Talk:Naveen Jain

Reads like press release

Hi, this page reads like a press release, with no mention of Naveen's SEC investigations, shareholder lawsuits and accusations of threatening behavior. It lists no references and the only links are to websites create by Naveen Jain himself. Not surprising, since a quick check of the history page shows that the two biggest IPs editing this page are 63.231.16.57 and 70.103.74.5. According to whois 63.231.16.57 is owned by Naveen Jain and 70.103.74.5 is owned by his latest company Intelius.

This page needs a serious rewrite. I recognize that biographies of living people must be treated carefully, so I will post my suggestions here before boldly updating the main page. I'll also be including the Wikipedia community to ensure that the information is accurate, encyclopedic, conforms to Living Persons guidelines and doesn't get reverted or vandalized by anyone attempting to smear Naveen, nor by anyone attempting to use Wikipedia as a fictionalized whitewash of history.

As a first pass, here‘s my suggestion for rewriting the introduction to provide some balance and links to credible sources. The remaining page needs citations throughout, the deletion of all but one of the links to Naveen‘s personal websites and an addition of the link to the entire Seattle Times expose on the InfoSpace collapse, but this would be a start:

---

Naveen Jain is an entrepreneur who once, after a stint at Microsoft working on MSN, proclaimed himself smarter than Bill Gates. Naveen founded InfoSpace in March 1996 and was its Chief Executive Officer until being removed by the board in December 2002 amid accusations of deception, dubious deals, insider trading and trick accounting. (Heath, David (2005-03-06). "Dot-con Job: How InfoSpace Took its Investors for a Ride". The Seattle Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))

His latest venture, founded in 2003 is Intelius, a “people search and background checker site“.

Naveen has received many awards including: Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year[citation needed]; and, in 1997, one of the Top 20 Entrepreneurs by Red Herring.

Naveen Jain resides in Bellevue, Washington with his wife and 3 children.

---

Comments by anyone not related to or employed by Naveen are appreciated. Str8tshooter (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Looks like a good start--I ran across this page when researching "Intelius", and I concur--the current Wikipedia article looks like a press release/self-aggrandizement. I recall the Infospace exposé...it was huge at the time. Traumerei (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the introduction in an attempt to provide some balance. I didn't have time to clean up anything but the intro, so I added "citation needed" tags to the rest of the page. I'll try to find what I can online to provide verifiable links to his education and other activities over the next week or so. Str8tshooter (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

It would appear 63.231.16.57 has reverted the recent edits (which were definitely informative and a step in the right direction). Per Str8tshooter's comment above, that IP belongs to Naveen Jain, the subject of the article! I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm leaving it as is, but surely Wikipedia must have some sort of process for such situations, where the subject of an article is actively editing it? (Or perhaps an employee/friend/family member). Traumerei (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Naveen_Jain --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced

While I'm going to avoid joining the edit-warring, I've added likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced to the horrible version that the article is currently in. Once the COI problems are resolved, I think we need to start removing the poorly referenced and highly promotional material. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USA Today backs up the Seattle Times story that was largely the source of negative information. There is further information on judgements against Jain in the New York Times. And so while I can't speak specifically for the wording of the reverted text, it can now be cited sufficiently that I would call any reasonless removal to be blatant vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there are multiple reliable sources here, enough to settle any WP:BLP concerns that others might have, hopefully. 63.231.16.57 has edited after being notified about the problems with his edits, so I don't think we need to wait for a response from him.

I suggest reverting to the last edit by SmackBot (17:29, 31 December 2007), and working from there. That would resolve most of my concerns (Likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced). --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also not sure we need these long lists of ego-stroking information referenced only to Jain's personal websites. I did a somewhat exhaustive search oh his Ghits for reliable sources and didn't find any real mention of that. True or not, it seems he's the only one who took notice enough to write about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting as I'm suggesting leaves only one external link. A link to the individual's personal website or an official biography is standard for such articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible external link or source

I found this while looking through the article history. It might be useful here, or in Infospace:

• Dot-con job: How InfoSpace took its investors for a ride

--Ronz (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Three unreferenced sections

Please see WP:COIN#Naveen Jain for more discussion on this article, and my reasoning for removing these sections. They sounded like advertising or resume information, though his awards may deserve space if citations can be found. Please comment here if you believe those sections have value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The COIN discussion has been archived. Its new location is here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Smarter Than Bill Gates

Is this necessary for the article? A critique of the management of MSN made in 1995 says little about the actual person. Rather, to a casual reader, there is an implication that Naveen Jain is in fact, a smarter person than Bill Gates, while the link provided does not cite any recognized form of intelligence test. The cited article is itself a cited article, written in 1997, quoting an article written in 1995, the contents are vaguely referenced in the 1997 article merely as a means of drawing a title and a talking point. Unless there can be a direct citation of InfoWorld's 1995 article, this link does not belong here, as it is misleading and only serves to artificially inflate a reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the Red Herring article is "Smarter than Bill" and it is citable. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While I still haven't unearthed the InfoWorld article that started it all, I have uncovered further aggrandizing statements in the press [1] [2] perpetuating the image of Naveen Jain as not only "smarter than Bill" Gates but also a "fireball of energy." What continues to boggle me is why anyone would leave a blank picture during that time as to the popular opinion of Jain before InfoSpace stockholders surrendered all that cash. It's as though we're telling the story of a thousand angry villagers who were duped by an average Pradeshi in a suit. Let's put down the pitchfork long enough to give a rational assessment of the media hype which garnered Naveen Jain the credibility to persuade investors to make the choices that they did. Giving Jain no credit gives investors no credit as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is no need to repeat the headline of a magazine article, and use that as a statement of fact or opinion. Magazine headlines are designed for effect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. So the point of discussion set in motion by the article title is unusable? And the subsequent references also merit no note? I think it's bizarre that we're not going to mention how the media portrayed Naveen Jain between 1995 and 2000 but include its discussion after the bubble popped. Fine, I'll boilerplate this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard accounting practice?

The statement and link do not match. The article linked to when mentioning that pro forma earnings estimates were common practice, and were what occured in the case of infospace are not backed by the citation. The following is an excerpt from the link pertaining to the exaggeration of stock value:

What Paul Allen, Bev Hess and hundreds of other shareholders didn't know was this: InfoSpace's success was an illusion, created by lies and deception.

Jain and other InfoSpace executives deceived the public by making the company appear far more successful than it was, a Seattle Times investigation has found.

The investigation — built on internal company e-mails, confidential documents filed in court and scores of interviews — found that Jain and others created the illusion of revenues with accounting tricks and dubious deals.

One e-mail from a venture capitalist to Jain captures the nature of the deals. The man refused to participate in an investment that Jain had proposed, bluntly telling Jain that if he did so, "I believe that I could go to jail."

The Times' investigation found:

• InfoSpace officials misled Wall Street and the public about how their company was doing, concealing that revenues were falling far short of expectations.

• Much of InfoSpace's reported revenue came from "lazy Susan" deals, whereby company officials invested in other firms that turned around and gave back the same money. p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography about a living person, who is not an accountant. Emails are not citable. Red Herring is citable, and the title of their article is "Smarter than Bill Gates". If there is some reason that the acclaim is unwelcome in a neutral article but criticism is, please explain. It sounds very much like there are some angry speculators. I don't deny this. Let's just make sure the angry speculators check their attitudes at the login page before editing an encyclopedia. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While the title is "Smarter Than Bill Gates", it still does not belong as part of a biography, as first it was not made by the source cited, second that it lacks neutrality, and third, that without anything to back it up, it adds little to the biography. Awards, accolades, any form of accomplishment (pardon the alliteration, an accident), are welcome as long as they are cited. The reason that the statement was removed was already mentioned in detail in the previous section.

As this is a neutral article, only verified and cited facts should be posted. If that means that the cited facts are negative, but backed up, they, along with proper accolades should be added, however neutrality does not necessarily mean either ignoring negative articles due to number, nor adding positive articles for the sake of having a positive article. Attitude checked...this is an encyclopedia article, and is being edited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit, which I am content with, my issue was not the content, but the method it was used to interject an opposing statement, which resulted in a critical statement paraphrased from the article being altered into a lighter form. By separating the statement, the tone remains neutral and observatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

COI editing resumed today

63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has today resumed editing this article. Whois shows that this IP address is registered to Naveen Jain. I am going to leave a warning on this editor's Talk page, and ask him to explain why he is removing sourced information that is critical of Naveen Jain. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content he added was not actually supported by the source he used. Further, the bits of the content that was supported by this source was written on that source's website in first person, so I think it's a safe bet that Intelius itself submitted the information. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Herring Award

This was previously removed because I could not find an actual reference on the link. A second link was placed, which while it does list a "Top 100 Technology Companies 1997" and "Top 20 Entrepreneurs of 1997", references the same article already mentioned, which is dead linked. The original Red Herring article itself has no mention of an award or placement of Jain on a list, although the bottom contains a link to "The Top 20 List", this is also a dead link. Therefore, the only certifiable claim to the award comes from InfoSpace's website, not from a news source or Red Herring itself. Again, the second article is only a reference to the first article. Ragan651 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found a Red Herring article that refers to the recognition, and will append the article accoringly.Ragan651 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragan651 explains some of his edits

Over at User:Ragan651#Supposed Edit War/Current Activities, i.e. on his user page, Ragan651 has justified some of his recent changes to this article in more detail. I haven't checked the whole sequence of events, but Ragan's account seems plausible. ClaudeReigns left a 3RR warning for Ragan, but the latter removed it from his Talk page. I hope that Claude will check the current state of the Jain article to be sure that his concerns were addressed. My main issue is that the 2002 stock price issues as well as Jain's dismissal as CEO of InfoSpace stay in the article, since they are well-sourced. When Ragan mentions his previous editing of the Jain article as an IP, he must be referring to the account 71.221.141.197 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to these criticisms appearing in the article and I wish to revert any attempt to remove sourced material damaging or otherwise. My concerns are not addressed, and I am still awaiting the inclusion of lauds from business journalism sources from 1995-2000 to appear in the article or a guarantee they will not be deleted outright by the editor you mentioned. I also dispute certain details of the extensive monologue at that user page, but it seems untoward to detail them here. What do you suggest? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you say more about what problems you still see in the article? Is Ragan preventing you from making desirable changes? EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ragan has succeeded in deleting outright the reference to the plaudits of Jain (he's been called smarter than Bill Gates) in any form of the citation, now that I've refused to edit war after giving the 3RR notice. There are now three citations ready to be given to reference the media buzz about Naveen Jain from 1995-2000 which comment on publications lauding him as "Smarter than Bill [Gates]" and being a "fireball of energy", as well as explorations into the quirks of his personality. I feel that any meaningful biography should include these, so long as they do not imply that Wikipedia actually represents Naveen Jain as being smarter than Gates, etc. Third party sources should be allowed to say what they mean to say, if indeed they are reliable or their commentary is of note. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs [3] [4] [5] [6] ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs [7][8][9] ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The type of information you're insisting on just never turned up in my searches. While I'm sure there were articles in the mid-90's on Jain, I can't find them online, therefore they are not useful as wikipedia sources (my problem with some of the links and statements here was just that, the links did not contain the information they were intended to back up, but sometimes referenced it). Regarding "deleting outright the reference to the plaudits of Jain", I still hold that it does not belong in the article for the countless reasons I already gave. I won't be touching this (I've already been threatened once by ClaudeReigns over it), however I am tired of the sneaky way he is insisting on replacing this in the article. As for whether I'm attempting to keep "lauds" regarding the subject away, I have personally added supportive background on Jain. Ragan651 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of those links you just posted, the only one I have seen before was "Smarter Than Bill." Ragan651 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject is editing his own article (May 1st)

In the past, this article has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It was stable for about two months, and appropriately neutral. Then, on May 1, two IP editors began removing sourced critical information about the article subject. One of the IPs is 63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which our WHOIS link shows is owned by Naveen Jain, the article subject. The latest move is to take out all mention of the Wikipedia article on the Dot com bubble, even though that describes the exact conditions that led to the collapse of the stock price of InfoSpace and other companies. I would welcome advice from other editors on how to proceed. Partisan editing in defence of private interests is blockable per WP:COI. Another account that engaged in promotional editing here, 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in February for a similar editing pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: the latest IP engaged in whitewashing appears to be 66.238.89.2; this user has also repeatedly reverted mentions of the Infospace accounting scandal, which is certainly relevant and notable and well cited. I'm not certain if it's the same person, but user Someguy1221 and I have undone those edits. I certainly don't wish to engage in an edit war, so I'll let further edits stand in the hope that someone familiar with the conflict of interest process (or perhaps three revert rule violations) will pursue this issue through those channels. Traumerei (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of Naveen Jain should include this link about Intelius' new service and the bait and switch scam in it.

Link to Tech Crunch article and responses 66.75.246.129 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryyugo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not draft a proposed change to the article here on the Talk page? Since Intelius is the company making the offer, it's possible that the reference may belong over on their article. Arrington's views appear worthy of mention on web-related matters, but we need to keep the relative weight appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I don't have time but if you'd like to or know someone who would, I hope you will.Maryyugo (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How is Arun Sarin relevant to Naveen Jain?

I don't see any relevance at all. Please provide a reference demonstrating that we should mention Arun Sarin in this article. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A better alternative would simply state Jain's position when the reported actions were taking place, with a source of course. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the sourced information has simply been deleted, without rationale or discussion. I'll be restoring it if no discussion is forthcoming. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored it along with two sources removed without any indication as to why. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the article discussion page before and instead left a message for you on your talk page. Hiring a veteran executive from Vodafone to replace himself as the CEO is important to the mindset of Naveen Jain. Major stock price drop happened during the time when Arun Sarin was infospace CEO and not Naveen Jain. A part of the stock price drop could be attributed to dot com crash which also happened during the time of Arun Sarin. By excluding him from the discussion, the article somehow misleads the reader that Naveen was the CEO of infospace from founding until he left the company and stock price drop happened under his leadership. Can you suggest better ways to incorporate this information so readers of this article are not misled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. If you could provide some sources for the opinions you present above, then we can identify and resolve any problems. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, See the SEC filings from the year April 2000 (when Arun Sarin was hired) to 2002 (when lawsuits were filed). You will find that information that I am listing is correct and relevant to this article for the reasons I mentioned above. See SEC filings at http://idea.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-idea?company=&match=&CIK=insp&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany. I will go ahead and redo the changes and hopefully you will find the satisfactory references in the SEC filings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those do not support your opinions at all. They indicate Sarin was CEO, nothing more. Please discuss here if I'm missing something.

In general, we need independent sources to show that something is important. Otherwise we risk doing original research or giving an unbalanced presentation.

Additionally, you repeatedly remove sourced information without any indication as to why. This appears to be vandalism and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past, editors connected to Naveen Jain have shown great interest in deleting negative information about him, even when it was well-sourced. One of the IPs which engaged in that was blocked. The editing pattern of Special:Contributions/Wiki-expert-edit suggests that his sole interest in Wikipedia is topics related to Naveen Jain, so another WP:Conflict of interest seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this is looking more an more like the same problems we were having with the editors using ip's from Jain's companies. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sarin without a source is a WP:BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No reference to TechCrunch and Seattle Weekly expose on Mr Naveen Jain

For starters you can have this link to go through [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The100rabh (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Chen's mentioning

I added a reference to The Old New Thing. At least now we have a citation for that section. McKay (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Short swing lawsuit

I've moved the following from the article for discussion. I've yet to find a source that summarizes what has happened since. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reinstating it, though I'd like other's perspectives on all that happened in this case. It looks like Jain sued a stock management company and his former lawyers for the situation. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008831296_apscotusinfospace.html --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

In another lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain broke Short Swing law section 16 (b) by buying and selling shares of InfoSpace within 6 months. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Jain with the Federal appeal court that asked the appeal court to overturn the lower court ruling, pointing out that judge had made a mistake in her understanding of the law. Plaintiff's lawyer settled the lawsuit while the case was still on appeal.

Inaccuracies?

Please identify the specific "inaccuracies" in my rewrite: --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In another dispute, a lawsuit by shareholders, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules. Jain's lawyers settled the $247 million judgment while the case was still on appeal for $105 million.

I'm going to restore it. I believe the first sentence is accurate and clear, with the link to Short swing providing detailed information for the reader. I removed the SEC information because I couldn't verify "that asked the appeal court to dismiss the case, pointing out that judge had made a mistake in her understanding of the law" and even if it can be verified, the notable information about the SEC amicus, according to the Seattle Times, is how they were influenced by a person hired by Jain. The $247 million judgement is accurate and notable because was the largest such judgement at the time. Multiple sources confirm the $105 million settlement amount when Jain suit against his lawyers and stock management company made news when it went to the Supreme Court, who refused to listen to the appeal. I've purposely left out mention of his suit and appeals to the Supreme Court because I haven't noticed anyone bringing it up, but it might be worth a brief mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no inaccuracies as the info can be found in the cite. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While I like most of the subsequent changes [11], I wonder if Jain's subsequent suit is worth mention without noting it went to the Supreme Court. Version copied below for easy reference: --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In another dispute, a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain. While the case was on appeal, Jain settled the case for $105 million while denying liability; Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed.

How about "The Supreme Court refused to hear Jain's appeal which involved blaming his former lawyers for the loss"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored to the version above, because InfoSpace's press releases fail WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP, and contradict every other source we've found. Here's the press release from the opposing lawyers on the original judgement Aug. 22, 2003 .

Are we presenting the type of legal dispute properly? This report gives some clarification we might be able to use. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's referring to a different lawsuit against AOL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's difficult going through all these legal disputes. I'm trying to find the actual case names for reference. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We should stick to the ones who name Jain personally and that were notable (obviously). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article explains the early details of the settlement. Dreiling, a shareholder, filed two separate lawsuits, one "against former company officers and former and current directors" and a separate suit against Jain on the short-swing violation that resulted in the $247 million penalty. These two, different lawsuits were settled together. Wiki-expert-edit has been confusing them.

I'm not clear on how to refer to the different lawsuits and appeals. "Dreiling v. Kellet" appears to be then name of the initial suit that was ruled against Jain, and "Dreiling v. Jain" was the name of the subsequent appeal when the settlement was reached. I'm not 100% on this, as the best references do not list case names. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What would that add to the article? This 2009 piece seems to sum up the final outcome as it relates to Jain. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The material is simply for reference if there are further content disputes. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft and MSN section edit

I propose to add the bolded part to give a bit more depth to the section as well as bring to light the fact the he holds three patents (all edits I propose are from the red herring article that the unbolded part is from)

  In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
    and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the 
    day he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996 . In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point
    of view and what it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]  —(talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 

Nightseeder (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the Red Herring ref was written in 1997, and Jain has done so much else, I don't think the quote or the added emphasis is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I believe that the fact that he hold 3 patents from his time at Microsoft is an interesting fact, and should be mentioned, and I don't see how the "age" of an info matters when you refer to the description of a person's accomplishments and general history (nor does the "quantity" of said person's accomplishments) --Nightseeder (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The age of the information matters because statements made at a certain time may no longer be true or clear. In addition, as I've mentioned, he's done a great deal since. His time at Microsoft is rather unimportant other than it leading to his subsequent accomplishments. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that the age of an information matters in the regard you speak of, I do not believe this is true for this specific information (the patents he holds are still standing, patent numbers: 6,357,000, 5,655,154, and 5,434,776) as well as the fact that his Microsoft time period construct 8 years of his life and and was the place he started to make head in the hi-tech market which from a historic/biographic stand point I hold of some importance --Nightseeder (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits" hasn't aged well.

Maybe if there were another, more modern source to draw upon, we could determine better what should be emphasized. Otherwise, we don't add material just because someone believes it might be interesting to include. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the age of the source matters here as all the info is still correct. He still hold those 3 patents, and the fact that he participated (in a meaningful manner) in some of MS greatest hits as well as being part the lunching of Microsoft Networks, this [the wiki page] is suppose to be an encyclopedic entry about a person life and doings, not an "interest piece" for a magazine article. so since you disagree with the way I added that info then maybe you can offer a better way to represent/phrase it? --Nightseeder (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no further input from you, and no one else is chiming in with an opinion I will put the information back in (will retouch it to account for your feedback). --Nightseeder (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

this is what I edited in to the Microsoft and MSN section (the boldded section).

        In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits for the time, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
        and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents [4][5][6]), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the day
        he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996.[2] In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what
        it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightseeder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 

I've removed it per WP:UNDUE. It's one of the problems of using old sources, they by definition put undue weight upon older information. As I've also mentioned, "all of Microsoft's greatest hits" with the examples given is outdated to the point that it should not be included at all because it's no longer true. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree to the applicability of the WP:UNDUE, to this matter, as well as to your opinion regarding "all of Microsoft's greatest hits" (which in the retouched version I added "for the time" to reflect that they might have "greater" hits now), but you seem adamant on your perspective and considering that, going back and forth between us will go nowhere I suggest drawing the attention of my fellow members of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography" in the hope that more people might be able to assist in adjudicating this matter to a point we are both happy with :), what say you? --Nightseeder (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at this point we need others' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With the article currently so small, I have a hard time swallowing the UNDUE complaint here. Rather than removing this content, to fix the undue weight, we should be adding more content about the other things this man has done. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But the "all of Microsoft's greatest hits for the time" is a bit loaded...try toning it down to a phrase more like "several of Microsoft's flagship products for the time". See also: WP:PEACOCK. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the way I phrased it was a bit loaded and I like the way you offered to tone it down, also in regard to adding more info about this person, I have tried and looked for more info but there isn't much out there that would be acceptable under the wiki guidelines.--Nightseeder (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So here is a rephrased version.... would that be acceptable to add in?

         In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then on several of Microsoft's flagship products for the time, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
        and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents [4][5][6]), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the day
        he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996.[2] In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what
        it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]

In a way I almost think that this entire page falls under the WP:UNDUE and should be removed, but as a general rule I prefer to add stuff in rather than remove them. --Nightseeder (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. For years now, editors have tried to remove and reduce properly sourced material about Jain, many (most?) against a coi. Given the length and scope of Jain's career, plus the huge amount of press he recieved for his activites with InfoSpace, it's not a stretch to claim that everything else is undue weight. However, we should give at least some minimal mention to notable events in his life beyond Infospace. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing is that the InfoSpace affair might count as the reason for this person to be noticeable enough to make a wiki page for, but giving that this is establish, we are writing a biography of the person and as such we should not only focus on what made him noticeable, but about the entire person, otherwise his involvement in the InfoSpace affair should be noted under an entry for the company (which seems to be lacking most of the information presented here), and the entry for the person should be removed. --Nightseeder (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not going to delete this article. That's certainly what many of the problematic editors have wanted over the years, but we're not here to satisfy their personal points of view. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy editor here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. The information definitely belongs in the article in order to provide a thorough biography of the article's subject. However, the proposed input, along with the rest of the article needs copy editing, i.e.,

In 1989, Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, working in the capacity of Program Manager. He initially began working on OS/2 and then moved on to several of Microsoft's flagship products, including MS-DOS, Windows NT, and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents).[4][5][6] He later moved to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service). In April 1996, he left to form InfoSpace.[2] In an interview with Red Herring, Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be."[2]

blending visions of software coders with market demands. (This last line needs to be worked, but is not appropriate where initially placed.)

The article lede needs expanded. Additionally, the "Background" section should be changed to "Early life" or "Personal life" or something like that. The term "Background" refers to the entire article and needs to be clarified. Cindamuse (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've incorporated an abridged version of your suggestion.

I've changed "Background" to "Early life", moving the 2000 net worth to "Infospace". --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the WP:LEDE? --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could help you with that. I really don't know anything about this person other than what is already in the article. I would just keep in mind that the lede is the place to indicate why the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It should have enough information there to draw readers into the rest of the article. In all things, have fun and enjoy editing! ;) Cindamuse (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

general cleanup

• I don't see anywhere mentioned that Naveen Jain was a member of the Freei board of directors, nor do I see any mention of him investing anything in it. so I'm removing the entire section since the only connection is via InfoSpace which provided an infrastructure service for Freei, and a comment from Jain regarding the service offering. (maybe it should mentioned in the InfoSpace page?)
• I'm editing the Intelius entry to refer to Jain as a co-founder (it seems he was part of 6 people who founded it together - according to the Intelius wiki page).
• Also linking to the InfoSpace page (where appropriate).
• Removing "^ Infospace SEC filings, see filings for 2001 and 2002, Business Wire, January 17, 2000" reference link dead.
• Also need links to the patents if they are still valid.

All in all I believe that this page needs either a major expansion or a merging with the InfoSpace page. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the links to the patents I guess they got lost in the editing and reformatting of my suggestion, so I will pot them back in. As far as expanding, I looked for a while and couldn't really find anything of interest that is also citable, by Wiki standards, so..... :shrug shoulders: . --Nightseeder (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

you seem to have forgotten to actually take the link you said you are taking out in "* Removing "^ Infospace SEC filings, see filings for 2001 and 2002, Business Wire, January 17, 2000" reference link dead." -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk)

Thanks and fixed :) ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the link is back, was it decided to be OK after all? -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the Freei and added another references. Looks like it has been whitewashed and needs a proper presentation, though I think the section should remain brief. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You've also restored a dead link (Gates, Dominic; Freei Files For Bankruptcy, Infoworld, October 9, 2000). Unless there is another copy of this article somewhere, I believe the link should be removed. As such, I think you need to review this addendum to ensure that it aligns with the information presented in the articles that are available. Also it is unclear, still, how this fits into a biography of this person, but I shall not belabour the point as I've raised this point in detail below. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

I propose the following edit to the InfoSpace section

Old: In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain.[13] While on appeal, Jain settled the case for $105 million, while denying liability. Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed.[14][15][16]

New: In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that the Jains had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain.[13] However, in a surprise move, the SEC rallied to his defense, and attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case with the judgment against the Jains slashed to $65 million.[14][15] The case was finally settled out of court, along with all other pending litigation, for $83 million.[16]

I would do it myself but it seem that you need special rights to edit this page or something. -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk)

BTW all the changes are within the references already given -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC).

This seems a reasonable edit, if there is no objections I will do the edit (I'll wait till tomorrow before I do so, so others might voice their opinion as well), though I think that it should be mentioned that he attempted further litigations against his lawyers but was dismissed ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added it in ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If all the facts are correct, why the change? --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this closer, I'm entirely against it. It appears to be an attempt to completely remove all material from the The Seattle Times, 9 March 2009 article. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked at it further and this is my rewrite of the suggested edit (with reasoning below it):

In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of InfoSpace in violation of short-swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain[1]. However, in an uncharacteristic behavior, the SEC rallied to his defense and urged an appeal court to reverse the ruling. Due to this intervention, the parties involved agreed to settle the case for only $65 million.[2] on March 9^th 2009, the Supreme Court refused to allow Jain to sue a stock management company and his former lawyers for (allegedly) mishandling the short-swing case that resulted in the judgment against him.[3]

[1],[2],[3] are references 12,13,14 respectively on the main article

The reference to the settlement of $105 million seems ambiguous and I'm not clear if it is in fact referencing the $247 million lawsuit so I'm not including it.

I'm also removing the $83 million statement since it is from a non citable reference (the SEC press release state that "This release contains forward-looking statements regarding the litigation matters described in the body of the release and the proposed settlement agreement that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements", and I removed it from the references list), the only citable reference to the settlement seems to be the one set at $65 million. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you confusing the different lawsuits? We did a pretty good job of cutting through earlier confusion. See previous discussions here. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also find the $105 reference ambiguous and I like the improvement to my proposed edit -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to expand further on the linked discussion that explains the two, different lawsuits. No changes should be made based upon a lack of understanding, let alone an outright misunderstanding. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding Tags

I'm going to add the following tags

• {{notability}} since I do not think the subject warrants Notability under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
• {{Merge to}} because the main content of this article (the InfoSpace issue) should be under that page (just like we would not write every litigation against Microsoft or its founder under Bill Gates' bio page).

~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is easily met by the multiple references about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This Article is really about Infospace Litigations and should be merged with Infospace page as suggested by Dr. Lords. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this article is about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge and notability

I do not support the merge of this article with the InfoSpace article. This article focuses on the career of an individual, and introduces his involvement in litigation pertaining to the organization he founded, rather than on the organization itself. In fact, the article does not even mention the history, organizational structure, location, product, or industry that InfoSpace offers and serves.

This article is not about litigation. In fact, only three sentences focus on litigation involving InfoSpace, totaling just 17 percent of the article. In my opinion, there is little validity to the suggested merge or question of notability.

The subject of this article holds three patents developed prior to his involvement with InfoSpace. The article presents his early life (albeit minimally) and his career prior to and after InfoSpace. As a person that had never heard of Jain prior to the GOCE drive, I believe that this article needs to be expanded. I see mention on the talk page of various issues of Jain's life, including an exposé that have been left out or removed from the article. I find myself wondering what that is all about. Quite frankly, it leaves me believing that this article is being whitewashed and censored. Cindamuse (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article needs to be expanded. The whitewashing continues to be disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, as a party interested in the Foundation's interests, this article seems to be based largely on a small set of articles from one news outlet. Yes, there are other sources, but the reality is that there seems to be a small amount of citable information out there. The articles that are cited from the Seattle Times are articles seem to be about the company (Infospace), not about this person primarily. That seems to be what Dr Lords was saying,but I don't mean to speak for Dr Lords. I am not sure how I feel about this issue, and this being Wikipedia, I'm not sure it matters how I feel WP:NOTDEMOCRACY :P but the reality is that this is a living person and defamation of character is a real possibility through acts of omission. So I'd suggest that everyone consider WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTSCANDAL and try to keep some perspective on why we're really here. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If we have problems with omission, a start would be to list references covering whatever topics editors feel have been omitted. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Perhaps more citable material will also surface to provide some more points of view to this article. Sadly, I am not a biographer, but I believe it is in the Foundation's best interest to enforce our own guidelines. ;) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Valkyrie's comments. To which foundation are you referring? Issues pertaining to defamation and libel are addressed by writing an article supported by reliable secondary and third-party sources. Criticism and praise should be included when they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. While "acts of omission" are certainly indicative of an inappropriate POV and poorly written article, it is not a reflection of defamation in regards to Wikipedia.

On another note, I just ran a search on Google and find there are numerous citable sources available to expand this article. There are also images of Jain with celebrities and heads of state, including one with George W. Bush during his presidency. What was this all about? Might be something to look in to. The photo would be acceptable to include in this article. Just looking through the Part one of the Seattle Times article, I found more personal information about Jain than I read in the article here on Wikipedia. A simple Google search brings up board memberships, philanthropy, and honors and awards received. I'm amazed that this information is not included in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't completed law school, I would caution any of us from making legal determinations unless we have. If Wikipedia didn't have liability, then there would be no policies regarding libel. All I'm suggesting is that the Wikipedia guidelines be followed, and this discussion has already gone too deep (this is not the proper forum for this, as it isn't cogent to this person). ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I would again caution that these are citable sources (my search looked to produce pages and pages of sites that were not and very little that was). But we're saying the same thing here, which is: follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. The Seattle Times article contains plenty of information, but, as it is titled, "Dot-con job: How InfoSpace took its investors for a ride" I think it is safe to say it represents one point of view. Again, we're on the same page as I feel more points of view (and lots more information) would make this a legitimate article. Sorry for being wordy, but as a future lawyer I guess I'm already gabby. ;) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure to follow guidelines when interrupting the comments of others. It becomes confusing and disruptive to the flow of conversation and oftentimes causes your comments to be overlooked. Thanks. ;) While I personally have a background in corporate and employment law, this expertise is not necessary for editors to make comments addressing their concerns. Simply said, acts of omission in regards to libel do not apply here. Acts of commission would. Presenting information along with reliable sources takes libel off the table.

• Use of sources or lack thereof, based on the title of the source is ineffective. Cull sources for facts and information and cite the reference. No harm; no foul. That's how it's done.
• Regarding proper forums, this is the established forum for discussions. All input is welcome. Even gabby ones. ;)
• Questions regarding the legitimacy of the article are puzzling. All articles are "legitimate", unless they're just complete gibberish. Heck, this article has even been assessed. Even stubs are legitimate articles, simply needing developed. The article doesn't need additional points of view, it just needs to be expanded.
• Ideas. 1. Jain is a member of various boards. Research those organizations. They generally have bios written for their members. 2. There is information in the Seattle Times regarding the personal background and childhood of Jain. Developing this information would more than double the current content in the article. 3. Include the information on the honors and awards that he has received. Dig deeper and research the other recipients to see if there is a pattern with any of his competitors or allies. Do the same by researching his philanthropic interests. 4. I understand that he presents himself favorably to Bill Gates. Are there similarities in their lives and interests? Present a comparative analysis. What about the home in Medina? Sounds kinda sketchy. Just some ideas, take them for what they are worth. Cindamuse (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

These seem like good ideas, but I'm confused on how what you propose is not in direct opposition to the Wikipedia guidelines? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up and edits

I'm planning on doing the following edits (unless there are any objections):

• From

When stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 during the dot com "crash". The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."[1][2][8][1][9][10][11]

to

nothing.

The only part of this statement that is supported by the citations is the stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 during the dot com "crash" statement and this should be part of the InfoSpace page and not this one (if it is not there already I might go over and add it in).

• And from

Jain left Infospace as its CEO in late 2002, but remained on the board of directors through June 2005.[1][9][10][11]

to

same but less citations (as per Wikipedia:Citation_overkill) done.

• And from

In 2003, Jain co-founded a Bellevue, Washington-based company specializing in public records information and offering service to consumers and businesses which include background checks and identity theft protection. Co-founders included John Arnold, Ed Petersen, Kevin Marcus, Niraj Shah, and Chandan Chauhan.[15][16][17][18][19][20]

to

same but less citations (as per Wikipedia:Citation_overkill)) done.

~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think using the information from the quote would be reasonable to add. The full quote is, "But InfoSpace's success was an illusion, built on accounting tricks and the hype of charismatic founder Jain, a Seattle Times investigation has found." --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You consider this line of editing to be enhancing the neutrality of this biography? That article in the Seattle Times is basically what most of this article is based on, and it presents one point of view, and not a very neutral point of view either. Without more citable sources to augment this article, I have a hard time understanding how Wikipedia's goal of an encyclopedic biography is being served. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

None of your concerns are actual problems identified in WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First, as I see no objection to the Wikipedia:Citation_overkill issue I brought up, I shall proceed in removing the over citations where needed.

Second, my remark in regard to the "When stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 du..." line still holds (even if the charismatic remark is citable) see WP:UNDUE, though maybe the part regarding Jain's charismatic influence should be mentioned somehow, as it does pertain to the person himself. Also why is it citing 6 sources (one of which is there twice), for a single statement? ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps RonZ and I are reading different WP:NPOV references. This is core to the subject of neutrality and balance, which this article is lacking (being based on a couple of articles from one news outlet). Without more sources describing this person, is this a one-hit wonder or a true person of note? Notable persons generally have a vast array of citable material to draw on (from the WP:BLP pages) and as such, a balanced NPOV Wikipedia article is generated by combining many voices into one article and presenting the differing POVs without favoring any of them. RonZ seems to favor a specific POV rather than balance, and this isn't the place for that. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTSCANDAL ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The references are acceptable sources being used in acceptable ways. NPOV doesn't require that proper sources be balanced.

Please refer to the past discussions on the notability of Jain. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done (cleaned up the over citations). I still think that the "When stock fell from a peak of..." line should be removed per WP:UNDUE, and if deemed relevant find a different way to reference Jain's charismatic abilities. Discuss? ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I'm not satisfied with the previous discussions on this, so here's a section for it. My concern is that this person is notable for a single thing (the Seattle Times articles). However, others are mentioned in those articles and they are not graced with a Wikipedia entry, so why this person? Where is Jean-Remy Facq's page, or Kevin Marcus' page (Mansions, cars, yachts, jewelry — then the bottom dropped out). Where are Ellen Alben: general counsel, Tammy Halstead: chief accounting officer, Larry Hile: outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche, Russell Horowitz: president, Garth MacLeod: finance director, Arun Sarin: chief executive officer, and Rick Thompson: executive vice president (When times got tough, execs hid troubles, dumped stock)? I'm having a very difficult time wrapping my brain around how these articles qualify as a biography of this person, aside from a few sentences relating to his early life and some facts about his career and a few court cases. I understand that people have strong feelings about this person, but Wikipedia is not the place to vent those feelings. WP:ENC ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this page fails to meet the notability requirement due to WP:BLP1E, but I seemed to have been "shut down" (so to speak) when I suggested that. Since it seems the notability subject is coming up again, I'm reinstating the template for it on the main page. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Jain meets WP:N and WP:BIO many times over, and has for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This not "Nonsense", if there is a dispute in regard to something (especially when it concerns a bio of a living person), every concern is valid and should be pursued to its full extent. I'm putting back the notability template as this subject is in dispute and that what the template represent. please do not remove it until consensus is reached.

Further more I do think this is of no notability for the reasons stated (see also WP:BIO1E, WP:BARE, WP:DESCRIBE<= can be merged into InfoSpace and Intelius, WP:WSNC, and WP:IMPACT and I'm sure given time and further reading I can direct you to more sources to support lack of notability). With all due respect! --Nightseeder (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense. We've multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage about Jain. That's much, much more than enough. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the notice of notability dispute, please do not remove (see your talk page for further information. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to respond to my points, then the tag doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I (and others) have responded to you by giving you (by now) multiple places that support the claim to no notability (multiple reliable sources are not necessarily enough to justify notability, specifically when the case is related to WP:BLP1E, which I think is the case here). Your only response seems to be "Nonsense" followed by "there is enough sources out there" (or some thing to that end). Please address the concerns provided, instead of just dismissing and reverting. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "nonsense" continues to be an appropriate response. No one here has offered anything to further the past discussions on the matter. I see absolutely nothing in BLP1E that applies here. I suggest editors get better acquainted with the application of WP:BIO by looking through biographical AfDs. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The only event that seems to qualify to me is the $247M judgment being the largest on record. But since the Supreme Court refused to hear appeal, it didn't set any significant legal precedents, it's just a civil matter and the final settlement amount was a fraction ... so even the one event of note is not very noteworthy. Certainly it doesn't a biography make and the event doesn't really tell me much about the person (civil lawsuits are frequent, settlements are typical outcomes, and the mundane action of civil courts of law would make for millions of tedious articles and citations). Just my opinion, of course. Also the continued dismissal of opinions as "nonsense" continues to be unproductive to actual discussion. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, that's not how we determine notability here. Instead, we rely upon WP:N and WP:BIO which I've done in my assessment. If anyone has any policy- or guideline-based concerns that I've not addressed, please indicate what I've overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I disagree on your assertion that this is not a reason to nullify a notability and I will qoet ^{forgive the misspell, I can't figure it out} from the WP:BIO (which you refer to) under the section People notable only for one event (boldded for to show my points)

"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."

Also I again refer you to WP:DESCRIBE (from Reasons not to include: "The only information about the subject comes all from a single source" ^{Seattle Times}, "Only a few sentences of information can be written, and most likely, there will never be any more (see WP:PERMASTUB)") and assert that the subject can be easily moved into a mention on the InfoSpace page and would be more appropriate there.

And even more qoets:

"There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject",

"All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles" ^{( or in this case should be, and I might actually put the relevant info into the InfoSpace page)},

"The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage",

"The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage"

All the above are from WP:PERMASTUB.

It seems to me ^{(forgive the assumption)} that you might have become so locked down against editing this page (with good reasons because there was a lot of COI here), that it has become a reflex reaction for you to object to any edit of this page (see earlier attempts by me to add the info about the patents above), maybe you should take a minute and ask yourself, would this person be of notability if the InfoSpace law suit would have not happened, if the answer is no, then he is clearly notable for one event, per WP:BIO1E, if the answer is (in all honesty) yes, then please elaborate as to why. -- Nightseeder (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is significant sentiment that this article does not meet notability requirements, why not send it through WP:AfD and gather some more outside opinions? Or at least be more formal about proposing the merger into InfoSpace. My personal preference is to let the article stand. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Let me put it another way: WP:SNOW. Jain is notable for multiple events in his life. He has been regularly mentioned in the news for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the quotes above from WP:PERMASTUB apply.

So again, does anyone have any policy- or guideline-based arguments that have not been addressed? --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The relevant policies on how to go about resolving this dispute are WP:CON and WP:DR. For the dispute itself, the relevant wikiproject is WP:WikiProject Biography, and the relevant noticeboard is WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. While an AfD is a possible step in resolving this, my guess that it would be quickly rejected per WP:SNOW. WP:EAR would be a very appropriate next step for individual editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (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 [12] [13]. 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)