Talk:Naveen Jain

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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wiki-expert-edit has appears to be (or was) an Intelius employee. He also stated he was Jain [1] (which he claims was an error on his part) and he signed commments from an Intelius ip [2].

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)

Ok, I'll take a look at some FA biographies and see what I find. CorporateM (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Been busy/on holiday for a couple weeks so I missed Jimbo's hit and run. Two issues were raised:

1. Ronz's behavior. No diffs were given (Jimbo's standard MO) and reviewing the talk page archives I see that Ronz has been regularly and civilly engaging with SPAs, COI editors, and indef blocked editors. I could name someone who could be topic banned but it isn't Ronz. In any case, ban requests should be posted on the appropriate noticeboard (not here) with the appropriate diffs.
2. Cherry picking of content. I was involved in the last go round [3] and there wasn't much to cherry pick. Board memberships should have independent third party sourcing to show they're important to the subject's life (many memberships involve meeting for four hours every quarter). Up above I suggested the Moon Express stuff could be expanded but no new content was actually provided.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Mr wiki-expert-edit, are you Mr Jain, the subject of this page, as you claimed in this [4]edit? Careful, careful (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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 :-)

First requested correction

{{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)

The source says "In 2000, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said that InfoSpace had lost $200 million more than it reported, opening up a bevy of investigations against the company." Wikipedia is not in a position to verify the factual accuracy of the statement and cannot investigate primary sources like SEC records; we merely repeat information from secondary sources, in this case Fortune Magazine. If you feel Fortune is incorrect, you would have to ask them for a correction, as oppose to Wikipedia. Another alternative might be providing an additional press article you feel has some important clarifications. CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep everything clear. Are you, @Wiki-expert-edit: claiming to be Naveen Jain? Are you related to WikiExperts, editors who are banned from Wikipedia [ANI ref]?

Smallbones_(smalltalk)

@Smallbones: I said the same thing, because I was going to abstain if it was. Apparently it's just a coincedence. The editor has already disclosed being the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 22:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We should get this clear and on his talk page for easy access. While Wiki-expert-edit has edited from an Intelius ip [5], he said he is not Jain [6]. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, next question: Are you @Wiki-expert-edit: editing on behalf of Jain? Are you a paid editor? If so you must declare your paid status (see Terms of Use section 4). I'll suggest that you declare your status here (we can put it at the top of this talk page) and on your user page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not been keeping up on the changes to our COI policies over the past year. Does he have to disclose if he is or was employed by Intelius, which appears to be the case? --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia's Terms of Use and the Federal Trade Commission's covert marketing laws require a disclosure of a financial connection. However, all we really need to know is if they have a COI, which is already established. If they are a paid editor, than I need to know, so I can abstain from the article, but that does not appear to be the case. We do not need to speculate/investigate the user's real-world identity. We already have all the information we need. We would be much better off focusing on content. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz:

Yes, every paid editor, with minor exceptions, needs to declare, whether they are editing in article space or elsewhere (since June 2014). Since you have contended that Wiki Expert Edit has edited from Jain's company, I think it is fair to ask him whether he knows about the requirement to disclose, and whether he is a paid editor. I am not speculating, simply asking a direct question, and I think it is fair to ask a direct question whenever there is reason to think that somebody is a paid editor, or even just to clear the air.

Just to be consistent in this case, we know that Corporate M is a paid editor - though not being paid by the article subject. I am not a paid editor, and can't conceive of a situation where I would become one. Wiki Expert Edit has questions about his paid status. And I might as well ask Ronz whether he or she is a paid editor, just to clear the air. After getting the answers, we'll all be in the same boat. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I contend nothing. I point out the evidence [7]. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To ask for everyone to be sure to disclose when policy requires it is in very bad form, and part of the problems we have here: Turning away from the evidence. That said, as far as I'm aware I have absolutely no interests of any type whatsoever that would even begin to violate WP:COI or related policies and guidelines in regard to Jain, his companies, his family, or any related topics. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you consider it bad form to ask a direct question. You stated your ignorance of the declaration requirement, and it is extremely common for somebody who feels that they are being accused of paid editing to accuse his or her supposed accuser of the same thing (as happened below). I don't feel that asking a direct question is ever against Wikipedia's rules. People always have the option of not answering (and then I have the option of using my best judgement), but there is never an excuse for not asking, if that is what everybody's thinking. It just helps to clear the air. It's all water under the bridge now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor or wikiexperts but I do know Mr. Jain well and am very familiar with his life journey. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Which makes you a COI editor and you are strongly advised not to edit the article page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Since we're doing a mini COIN review, I have to point out that you are not addressing the concerns. You have edited from an Intelius ip. That very strongly suggests you have a financial connection. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no financial connection. Mr. Jain is no longer actively working on Intelius project. As I said, I am not being paid by Mr. jain or anyone else but will like to see this page reflect his achievements correctly. Since we are doing a mini COIN review, Will RonZ identify himself/herself and his/her affiliation to any firm that's against Infospace or Mr. Jain. Are you being paid by someone to molest this page. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not addressing the evidence. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RonZ, Please answer the question. Who are you affiliated with? It's very obvious that you have spent 10 years stalking this page. You are only doing it because you are being paid. Give us a reason that you should not be blocked from this page. What's your affiliation and are you being paid?

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a harmless direct question, but a type of badgering and interrogation. Repeatedly insisting that the editor OUT themselves will only result in the same badgering right back and I fear the editor has already outed themselves too much, exposing them to real-life consequences that they should not have to deal with. I recommend, once again, that everyone just drop it and focus on the article's content. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I am not badgering anybody and they have the right to refuse to answer. I asked WEE twice about his status because it is quite confusing, as was his first answer. I asked Ronz once because he said he didn't know about the disclosure rule. Pretending not to see possible problems doesn't help anybody. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume CorporateM was responding to Wiki-expert-edit, whose is badgering and has been previously warned about making such comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones may not have been familiar with the context of him being asked the question many times already and giving different answers in different cases. In any case, the question has far outlived its usefulness in improving the article. It is apparent enough to everyone based on what has been disclosed and his editing patterns that he has a close personal connection of some kind, which is the amount of information we need. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Storing sources

• Abrar, Peerzada (April 20, 2012). "How serial entrepreneur Naveen Jain turned into a billionaire". The Economic Times. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
• Mitra, Sramana (October 14 2014), Bootstrapping a $175 Million Business with Services: TEOCO CEO Atul Jain, One Million by One Million blog, retrieved March 21, 2015 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>
• Caminiti, Susan (March 10, 2015). "Billionaire teams up with NASA to mine the moon". CNBC. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
• Basulto, Dominic (March 19, 2015). "An audacious plan to mine the surface of the moon". Washington Post. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
• Caminiti, Susan (April 3, 2014). "The billionaire's race to harness the moon's resources". CNBC. Retrieved March 21, 2015.

Source needs to be found

• Petreley, Nicholas (July 17, 1995), "Unknown", InfoWorld
• Need a source telling us what InfoSpace is

Assessment

I have now spent several hours digging through the article's sources and doing my own research with the expectation/assumption that the lawsuits had undue weight and a more balanced page was proper. Instead, I ended up with a fairly similar article as the one that was here originally. Jain's story appears to be very closely tied to the dot-com bubble and crash and his primary claim to notability appears to be riding that roller-coaster at InfoSpace. I made numerous improvements, cleaning up what looked like COI editing, adding his primary claim to notability (InfoSpace) to the Lead and doing some balancing by adding the upswing of the InfoSpace roller-coaster. The lawsuits are also better summarized now.

However, looking at the big picture, NPOV just means the article is representative of the source material and in this case that means InfoSpace is rightfully the primary section of the page and the lawsuits have a prominent place in that section. This is appropriate because it's representative of the articles about him in the press and Wikipedia's role is merely to defer to the judgement of those sources in making editorial decisions. I would encourage others to argue differently, if and only if, they can provide high-quality, credible, independent sources that cover Naveen in-depth (not quotes, brief mentions, interviews, etc.) that are focused on something besides InfoSpace and have substantial content that's not already included in the article.

Regarding Moon Express, it was only founded a few years ago and as of now consists mostly of plans, expectations and hopes. Most of the sources are about Moon Express and not specifically what Naveen has done there. It's possible within a decade there will be some historical material on Naveen's role on it, but right now I don't see us adding much here to this page. It does appear to qualify for a separate article, with special care being made to avoid WP:ORGSPECULATION.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre insider trading case

I removed the sentence sourced to Fortune saying that the SEC investigated Jain for lying about $200 million+ in revenue. I know that Fortune wrote that, but it doesn't make sense to me at all in the context of the insider trading case being discussed. In short it appears that Fortune made a mistake - I don't believe the statement is true. A false, verified statement? Yes, it does sometimes happen - and in light of WP:BLP we should remove it at least temporarily. Of course, if it really happened, there should be another source, and we can put it back in.

Just a bit of background. I am not a lawyer, but I have some expertise in insider trading law. The short-swing rule is definitely part of insider trading law, and there is something very bizarre with that court case. Though InfoSpace got the money from Jain, they were not suing him, a shareholder was (and it was a civil case, not a criminal one). Short-swing trading requires a purchase and a sale with a profit in any six-month period (and that's all it requires!) I don't see the purchase, but I do see a presumably illicit acquisition of stock at $0 cost from his children's trust. Something was wrong there, the judge had her opinion, the SEC had another opinion, Jain blamed it on his lawyers (and lost all the court cases!), the final judgement was that Jain had to pay $105 million. All I can really say, and believe it is the truth, is that Jain was found guilty. The Seattle Times seems to have reported it well, given the circumstances, but I'd like to see another source before I'd put anything else in the article. So just removing that one sentence leaves the insider trading section in the best shape I can put it into. Jain guilty, reasoning unclear. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, removing that sentence was basically WP:IAR on my part. If others want to put it back in, I can't stop them. But I would hope that they would be able to explain what it means in the context of the insider trading case, which it seems to refer to. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence was useful context that the personal lawsuit against Jain was part of a larger series of investigations of InfoSpace in general. The Fortune source is about Jain, but explains there was a series of investigations of InfoSpace, so I feel it is a strong secondary source that establishes the relevance of the information to the BLP. Other sources like the Seattle Times also had similar summaries.

One thing worth noting, the Seattle Times (or was it the Seattle Weekly?) indicated that the settlement was reduced and the SEC took his side only because he hired a former SEC lawyer, who worked his relationship with his former colleagues. However, I did not see this implication in other sources, it was a weakish source, and it appears there was a protracted lawsuit between the source itself and Jain regarding the disclosure of documents he wanted kept confidential. This may explain why the publication had a more attack-style of reporting than the others. CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article introduction mentions lawsuit and allegations against infosapce twice which is one too many. Secondly, Mr. Sarin was the CEO during the time these lawsuits were filed and Mr. Jain was not actively involved. Seattle Times had some hidden agenda and only quoted the allegations made by a small shareholder without giving any facts giving rise to the short swing. There was no insider trading other than setting of trusts for his children.

Lastly, you will notice that even seattle times reported that the lawsuit was settled for $65 million. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/unusual-ally-came-to-jains-rescue-sec/. " It isn’t often that the SEC weighs in on behalf of an executive accused of wrongdoing. Under that unusual pressure, attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, with the judgment against Jain slashed to $65 million.".

Here is a link that shows that insurance company of Infospace paid for the settlement and not necessarily Mr. Jain. However the amount is different. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/12/27/daily2.html.

Here is another source that you may want to look at http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2011.4_oct/ROB/LEADERS-Naveen-Jain-Intelius.html

"opportunistic lawyers sued in the aftermath of the stock downturn claiming that the drop in their portfolio was to be blamed on the management team. Jain denied these unfounded allegations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission agreed with Jain and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Independent experts also concluded that Jain had not done anything wrong. InfoSpace insurance company settled the litigation out of court to avoid continued distractions and the case was dismissed."

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this Leader's Magazine article meets our sourcing requirements. It's over-the-top promotional and appears to be written by a businessperson as oppose to a professional reporter. The Lead has a pretty standard format; the first paragraph defines the subject, summarizes his primary claim to notability, and states his current position. The paragraphs after that summarize the entire article. The first paragraph mentions InfoSpace crashed and the other discusses the lawsuit specifically. This is not an overlap. Bizjournals is an acceptable source for really mundane things; I will take a look at it. They mostly repeat press releases, but sometimes write real stories. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bizjournals source does not appear to include the information you believe it does, as far as I can tell. It might be helpful if you quote the exact phrase from the source and the precise article-text on Wikipedia you believe is corrected by it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on leader's magazine article as not being a great source. Did you notice the Seattle times article mentioning the settlement being $65 million instead of $105 million mentioned in the wiki page.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/unusual-ally-came-to-jains-rescue-sec/. " It isn’t often that the SEC weighs in on behalf of an executive accused of wrongdoing. Under that unusual pressure, attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, with the judgment against Jain slashed to $65 million.".

Biz journal simply says that the money didn't necessarily come from Mr. jain but may have been from the insurance proceeds so it's inaccurate to say that Mr. Jain paid $105 million as it currently states in the wiki article.

Did you consider removing too many reference to the lawsuit in the introduction. It places undue weight. Also, did you look at the fact that lawsuits were at the time when Mr. Sarin was CEO and not Mr. Jain.

Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes:

• "The SEC will not comment on whether InfoSpace or Jain was ever under investigation. Though the agency sided with Jain in court, “there is no basis to conclude … that the Commission either will or will not bring an enforcement action” against him, an SEC spokesman said last week." Seattle Times March 8, 2005, Updated May 7, 2010
• "In 2000, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said that InfoSpace had lost $200 million more than it reported" Fortune, 2009
  • These statements appear to contradict each other. Given that the SEC showed up later on Jain's side in a case that involved a similar amount of money, I conclude that Fortune just got confused on this.
• "The Jains settled the lawsuit for $105 million." Associated Press, 2009
  • Though the Seattle Times reported $65 million in their 2005 story (under my first note), the Associated Press story was later and reported a Supreme Court decision. More likely that AP got it right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the statements contradict each other, because one is about InfoSpace in general and one is about Naveen specifically. The SEC did say that InfoSpace was cooking the books, but also said that this particular issue doesn't warrant an investigation of Jain. Even Jain accused some of the other execs of insider trading. However, the statement is relevant context in explaining how a company he founded and led that made him a billionaire became less significant, while not covering those specific lawsuits/investigations in detail, since they weren't targeted directly at Jain. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that Fortune in the blog got it wrong because there is no other source to confirm it. Even Seattle Times which was a hatchet job didn't say it. Also, the fact that SEC sided with Mr. Jain jsut shows that they didn't believe Mr. Jain or his company did anything wrong. Wouldn't you think that There will be a criminal case if there was any truth to inside trading. I just want all of us to use common sense because a lot of people use Wiki as a reference. In case anyone cares, here is biz journal talking about settlement of $83 million (not $65 or $105) with proceeds from the insurance company. I think we should remove the amount instead of mentioning an incorrect amount. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2004/12/27/daily2.html Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at this more closely; I wasn't able to find other sources to corroborate the story either and I see other errors in the Fortune story, like saying that he was found guilty of insider trading in 2003, whereas as far as I can tell, it was actually a settlement where he denied wrongdoing. I also skimmed the in depth Seattle Times story and didn't see it in there either. That story is pretty comprehensive. Lists and rankings like that also tend to be infotainment news. Call me a swing vote, but I think we can remove it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I made slight change to the introduction and infospace section to remove the reference discussed above. Please verify that I didn't step in to anything wrong. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yesterday's agreement could lead to dismissal of both lawsuits with prejudice, meaning the claims could not be brought again. However, derivative claims against one non-officer or defendant would be dismissed without prejudice." http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20041224&slug=infospace24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that majority of the article is written with a single reference in Seattle Times (Ref=1)? Anyone who reads this can see that it was completely one-sided with allegations from a law firm representing one small shareholder. Common sense will tell you that no other credible newspaper (WSJ, Bloomberg, NYT, WashPO) ever picked up this false story. Infosapce was a large company and the story, if true, would have been covered by others. My request is to remove lot more the stuff that's referenced from a single source especially the one Seattle Times article with malice intent. I leave it to the community to be the Judge and Jury on this. I will not make any changes unless everyone agrees. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The following in the article is single sourced from a negative article with malice intent. This also has to very little to do with the company and time frame when Mr. Jain was not involved in the company. You can verify that Mr. Sarin was CEO in year 2000. My recommendation is to remove the following from this page and if someone wants we can move this to infosapce wiki page. Any thoughts?

"As the dot-com bubble ended in March 2000, the company's stock fell. Even as revenues decreased, Jain indicated to analysts that revenues were expected to go up. Jain sold his shares, just as the price increased, in response to projections from an analyst he spoke to. Many other executives sold their shares around the same time.[1] The company then used misleading accounting practices to make it appear as though the company was still growing. For example, it invested money in a company run by Jain's brother Atul, with an agreement that Atul would also spend money on InfoSpace, which was referred to as "buying revenues".[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph because the first sentence in the next paragraph summarizes the paragraph. I think the information about the lawsuit is well covered if not over covered. 3 out of 5 paragraph on infospace are still related to lawsuits. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)