Jump to content

Talk:Naveen Jain

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wiki-expert-edit (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 20 March 2015 (→‎Alleged Corrections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


COIN discussion

I've started this discussion on some of the ip's that have been editing this article against a WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archived here. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going ahead and requesting blocks of the blatant COI ip's that continue editing the article against BLP, NPOV, and COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi-protected

The article has been protected once again from editing by ip's: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again. If you want changes made to the article, please use this talk page to make the request and discuss the changes. {{edit semi-protected}} is recommended. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over someone with same last name

Naveen Jain was charged, in February 2014 with misdemeanor manslaughter charges for the vehicular killing of a cyclist, Joshua Alper, with his Tesla Model S on California Highway 1 in November of 2013. Jain claimed he fell asleep at the wheel blaming the new car fumes. [1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efusco (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/santa-cruz/santa-cruz-tesla-driver-who-killed-bicyclist-idd-will-face-charges/-/5738976/24311190/-/bh9ftp/-/index.html
  2. ^ http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_25069553/santa-cruz-county-da-tesla-driver-be-charged
Both references use the name "Navindra Jain" and have his age at 60 or 63. This is unlikely the subject of this article. --NeilN talk to me 14:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about Naveen Jain. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead summarizes the most important facets of a biography. Both TalentWise and WII have no Wikipedia articles and have lesser notability. --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I trimmed back the Forbes 400 info as well given it's no longer so notable, though his wealth is notable and it is a good introduction to that fact.
As far as inome and its holdings, there's so little written about it since the Intelius IPO was withdrawn for what appears to be the last time, that we're having a difficult time getting enough information to even make sense of all the reorganizing that's happened. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The TalentWise info is unsourced, so I've reverted per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm unable to find any non-primary sources about the The World Innovation Institute. The Economist article was just an announcement for their own "Ideas Economy: Innovation" conference, where Jain was a speaker. Intelius jumped on it as an opportunity for some press: [1][2]. If we cannot find better sources, we might just remove mention of The World Innovation Institute completely. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and requested the article be protected, since the ip's have still not joined the discussion. Seems to be a problem each year. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moon express

We need to give other editors a chance to build consensus without RonZ interference. I think this article need to focus on Moon Express which is the biggest achievement of Mr. Jain. See below links. Other things that need to be expanded are his involvement with xprize and Singularity University. RonZ's only cares about infospace and 10 years old baseless lawsuit.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101531789

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/javeen-nain-moon-111019.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/content/moon-express-completes-initial-flight-tests-at-nasas-kennedy-space-center/#.VOtoxlPF94Y

http://www.space.com/13615-moon-express-lunar-lander-naveen-jain-interview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try to WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Moon Express stuff might be expanded but sticking the existing sentence under a new header isn't expansion. --NeilN talk to me 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example of what we might add relevant to Jain? I'm not seeing anything. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: If you're replying to me, I was referring to articles I came across when googling. The content added by Wiki-expert-edit/Jain had no useful additions for this area. --NeilN talk to me 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make remove the lawsuit section because it has undue focus. Just read it yourself. It's 10 years old and baseless. Mr. Jain founded Moon Express that has gone to make history by being the first company to ever build a lunar lander and successfully testing it. See below quote from NASA.

"Moon Express is the first private company to build and operate a lander test vehicle at the Kennedy Space Center, and we look forward to working with them as they develop new U.S. capabilities to land on the moon." http://www.nasa.gov/content/moon-express-completes-initial-flight-tests-at-nasas-kennedy-space-center/#.VPY0z1PF84J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want me to edit the page that I think will be substantially better or would you prefer to discuss this and agree on the content. You can easily google and see tremendous contribution he has been making on entrepreneurship and philanthropy, You should really watch his talks and it may really inspire you to do something useful instead of vandalizing the pages on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is to have standstill as the page is now. Let's discuss each section at a time and work toward a solution to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked on your talk page regarding this - are you are claiming to be Jain himself? --NeilN talk to me 22:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I think we should make remove the lawsuit section because it has undue focus. Just read it yourself. It's 10 years old and baseless." This shows your COI renders you completely unfit to edit the article directly. --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we really care to do the right thing then we should really objectively review each section and agree on the content. I am happy to work with you and am not trying to be at edit war. It's very obvious that only changes that stick are the changes made by RonZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, are you Naveen Jain? --NeilN talk to me 22:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice the Q. No. In my statement to Jimbo, I was trying to say that it's about Naveen Jain but forgot to type the word "about"

Thank you for answering. And "You should really watch his talks and it may really inspire you to do something useful instead of vandalizing the pages on wikipedia" reaffirms my conviction that you shouldn't be anywhere near the article. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examples: "In 2000, Forbes ranked him as 121st on their list of the "400 Richest Americans" with a net worth of 2.2 billion dollars." -> false impression that this was anything but brief. "Jain is the founder of The World Innovation Institute, which focuses on innovations and entrepreneurship that have the potential to solve our world's most complex challenges" -> regurgitation of corporate fluffery. --NeilN talk to me 10:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we are missing his positions in the various companies. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article review

I am dismayed to see that this article continues to be dominated by an editor (Ronz) who has engaged in significant negative activity here for many years. A look through the archives shows the many complaints from many different people (including me) about him removing positive and well-sourced content, and cherry picking negative content. I think that he should be topic banned from this page (and, if he's engaged there at all, in all related pages) but for right now I think it is important that we review his edit history in recent months to improve the article. During that process, I believe we will document enough instances of doing things contrary to policy to make the rationale for a topic ban obvious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work with others interested in improving this article. I'm glad that NeilN (talk · contribs) has been helping here.
The problem has been, and continues to be, that editors have interests other than doing the same. The coi problems with this article are extreme and well documented. It's to be expected we'll have complaints when editors who cannot follow WP:COI do not get their way. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I've reviewed your contribution history here, and I'm inclined to agree with Jimbo. I hope that a topic ban is unnecessary, though.
As a neutral party, I ask you to please consider removing this article from your watchlist and allow other editors to look after the article. I know that you are afriad of the aritcle being whitewashed, but (1) other editors, myself included, will work hard to make sure that does not happen and (2) isn't it better to let a whitewashed article through than to maintain a smear job?
This is a biography of a living person; This is the second website listed when you google Naveen Jain. You stepping away from here is clearly the kind thing to do. Please consider it. HiDrNick! 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I believe there never were any problems and certainly none recently. You really should provide some diffs and indicate exactly what policies are being so grossly violated that they require such a suggestion without any evidence at all. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear though. It is a fact that this article has repeatedly been targeted by editors attempting to whitewash the article and to make it into a promotional piece for Jain. Likewise, it is a fact that the majority of editors trying to do these things have conflicts of interest. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the actual article and sources, and not the history, but it looked mostly fine to me. It needs improvement, but not any more than most pages. There were some indications of COI editing, such as poorly-sourced awards and patents. The lawsuits appear to be supported by BLP-compliant sources and presented in a reasonable way, but had some trimmable details that were more relevant to the company than the man. I see Ronz made some edits after me and they look fine.

The article reads like a list of job titles and dates, which is crucial bare-bones info on any BLP, but it should also state anything of significance he did in each role. This would also have the effect of balancing the lawsuits info as part of a more balanced biography. CorporateM (Talk) 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through the edit-history now. @Wiki-expert-edit: is not affiliated with Wiki-Experts are they? Regarding this, I'm not sure how I feel about it, but my experiences have been that there seems to be community consensus that primary sources are acceptable for that kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-expert-edit has appears to be (or was) an Intelius employee. He also stated he was Jain [3] (which he claims was an error on his part) and he signed commments from an Intelius ip [4].
I previously asked for examples from GA biographies that listed board memberships, so we could see what type of sources are used if any exist. No one offered any examples. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll take a look at some FA biographies and see what I find. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first example I came across was Finn M. W. Caspersen, which is FA rated and has numerous mentions of various boards he served on. Many of those board memberships do have secondary sources, but this sentence "For several years, Barbara Caspersen has served on the university's board of trustees and currently serves in an emeritus capacity.[28][29]" appears to be cited exclusively to primary sources. I checked the version that was FA rated and it also contained the same text and sources. It's worth noting that the board memberships were integrated into the narrative in the chronology, rather than part of a dedicated section, which I think would be ideal. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, though a bad example. The article is about Finn. It briefly mentions his wife Barbara, giving details all with primary sources. It appears to violate WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIMARY. There is no talk page discussion on the matter. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Corrections

The section of legal dispute is full of POV. Previous version clearly stated the fact that short swing is simply technicality based of 6 months buy/sell without any intent. It was never said that Mr. Jain acted on inside information. Look at the previous version. Current version is full of errors by suggesting that Mr. Jain acted on inside information with the intent to make profit. There is absolutely no proof or judge ever suggested that.

"In May 2002, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman made a landmark $247 million ruling in favor of Thomas Dreiling, a small shareholder of InfoSpace who brought a lawsuit against InfoSpace as well as then CEO Jain. The judge ruled, Jain had bought InfoSpace stock within 6 months of selling the stock (short swing) . Language in documents prepared by J.P. Morgan Securities incorrectly put control of stock granted to Jain's children's trust funds in 1998 and 1999 in the Jains' account without the Jains' knowledge. The judge ruled that Jain had in essence "purchased" the stock for nothing while Jain had sold the $202 Million of stock within six months of this event that caused the stock to be considered a purchase. Jain argued that he didn't intend to take control of the trusts and blamed J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., among others, for the mistake.[29][30]"

My suggestion is to have the following in the legal dispute section. would you agree to it?

-- "In May 2002, a small shareholder of InfoSpace brought a lawsuit against InfoSpace as well as then CEO Jain. The judge ruled, Jain had bought InfoSpace stock within 6 months of selling the stock (short swing) . Language in documents prepared by J.P. Morgan Securities incorrectly put control of stock granted to Jain's children's trust funds in 1998 and 1999 in the Jains' account without the Jains' knowledge. The judge ruled that Jain had in essence "purchased" the stock for nothing while Jain had sold the $202 Million of stock within six months of this event that caused the stock to be considered a purchase. Jain argued that he didn't intend to take control of the trusts and blamed J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., among others, for the mistake.[29][30]"

In early March 2003, InfoSpace sued Jain for allegedly violating noncompete agreements in his role at newly founded Intelius. In an interview after the suit was filed, Jain said the lawsuit was without merit and was a retaliation for Jain's whistle-blowing.[8] The court found in favor of Jain citing no evidence to support InfoSpace's claim.[17][18] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-expert, can you please provide your corrections in the following format?
{{request edit}}
The current article text has the following statement: "<insert sentence>"
What the [http://www.URLofSource source] used actually says is "<insert text from source>"
I believe it would be more representative of the source to say "<insert proposed text">
Just do one or two sentences at a time, be patient and we'll consider your suggested corrections thoughtfully.
My suggestion would be to start doing this tomorrow, working on the section from the top-down, because it was still on my "To Do" list to look closer at it anyway and I will probably make more changes today. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr wiki-expert-edit, are you Mr Jain, the subject of this page, as you claimed in this [5]edit? Careful, careful (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. I will work with you starting tomorrow when you have had a chance to make the changes that you have in mind already. To prepare for tomorrow, here is my first test request for edit :-)

{{request edit}}
The current article text has the following statement: "<A series of investigations of InfoSpace began in 2000, after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleged the company had lost $200 million more than it was reporting.[10] >"
The statement is completely untrue and false. You can easily google and see that SEC has never investigated or alleged infospace or anyone at Infospace for any reasons. As you can see from the next sentence, SEC, in fact, wrote on behalf of Mr. Jain to dismiss the lawsuit."
My suggestion would be to delete this sentence because it's not corroborated with any other source. Anything of this significance had to have been reported by other sources. It's disservice to use a serious allegation based on a single source.

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naveen_Jain&oldid=652779916"