments, above, defending BLP policy also seem odd to me. As long as information is factual, well-sourced, neutral and balanced, there ought not be a BLP concern. It almost seems that someone has added the NPOV because they don't like someone else's edit. A disagreement about what should and should not be included in an article doesn't of itself warrant the NPOV tag. As it stands, I see no reason for the tag and think it should go. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the npov template was added because some content was moved to a specific section - no content was removed at all , as such the neutrality has been unaltered. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. There have been serious BLP concerns with this article in the past, but I see no reason for the tag at this time. Ronz placed it there, perhaps he could explain why.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't start a new discussion, but instead responded at 15:33, 18 June 2011, where I pointed out the comments from 16:29, 17 June 2011; 16:45, 17 June 2011; 21:38, 17 June 2011; and 15:21, 18 June 2011. --Ronz (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
As LinkBender apologized for his accusations of material being removed, Off2riorob is not following up on his concerns, and nothing is disputed, then I'll remove it. --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What, you added the template, what are you talking about? It was removed twelve hours ago. Templates should be added for a reason not used as discussion weapons. There was no NPOV issues when you added the template, you added it because you didn't get your own way. Can you please take this article off your watchlist your presence here is simply disruptive and detrimental to the BLP, your attacking and threatening good faith users, its enough now. You appear to have taken up a confrontational battlefield attitude here and its no fun at all editing this article while you have that position. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC and WP:AGF. The dispute is over. Move on. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You get the good faith you deserve. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
At least you're not denying it. Thanks! Whenever you're interested in following WP:CON and WP:DR instead, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Add as many little letters as you like they won't alter my opinion of your actions at this article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of bickering is tedious. Thanks for agreeing to remove the template, Ronz, but I'm a bit worried that waiting for an apology was part of your motivation for including it in the first place (or refusing to take it down). If one can't contribute to an article without getting into endless emotionally-charged arguments, it might be time to step back for a bit. If you are going to quote policy, then it's also very important to strictly adhere to it oneself. Part of showing good faith is to trust that other editors will do the right thing by an article, even if you aren't there to do it yourself. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll adjust my expectations of the editors accordingly, focus harder on clarifying situations. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

proposed edit "Board Memberships" relocation

Shouldn't "Board Memberships" be a subsection in the "Professional Background" area? --Elderbree TM (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What do other BLPs with WP:GA status do? --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the right question. I took a look at some of his contemporaries (people with whom he serves on the same boards) and didn't see a lot of consistency.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest merging it into the Professional Background section. Clayburn (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

I have reverted this edit by Ronz, and I am going to term it nothing short of 'vandalism'. These are perfectly valid links, well within policy, informative to readers, but they might, of course, as they are publications of the subject of this article, show him in a positive light. Ronz's ongoing POV pushing against the subject of this article, and constant personal attacks on me and other NPOV editors is beginning to try my patience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain why I feel this edit is an appropriate edit and edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Aargh - I didn't expect this to be controversial. Let's have some Aloha spirit. My explanation is that there are certain links we generally include for certain groups of articles. Someone's official site, of course. Things they've written themselves (column collections, blogs, etc.). WorldCat ID for books written by and about them. Topic collections at major media sources (NYT, WSJ, Guardian, etc.). Appearances on C-SPAN, Charlie Rose and TED talks (being collections, not individual appearances). In the case of US federal politicians, we have a special template for them Template:CongLinks. In the case of charities, we include their pages in major "charity watch" sites. In the case of businesspeople, their profiles at Forbes, Bloomberg, etc. are considered worth including. The point is to give connections to important sources, especially those which are continually being updated AND which provide a fuller picture of the subject than we could provide in a single Wikipedia article. That's a good thing. Connections are important - hence the name 'web'. (Note: 'Further reading' has become, through practice, for non-online sources.) What's unique about Naveen Jain is that his own website includes just about everything. So do the official pages of various academics, but we still list their major links - see Joseph Stiglitz#External links. To be honest, I was intending to add Jain's TED talk page, but apparently it was 'TED Talk India' and therefore not available on the main TED website. He has it in his official site, so that's covered. I also didn't realize he has 3 blogs, not 1. This is the first I've seen of Google profiles (I apparently live a sheltered life!) but it seemed a better alternative than listing all of someone's 'social media' links separately. The point in general is...if all we provide in EL is the person's personal site, that isn't very balanced, is it? I was trying to broaden this, and imo Bloomberg Businessweek (and Forbes et al, if I could find in-depth profiles for him) are useful links to add. Flatterworld (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now noticed BBB was deleted, so I've re-added it. Look. The point of not duplicating inline citations in External links is about duplication of content. If the relevant points of a citation are summarized in the body of the article, there's no need to repeat it in EL. If there's quite a bit more information in the link, as in this case, it's also included in EL. For example, we might cite a single vote using the WashPo's voting record for a Congressman - but we STILL include it in EL as there are likely other votes which readers are interested in, and they shouldn't have to look through every reference to find the site. We're here to help our readers, not provide them with some sort of "Where's Waldo?" game. Flatterworld (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
We've had problems with external links in this article, so I prefer we stick to WP:EL closely, or at least provide rationale for what we're doing and why.
We've one link, his official site, that meets WP:ELYES. I believe it links to all his other sites. I didn't notice a link to his Huffington Post blog. Can someone double-check that it's not in there somewhere?
I don't believe any of the remaining links meet WP:ELMAYBE criteria.
I believe the Google profile is redundant.
I think the link to his Huffington Post blog should be removed because it doesn't provide any further information on Jain. Hence "redundant" in my edit summary where I removed both this and the Google profile.
I think the Bloomberg Businessweek profile should be removed because it is already included as a reference. If there's something of importance in this profile that's not in this article already, it should be added with the profile as the source. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What someone writes always provides further information about that person - how could it not? I think you're confused about the purpose of EL.
Obviously this discussion would be more useful if you actually looked at the Bloomberg profile, followed the tabs, etc., to see what's included. I used the WashPo link as an example for a reason. I don't post boilerplate rationales on Talk pages, and don't expect to read such 'justifications' from others. Flatterworld (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ronz about the Bloomberg profile. If something has already been used as a reference, it does not need to be an external link too. Cardamon (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Assuming you checked out the link before you posted your opinion, please explain why the rest of it (other than what the inline citation referred to) is irrelevant. Also, just what you disagree with in my explanation about it. Note: the Talk page is for the purpose of having a discussion, not a war of drive-by posts. If you can't be bothered to take the time to do any analysis, I have no idea why you can be bothered to take the time to post. Flatterworld (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I neither said nor implied that the parts of the profile at Bloomberg Businessweek that the inline citation did not refer to are irrelevant. Also, using a site as a reference for a fact is not a claim that there are no other facts contained in that site.
To me, an external link is less than an inline reference; external links are for things that haven’t been used as a reference yet, or that may be not quite good enough to be used as a reliable reference, but are still interesting and relevant. From this point of view, once an external link has been promoted to reference there is no need for it to remain as an external link; in much the same way that, if a term that is in a See Also list gets used as a Wikilink, it can be removed from the See Also list.
Incidentally, I’m fine with the other external links. Cardamon (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Time for ELN, or does someone new have opinions on the matter? --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're saying 5 hours and 15 minutes is your span of attention? Your post on my Talk page implied you would supply a 'detailed response' to my post. I'm waiting. Flatterworld (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ELN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

External links revisited

I think we should discuss each of the external links separately. Muhandes just removed them all, based on a perplexing reading of the brief and inconclusive ELN discussion, and I just put them all back. Part of my reasoning is that Ronz was clearly inappropriately forum shopping by posting there instead of discussing here.

Let's discuss each of the three in turn.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I came back to this only because I seem to be the one who started it, so I thought I should further explain my reasoning. Looking at what Cardamon posted above, it appears we don't all have the same concept of External links. If we can't agree on the concept, I can't see agreement forthcoming on the instance. Perhaps this is one of those things which unintentionally seems to vary a bit by subject area in Wikipedia. In my experience, EL has morphed from being "general references substituting for in-line citations" to being used as an 'online Further reading' section. It's not 'lower' than inline citations, but 'broader and more extensive coverage'. Hence the 'official' websites (extensive information, but all within the person's control and editing abilities) as well as other extensive or in-depth sources. The point (imo) is NOT for Wikipedia to be a dead-end source of information, "if it's not here, it doesn't exist", and to only reference specific facts, but to point our readers (particularly students, who often need some helpful pointing), to additional sources of information. That's a major advantage of an online vs. hardcopy encyclopedia, so what's the point of 'minimizing' this as an end in itself? (Reminds me of Mozart being told he used "too many notes". One uses as many as are necessary.) imo the EL guidelines don't trump Wikipedia's mission and goal, which is to provide information to all. The point of the Bloomberg link was to provide a reliable third-party source which provides ongoing, in-depth updates for whatever Jain does in the business world, just as a NYT topic does for news about him. If he gets a new Board appointment, Bloomberg will have it. That's what they do. I haven't worked on enough businesspeople articles to have come with a set of reliable, useful, extensive sources, so perhaps better links (as opposed to no links) are available. For examples in other fields, see Template:CongLinks, Template:JudgeLinks, Template:UK MP links, Template:UK Peer links. Examples for each: Jim Clyburn, Elena Kagan, David Cameron, Delyth Morgan. Are those a lot of links? Sure. We had a Wikipedian who used that as an 'reason' to delete the link to the voting record (only provided by WashPo) of one of the Congressmen. All s/he wanted the readers to know was how that person voted on three issues. Is that the point of Wikipedia? Con people into relying on us, then remove almost all links other than some cherry-picked individual articles to cite some cherry-picked factoids? I don't think so, and imo EL provides a deterrent and some checks and balances to that as well as providing what we've found to be some of the best sources. (nb: the EL guidelines mention linking to Dmoz or anything similar. That's no longer a feasible option.) That's not to pick on this article. I don't know the guy, and I'm not particularly interested in knowing any more about him. But perhaps someday I will, and I'd rather be able to go to Wikipedia than have to wade through search engine results to try to find "the rest of the story" which isn't (and never will be) in any Wikipedia article. "Trust, but verify." Citations only verify what's been included, not what's been excluded. Are we forgetting that? Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Naveen Jain Google profile

  • Remove - I could go either way on this one. Quite possibly we should instead have a link to an official site, rather than a google profile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - Does not provide any unique content which is not available from the official website. --Muhandes (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't care. I expect it's helpful for some readers to have this information in a consistent format, rather than to try to find this information on anyone's official site, but it's no big deal. It may eventually turn out like IMDb, referenced everywhere, but it's not at that point yet. LinkedIn was supposed to be something similar. I'd prefer a (not yet in existence) third-party source not controlled by the person. Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Material is not sufficiently useful to a reader to provide extra information from what should be in article, and such profiles should not be regarded as a "right" for a BLP. Having said that, the ongoing attention to the links in this article is not helpful, and this matter should be wrapped up quickly (either keep or remove would be fine for each of the links, but insisting on remove is not productive). Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove - I don't like Google profiles as external links (personal preference). Everything of significance in a profile like this (if it is verifiable) should be included in the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog at Huffington Post

  • Strong keep - This is his own blog and should clearly be included.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep He has three blogs, all of which are linked from his official website, under 'Articles' or something like that. Unclear, and of course his own website can change at any time. These are third-party hosted blogs, so I'd list all three. Sometimes people like to 'remove the evidence' from their own sites if they're later proved wrong. (Some people are in Project Syndicate, so only one link is necessary. He isn't one of those people.) Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep This article warrants the link as the blogs are substantive and indicate the subject's position. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove he has three blogs, all of which are linked from his own website. If he had ten blogs would we list them all? That's what his own website is for - to link to his musings. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - If he had ten blogs we might not list them all, I agree - but we should look at each according to its own merits. Jain's website is certainly a good sarting point for finding links to whatever blogs he has. But this one is the Huffington Post, which is a significant publication and makes this particular blog a little different in my opinion. One of the reasons to include a list of external links is to provide reference to additional information/research about the subject that is on topic, and this is useful to that end. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Profile at Bloomberg Businessweek

  • Weak Keep - contains significant information not easily incorporated into this article, including board relationships, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - see above. Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would tend towards keep as it contains some business info that is too detailed for the article, but it could be argued that the material at the link is not significant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove I see no substantial information that couldn't be incorporated into the article, has it been a featured article (WP:ELNO #1). I would suggest using it as a source for a fact, thus providing some link to interested parties. --Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Jimbo on this one. I would expect the information in the profile to be updated as his status on boards, etc changes. In some way, this would be like a sportsperson's profile, where statistics change. That's a useful external link, because not all these changes may be significant enough for a change in the article, but may be of interest to readers who want more detailed and specific information (i.e. further research), which is exactly what external links are supposed to provide. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Moon Express

I think it is at least important to mention in Jain's entry that Moon Express is competing in the Google Lunar X Prize. Thoughts? Jheditorials (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's competing with Google in the X Prize has nothing to do with Jain that I'm aware. It's not even in the lede of Moon Express, so I'm confused as to why it deserves any mention here. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not competing with Google. It's in a competition that Google is sponsoring to be the first company to the moon. It is in the lead paragraph of the Moon Express entry and has a separate section in the article about the competition. To me, it seems just as important to be included in the brief company section as the contract from NASA. Jheditorials (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I misread your comment.
This article is about Jain. What does this have to do with Jain? --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It provides additional, brief information about a company that Jain co-founded. I think that's a valid reason to include it in the entry. How is including this information different than including the information about the NASA contract? Jheditorials (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing much significant coverage of Jain himself in the context of Moon Express - nothing remotely close to that of Infospace, and less than Intelius. A single sentence should suffice about the company, including a link to Moon Express. Otherwise we get into WP:COAT, WP:SOAP, and WP:UNDUE territory, problems that have plagued this article since it's creation. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Encylopedic style

Some recent edits have introduced text that is not compatible with an encyclopedic article. No doubt it is true that "Jain has been awarded many honors for his entrepreneurial successes and leadership skills", but that text reads like an extract from a public relations blurb. Encyclopedic articles need to stick to the due facts, not add editorial gloss. There are too many arbitrary quotations ("I knew the power the Web could put in the hands of everyday people...") that appear as if cherry picked by a publicist. The text "energetic demeanor and personality quirks" is a little older, but even more inappropriate.

Can nothing clear be said in the new "application of technology to cure global disease" section? The current text seems naively expressed (as if the subject were about to combat all "regional diseases"). In an encyclopedic article, a person may be a philanthropist, but very rarely are they a "committed philanthropist who gives to local and global charities" (what is "committed" other than market speak, and why attempt to explain what a philanthropist does?). Again, the quote about "Naveen's kids" would be great on some personal website, but is not appropriate here. The subject has done many good things, and it would be better to plainly describe them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be quotes from an article on the subject. Perhaps they should be paraphrased? A little odd that the editor doing the reversion isn't the editor leading this discussion, no?LinkBender (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that, despite Johnuniq's thoughtful and valid suggestions, User:Ronz who has been properly criticized in the past for WP:OWN issues related to this article simply reverted everything to push his traditional agenda against the subject, rather than editing it for NPOV and style.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I have readded some of the awards with additional citations. Jheditorials (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, they are nothing but public relations blurbs, apparently copied from Jain's own websites. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as demeanor and personality quirks, we've 5 references and there are many more we could add. We've worked on it a few times, and mostly just settled with the references. Would it be better to give the common examples instead, such as referring to himself in third person during interviews, claiming that InfoSpace would one day be a trillion dollar company, etc. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Invalid accusations of NPOV violations

Editors are once again throwing around NPOV like a club. I've tagged the article in the hope of evidence will be provided rather than just drama and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed perfectly valid and non-promotional material which is now back in the article and well-sourced. Can you point to a specific problem with the article that you'd like to see changed? What is not NPOV about it today?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You've got some serious behavioral problems when it comes to this article. Please leave it alone if you cannot control yourself.
I guess the npov claims were nothing more than harrassment then? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As you know, this is very much the wrong place for a discussion of that nature. Jimbo asked a specific question, and it would be reasonable to answer or ignore it, or to make an assertion that it is somehow "wrong", or say that "today" was snarky, but there is only one person here showing an emotional reaction and inappropriate responses. Your recent edits don't seem to have addressed any particular NPOV issue, so I was puzzled when you added the NPOV tag. Please just say what the problem is. My recent quick read found only one tagged issue, namely "his energetic demeanor and personality quirks" which certainly should be refactored. Unfortunately I have only had time for routine stuff lately, and while I would have taken the time to fix that, the five references put me off as I would have had to study them. What else warrants the article being tagged? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo repeatedly says I'm an NPOV problem. He's yet to provide any evidence at all to back him. He uses it as an attack, harassment, and a way to dissuade me from improving this article.
Jimbo refuses to respond to these problems of his behavior on his talk page.
Jimbo repeatedly uses this talk page to harass me.
Until this matter is addressed, Jimbo's harassment of me is disrupting this article.
If you'd like to suggest a better venue to address Jimbo's behavioral problems, feel free. Until the problem is resolved, I certainly don't feel safe working on this article in any meaningful way. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Please stop: you know this talk page should not be used to list the alleged shortcomings of another editor, even if it's Jimbo. I understand that communicating with Jimbo on his talk page can be tricky because lots of chatter (and important discussion) on that page causes distractions. However, to do everyone a favor I am going to remove any further commentary on other editors here. If I am reverted I will try again with escalation to ANI as off-topic commentary at a BLP talk page is unacceptable. I sometimes find it stressful when I contemplate a long watchlist and recognize that I cannot deal with all the problems I encounter. A good strategy is to walk away and let others deal with it. If the NPOV problems here are so egregious that they require talk of harassment and safety, there are only two solutions: (1) focus on other topics as an individual cannot solve all problems (and indeed, no individual should feel personally responsible for "fixing" this article); or, (2) escalate to WP:ANI and see what happens. It is not reasonable to add an NPOV tag and then make vague assertions regarding having explained the issues in the past—if the tag is not explained, it must be removed. For the record, I have searched this page for all occurrences of "Jimbo" and cannot see anything to justify any of the above claims regarding harassment (there is one post dated 18:45, 19 June 2011 where the phrase "I am going to term it nothing short of 'vandalism'" is used, but that is nothing like an attack). Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I brought the exact same concern up in June, yet he's persisted.
If you want to pretend they are something other than attacks, then please let me know what they are. They certainly are not within the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Extended content

Current harassment on this page, plus the recent off-page harassment: --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"I have reverted this edit by Ronz, and I am going to term it nothing short of 'vandalism'."

"Ronz's ongoing POV pushing against the subject of this article, and constant personal attacks on me and other NPOV editors is beginning to try my patience."

"Part of my reasoning is that Ronz was clearly inappropriately forum shopping by posting there instead of discussing here."

"It is unfortunate that, despite Johnuniq's thoughtful and valid suggestions, User:Ronz who has been properly criticized in the past for WP:OWN issues related to this article simply reverted everything to push his traditional agenda against the subject, rather than editing it for NPOV and style."

"RV Ronz pov pushing" [4]

Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced. I know you hate Naveen Jain - but you should go start a blog about him or something, and not use Wikipedia in this way. [5]

"You should know that Ronz, who did the revert, has a long and problematic POV-pushing history with this article." [6]

The most recent example is perhaps the best to illustrate what is going on here. You removed perfectly valid information, which might in some way be deemed as favorable to the subject of the article, claiming that it was inaccurate and promotional. It proved upon a few moments work to be neither. This follows a very long history of your editing this article to cast a negative light on the subject. I'm sorry if it seems bad to you for me to point that out, but in the interest of the encyclopedia, it's important to speak openly about bad editing. If you want me to dig deeper into the history of the article to illustrate the point more, I'm happy to do that if you will find it useful in reflecting on the problems you have encountered here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So you want to make an example of your harassment against me?! Ok. I made a mistake. I rarely make such mistakes. I was unable to find verifying information in the current sources, nor was able to find a verifying source elsewhere. I did, however, follow BLP, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."
The proper way to proceed was add the source and move on. Not make accuse others of pov-pushing [7] [8] [9]. Not make grandiose, harassing, accusations, "I know you hate Naveen Jain" [10]
"I'm sorry if it seems bad to you for me to point that out, but in the interest of the encyclopedia, it's important to speak openly about bad editing. " Oh really!?? Looks like harassment to me. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I stand by my words. I'm sorry it makes you unhappy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So you know that I hate Naveen Jain? You stand by that statement? It's a completely absurd statement for you to make, much less stand by. It's harassment, a personal attack, and a blp violation. More importantly, it's clearly not based upon any reality.
So you are exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines?
The time has long come and gone for you to justify your accusations. Don't cave now. Show that you are able to follow our guidelines/policies and your own advise/demands. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that you don't hate him, and I apologize for that remark. It was a natural conclusion to draw given your edit history here, but if it is wrong, I'm glad to hear it. The empirical record is clear, though: you have a very strong pattern of editing this article in a negative way. The issues with WP:OWN are clear (230 edits by you, dramatically more than anyone else, with the second runner up having only 61!). I can walk you through the details of some particular edits that I have a problem with, but for most of them, they are long since gone from the article and so I see no value in going through them again. Most of them are already discussed on this talk page. The only current issue is that you'd like to see the article tagged for NPOV violations, but you seem unwilling to tell us what NPOV violations you see. If you'd like to discuss that, I'd be happy to replace the NPOV template for you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I just went back to the beginning of the article and looked for your first substantive edit to the article, which anyone can see here. You took a neutral paragraph and turned it into a hatchet job. I can walk you through what is wrong with the edit, but perhaps you can just look at it and think about it yourself. You can see how any editor might get the idea that you have something against Mr. Jain, and if it is true that that isn't the case, then I am again happy to hear it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're going to try to justify your accusations by a revert I made, where I was discussing the matter on the talk page. That justifies your harassment? It seems as grounded in reality as your claiming I hate Jain. It seems like all your statements are as grounded in reality as that claim. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"It was a natural conclusion to draw given your edit history here" Nothing natural about it at all. Quite the contrary, and in violation of multiple policies and guidelines. More importantly, when faced with it, you stood by it until it was denied. Is that how we should work here? Throw )(*& on the fan making accusations of others, then stand by them unless the accused party denies? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"The empirical record is clear, though: you have a very strong pattern of editing this article in a negative way." Negative? Once again, this is just bias on your part, and an inability to follow our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know what you are talking about now. How about you address why you made the edit I outlined above, turning a perfectly valid paragraph into a hatchet job? I can go through and list a lot more edits of the same kind. But I don't see any particular reason to bother, as you seem uninterested in constructively working with me to improve the article. So let me make my offer one last time: you want to put an NPOV tag on the article now. Why? What is wrong with the article today and what can we improve about it. I'm prepared to forgive your negative editing history, so long as you can do the right thing going forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"I don't even know what you are talking about now." I'm talking about your inability to back your statements. Your inability to rationalize your accusations with anything based in reality.
Your accusations are complete and total nonsense. Sorry for previously using a mixed metaphor: You're just throwing out accusations, trying to make me defend myself when the accusations are absolutely nothing but harassment.
"I can go through and list a lot more edits of the same kind." You keep making such claims, but you've yet to back them. They appear just as valid as your saying that I hate Naveen Jain.
"you seem uninterested in constructively working with me to improve the article" You're harassing me. You expect me to work with you while you harass me!
"I'm prepared to forgive your negative editing history" More accusations. Sorry. No. Your accusations are baseless. They are personal attacks and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done here then? To summarize: Jimbo feels it's "natural" to attack other editors, harass them, and to disrupt editing based upon accusations which he is unable to support. He apparently feels that repeating attacks over and over is evidence enough to rationalize their use. When confronted with his behavior, he "stands by" it, claims he has an "empirical record" to back him, yet is unable to provide any evidence all the while repeating his attacks.

Any problems with that summary? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I never thought I'd be disagreeing with Jimbo Wales, but here I am. I just looked through all the talk archives since I stopped editing the article about a year ago, coincidentally when Jimbo got involved. Anyway, the only behavioral problem I see here is Jimbo's assumption of bad faith on Ronz. All of Ronz's decisions to remove "positive" information about Jain are, correct or not, based on his honest interpretations of policy (particularly UNDUE, RS), and not on any ill feelings toward the man so far as I can tell. If Ronz has been short in providing his explanations, I assume it's for the same reason I stopped watching the article for a year; namely, it was tiring to deal with Jain's own employees attempting for years to whitewash the article. Anyway, of course Ronz is not always right, and no one expects you to agree with him all the time or even ever. But for shit' sake, Jim, you created Wikipedia, you know that people interpret policies differently, and you know that accusing an editor of bad faith is the worst way to kick off a collaborative discussion (to your own credit, Jimbo, I understand how strongly you feel about this, given this is a BLP). I'd like it if the two of you sat down so I could serve you some tea. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but that kind of discussion won't help as it just continues the problem. I started watching this mess some time ago and frankly I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but I do know that editors have made all sorts of hard-to-understand commentary when all that is needed is a clear summary of any problems in the article, and suggestions for how to fix them. Of course there have been SPAs spreading cheerful news about the subject, but they are pretty easy to recognize, and there are enough of us here now to fix any remaining or future problems. So let's stick to discussing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but until the problem is resolved, it continues. Jimbo has said he stands by his remarks. He's provided no rational explanation for them, but he's continued despite multiple requests that he stop or provide very compelling evidence for the continued disruptions and policy/guideline violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I've come from the ANI thread where Jimbo mentions his issues about Ronz behaviour here and I have to say I feel that from what I've seen so far the problem is with him not Ronz. He makes repeated assertions of a personal nature and fails to back these up with diffs. The few diffs he has provided do not indicate that Ronz 'hates' Naveen Jain as far as I can see, or that he has edited in a particularly tendentious manner. For instance, this diff has Ronz revert an edit that includes the claim that the company was awarded a $10M contract by NASA with the summary "rv - as with last time - undue weight, inaccurate info, promotional info, off topic". The $10M claim was not supported by any of the refs provided, the LA Times ref instead speculates that the contract could be worth upto $10M. Jimbo Wales claim that the edit was neither inaccurate or promotional is just false. There is the issue that Ronz removes good material along with the bad material (obviously it would have been better if only the offending text was removed), but Jimbo misrepresents the situation. The other diff provided shows Ronz reverting after a series of biased COI edits, that removed well sourced text, to an earlier version before these edits (see COI noticeboard thread). You'll see admins EdJohnston (eg) and Someguy1221 (eg) making very similar (or the same) edits after more COI edit warring. While Ronz could have made better edits I don't see evidence of what Wales claims, rather Jimbo Wales has misrepresented the situation in the diffs he provided. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You have missed the point. Read this thread from the NPOV heading to see an example of the problem, namely, an inability to respond to valid discussion. If a user were to systematically make bad edits and be unable to discuss them, they would have been blocked long ago. The problem is not concerned with any particular edit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You have missed the point. We're discussing invalid assumptions, statements, and accusations. --Ronz (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem currently being discussed at WP:ANI is that you are unable or unwilling to explain your point (and this is not the correct page to make a point unless it concerns the article). Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I see two other editors who have explained it quite well. Like I said, you have missed the point.
If you'd like me to explain further, I can. I've written a great deal already. Do I need to elaborate further, or are their topics that I've missed? What would you like explained? --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
To Johnuniq: I did read this Talk page from the Moon Express section down before commenting. I am concerned by Jimbo Wales behavior here, he makes very strong accusations and provides only 2 diffs to support these. It might be that his accusations are true, but not judging by the diffs he provides. In fact, he misrepresents the situation in those diffs. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"energetic demeanor and personality quirks"

We have this tagged as disputed, and we have 5 references for it. I wanted to work through this and seek for a consensus improvement.

First, the Red Herring article is now a 404 not found. Here it is at archive.org. The relevant bits seem to be this: "a fireball of energy and salesman extraordinaire". As a side note of some relevance to the history of this article: despite some odd wording in the Red Herring article, it does not show that Naveen declared himself smarter than Bill, but that with some clear amusement, he cited an article written by "Nicholas Petreley on July 17, 1995" which said that. So I think what we get out of this one is that he's "a fireball of energy and salesman extraordinaire".

Second, the Financial Express article seems to only repeat the "fireball of energy" claim and should probably not be referenced here, because it provides no independent verification of that view, nor any alternative view. It merely reports on what has been said about him in the press to that date.

Third, the Sunday Business article is apparently only available through Highbeam. But in any event This link does not resolve for me - not sure if it is a local internet problem at this moment, or a bigger issue.

Fourth, we have a Q&A with CNET news, and as far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the question. The introductory paragraph doesn't mention his personality, nor are any of the questions about his personality, nor does he answer in any way that would suggest personality quirks. But I may have missed something for the simple reason that the article is so boring I found myself zoning out while reading it, i.e. ironically it suggests to me that far from an interesting manic personality, he can be quite dull in an interview! :-)

Fifth, the Business Week link goes to the main page (essentially, it's a 404). Unlike with the Red Herring article, I can't find a functional version in Archive.org, despite it having been crawled by them 77 times.

Therefore, what I propose we do is replace our synthesis to a specific quote from the one valid source that we do have, the Red Herring article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done a more radical restructuring of the sentences in question, and will be interested to hear views on that. I started with your ideas (which were similar to mine at the time), but began to wonder why an editor (me) was scanning miscellaneous business commentary and an interview to look for choice pieces to put in the article (WP:SYNTH). Eventually I decided that the best thing was to just omit the personality comments because the sources are too light weight to show that Jain is somehow significantly different in terms of energy and quirks from many other dotcom entrepreneurs. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I am perplexed by Jimbo Wales' claim that the linked to Red Herring article does not state that Naveen claims to be smarter than Bill Gates. It clearly does in the first few sentences of the article: "Bill Gates, head of the largest software company in the world, has a rival. His name is Naveen Jain, and if you ask him, he'll tell you: Naveen is smarter than Bill." I have no idea why Jimbo Wales ignores this but then quotes the very next sentence in the article. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It's fun to poke Jimbo, but that should be done at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I assume you are not seriously suggesting that an encyclopedic article should use the throw-away space-filling commentary on Jain to make an assertion regarding Jain's opinion of his smartness. People are entitled to make amusing commentary (and to puff themselves up a bit) without such ephemeral fluff being used in an article—see WP:DUE. Jimbo's point above is that it is not appropriate to use the commentary from that article as a basis for an encyclopedic conclusion. This page should only be used to discuss proposals for improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to poke him, the material mentioned relates to a diff he provided above in the previous section and forms part of his reasoning in this section. I was pointing out a mistake. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a welcome at your talk, and would normally add the following comment there, but it seems appropriate to put it here because others may want to see my reasoning (BTW, the welcome is sincere—the fact that you responded calmly and clearly without any drama shows exactly the qualities that are needed when editing Wikipedia).
Here is the problem: An article talk page is intended to discuss improvements to the article, and is definitely the wrong place to point out to people how wrong they are. Of course comments about possible mistakes regarding actionable proposals are welcome, but my remark above was based on the assumption that no one wants to suggest adding material to this article to assert that Jain is smarter than Gates, or that one article says Jain is smarter than Gates, or that one article says Jain says another article says Jain is smarter than Gates. None of those formulations are appropriate in an encyclopedic article (one of them might be if the claim had been widely discussed in multiple reliable sources—see WP:DUE). A comment on this talk page should be framed in terms like "I think X should [or should not] be in the article because of Y, and I think the reasoning from Jimbo that opposes X is invalid because of Z." That is, it is fine to claim Jimbo is wrong on this page if that might help article development. In principle, what happens at article talk pages follows WP:TALK and WP:TPG, but in practice the degree of latitude varies widely depending on how contentious is the topic, and how heated are the back-and-forth exchanges. This page has a history of poking and off-topic commentary, so I was quick to complain about your message. In case you are wondering, yes, this comment also violates the talk page guidelines and I am posting it in the hope that anyone else who wants to comment here will do so while focusing on actionable proposals for the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure that the talk page is the wrong place to state that a claim about a source is incorrect, particularly when that claim forms part of a chain of reasoning pertaining to content decisions as above. My tone in the above comment may not be the best, it reflects some irritation resulting from going through the previous NPOV section and other claims made there by the same contributor. As to whether description of personality should enter the article, my opinion is that a well researched synthesis of material in RS concerning Jain's personality would be appropriate, but the phrase "energetic demeanor and personality quirks" is definitely not. Specifically, the phrase "personality quirks" is weasely, could mean anything and is sometimes used to reflect poorly on a subject. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I removed the stuff about "quirks" four weeks ago. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else look at the article in the Highbeam archive? It's a nasty piece of work, though I don't have reason to question it's veracity. We should be extremely careful if and how we use it. --Ronz (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead/Family

  • Reading the lead I am told that Jain is an executive and entrepreneur and I am given a list of his businesses, but I don't know what these businesses do. I don't think a list of companies the reader might have no knowledge of is particularly helpful in a lead, the reader should be given some idea of what his companies do in general. 92.2.79.209
    This is an article about Jain, not his businesses. We've already far too much detail on his recent businesses, which is glaringly different than what's mentioned about his early career. Basically, the early career information is presented fairly well, but has been reduced to minimal information, while his current work has been padded with details only indirectly related to Jain, if at all. This is called coatracking. It an ongoing problem with this article. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    Could you clarify for me. I'm suggesting the inclusion of a general statement describing what category his work as an executive and entrepreneur fits into. Are you opposed to this or are you commenting on the list of companies appearing in the lead? Thanks. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. Good idea! How about proposing a something? He's gotten pretty diverse, so I can't think of any succinct summary, which is what I'd hope for - a few additional words only.
    The lede needs context, and this would be a great way to start getting some context in. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    I would simply describe him as a tech or technology entrepreneur (similar to this article) and say that he has founded several tech companies. Also, is there any reason why the largest section of the article, the court cases related to him, receives no mention in the lead? 92.2.79.209 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    "Technology entrepreneur" might work. His family foundation uses "information technology entrepreneur", but I think "technology entrepreneur" is better encompassing. Let's see what others think.
    The lede, like other sections of the article, is minimal. I see it as a compromise to keep disputes and disruptions at bay. What would we mention in the lede? The $247 million ruling is probably the most notable bit of information. Without a source that demonstrates it's importance in a historical context (eg a biography of Jain, a history of insider-trading law and rulings, etc), I think we need to be very cautious. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, I wouldn't say anything specific about the court cases in the lead, just state that he has been involved in several related to his companies as both defendant and plaintiff. On the description of his activities, I think technology entrepreneur is sufficiently broad. Jain has also described himself as a high-tech entrepreneur on his Forbes blog. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In the family section the sentence "Within one year, the society went global" appears. I don't think this is a particularly encyclopaedic turn of phrase (global could mean there are some international members, or, as implied here, a massive international expansion in membership). On a wider note, is it normal to have extensive biographical detail about family members in an individual's biography? 92.2.79.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
    This is also a WP:COAT problem, as well as a violation of WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTSOAP), which is an ongoing problem.
    So, no, extensive detail about family members is not normal nor justified here in the current level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    It does look very much to me like an attempt at biography by proxy, particularly the material on his son. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable rulings

  • I don't think this is a particularly good heading for the section, it is somewhat vague (what sort of rulings does it refer to?) and is not particularly reflective of the section content. Something like "Legal controversies" or maybe "Court cases" would be more informative.
  • The sentence "Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the judge ruled, Jain had violated six month short swing stock trading rules" does not read particularly well. I suggest it be changed to "The judge ruled that Jain had violated six month short swing stock trading rules under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934".
  • The sentence, "Attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, fearing the weight of the SEC brief could result in a complete reversal of their ruling during the appeal process", is obviously not NPOV. None of the supporting refs ascribe fear to the attorneys or shareholders (the first ref notes that the SEC brief was cited as a reason for settling). The phrase "complete reversal" is obvious POV OR. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Very good suggestions all. The cases are all related to his work at InfoSpace, with some being about how he started Intelius while at InfoSpace. That context would help, but I'm not sure it could be fit into the heading. A simple heading change as you're suggesting should work.
There's a short article on the short swing rule that we can link. Maybe just simply say he violated insider trading laws.
As for the settlement, we have only verified a very small part of the story. The SEC's brief did put pressure on InfoSpace to settle (see ref 42 - ^ Heath, David (March 6–8, 2005)). Unfortunately, the details on the changes to the settlement are unknown to us at this point - we have multiple sources showing that the dollar amount was changed over the years during all the appeals, but we have no idea why. I hope that someone will find sources that can shed light on what happened. (There are legal docs available online like this that might help). --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you point to some examples of the settlement changing? From what I can find, the 04/05 settlement agreement makes the Jains liable for a minimum of $93 million under 1(a)(1) and 1(b)(4)(i). I then see a figure of $105 million cited as the final 2009 settlement by the Jains in a few places (eg), where presumably the extra $12 million comes from the portion of the settlement under paragraph 1(b) in which it is expressly stated that this portion has a value in excess of $25 million. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The reported settlement amount changed, and this has caused confusion here in the past. The combined settlement in 2004 was for "approximately $83 million", but it's a combined settlement that included what appear to be all legal proceedings between Jain and InfoSpace. Later references give the $105 that you cite. As I pointed out, the references lack detail, and we've not gone through the legal documents for the specifics. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes, it's not at all obvious how the $83.2 million cash payment reported by InfoSpace in their quarterly report tallies with the $114.4 million they are supposed to receive in cash under the settlement agreement. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I have the $83 million figure worked out. The full settlement agreement can be found here. In paragraph 7 InfoSpace agrees to pay Dreiling's counsel fees of $31 million for both the State Derivative Suit and the Section 16(b) Suit plus a further $200000 cost reimbursement and $50000 to Dreiling in compensation. This means that in cash InfoSpace should have received $114.4 million - $31.25 million = $83.15 million as a result of the settlement. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify some possible confusion, there are two parts to the settlement. The first is a cash settlement to InfoSpace from several parties including the Jains of $114.4 million. This, less the attorney fees etc. relating to Dreiling of $31.25 million, is the $83 million received in cash by InfoSpace noted in the quarterly reports. The agreement states that the Jains directly contribute $68 million to this part of the settlement. Insurance on behalf of several parties contributes $43 million to the $114.4 million sum, the exact amount isn't disclosed in the agreement but some portion of this relates to the Jains. There is then a second part of the settlement agreement, an indemnity agreement between the Jains and InfoSpace worth in excess of $25 million, i.e. not cash and so it does not appear in the quarterly reports. The $68 million in cash, plus some portion of the $43 million insurance contribution and the indemnity agreement worth in excess of $25 million most likely make up the reported $105 million settlement by the Jains in 2009. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The material on his daughter is just copied and pasted from [39] and needs changing.

Source: "Daughter Priyanka, 17, is the founder and president of iCAREweCARE.org, a social network that connects philanthropically minded high school and college students with local opportunities to give. The United Nations Foundation named her a 'Teen Role Model' and 'Teen Advisor'."

Wiki: "His daughter, Priyanka, is the founder and president of iCAREweCARE.org, a social network that connects philanthropically minded high school and college students with local opportunities to give. The United Nations Foundation named her a 'Teen Role Model' and 'Teen Advisor'."

92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's an ongoing problem as well. Plus the magazine article was written by a public relations consultant. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for expansion

While I'm going over the sources, I think it could be useful to list others: --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Chairman an occupation?

Seems to be a long stretch. I'll restore it for a bit to see if anyone comments. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

More coi editing

Given how this article is more like a resume than an encyclopedia article, I think it's important to note that likely the coi problems never stopped. The latest three aren't problematic beyond the support of resume-like presentation and content. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been sitting on this page for over 5 years and for some reasons have an agenda against this person. Why don't you just leave this page alone and let the wiki community work on it. even Jimbo warned you in the past to not take control of this page and leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.110 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Chronological vs reverse order

I believe we should be following chronological order, with maybe exceptions for highly notable events. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_3&oldid=594298613"