Talk:Raj Rajaratnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Donations[edit]

Resolved: with latest FEC query My2011 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I know the yahoo article says he donated $87,000 to Obama, but the FEC website says $35,400. $4,600 directly through the campaign's donation fund, and $30,800 to the DNC's Obama Victory Fund. That is a fund that the DNC sets up, but does not need to use the entire fund for the Presidential candidate.

I'm new, so I'm not going to edit the page, but if someone wants to check it out themselves.

Here's the FEC query:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/

Greycatowner (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Updated page with latest FEC query. My2011 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved: with latest FEC query My2011 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a dispute about the purported $87,000 contribution to Obama. There is not really a dispute here: the quoted figure is simply wrong, and has no source. As Greycatowner points out, the FEC website breaks down Rajaratnam's contributions to Obama and others. And the AP news article originally cited for this figure (but now conveniently removed) did not imply a $87,000 contribution to Obama. That was simply a failure of reading comprehension:

According to the Federal Election Commission, he is a generous contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. The FEC said he made over $87,000 in contributions to President Barack Obama's campaign, the Democratic National Committee and various campaigns on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer and New Jersey U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez in the past five years.

Yes, the misunderstanding is understandable: English has some ambiguity in the scope of "and". But I don't see any way to make sense of the sentence where the $87,000 is distributed solely to Obama, rather than over all the recipients. And in any case the ambiguity is resolved at the FEC website.

Anyways, I've had enough of trying to correct this article. It is frustrating when editors actively try to introduce misinformation. Noamz (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Updated page with latest FEC query. My2011 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted[edit]

Resolved: by 86.25.169.91 My2011 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant link to Alleged State Terrorism of Sri Lanka removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.169.91 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ways to plead in court[edit]

Resolved: changed My2011 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You can only plead "guilty" or "not guilty", not "innocent". Can someone please update the intro article to correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.1.200 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationality/ethnicity[edit]

Why does the introductory sentence list his birth nation and ethnicity and not his nationality, while the blurb on the right just lists nationality. I don't think ethnicity is relevant in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.14.10 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are nationality and citizenship different? They are one and the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.145.160 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Net worth issues[edit]

I've noticed that the net worth for Rajaratnam is listed as 'Unknown', while we may not know his exact net worth wouldn't making an educated estimate and offering a range be more useful than simply putting Unknown? As far as I know his net worth was $1.5bn the last time Forbes listed it, he has since wound down the funds and presumably paid several million in legal fees as well as $50 million in disgorgement and a $10 million fine, will his net worth have been changed substantially from the $1.5bn figure from 2009? As far as I know Galleon was liquidated without sustaining a massive loss.

I'd be willing to do some searching and try to produce an estimate of his net worth if others agree it would be acceptable to, in lieu of an official estimate from Forbes, provide a range (e.g. He is believed to be worth between $1 billion and $1.3 billion)?

Also, the article states that his net worth peaked at $1.8bn, according to pre-trial court documents he had a 40-50% stake in his Galleon funds, this would give a peak net worth of closer to $2.8-4 billion (+ any cash compensation he derived from being manager of Galleon as it expanded) given the fact Galleon was worth $7-8 billion at its peak. Arguably the bail hearing estimate of 40-50% ownership may have reflected his ownership when Galleon was at the $3bn level (possibly his stake was 50% after the massive withdrawals which reduced the AUM from $7-8bn to $3bn between 2008 and 2009). Either way there is a possibility his net worth was substantially more than $1.8bn at its peak.

Dudley25 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Categories[edit]

Please discuss before you add categories on controversial cases; Wikipedia categories only applicable which has some precedence in the previous court cases, not on ambiguous or borderline cases.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This Insider Trading is Legal will give some light why the Raj Rajaratnam' case is a controversial one.HudsonBreeze (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This article in an interesting read, however it also indicates " Raj Rajaratnam, who managed what was once one of the world's largest hedge funds before being convicted of 14 counts of securities fraud". This clearly indicates that he is a convicted felon/criminal and as such those categories could be added. As per wiki rules we can not interpret data, we can only relate it as it is. Cossde (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe in the legal world, he might be a criminal at least within the jurisdiction of the court which has convicted but not to other parts of the world or even in other states in the US. Certain states have already abolished the capital punishment, but still other states are following. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia; we can't create Categories as we want and then add them as we want anywhere we want.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<< But unfortunately you never apply this when it comes to allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Sri Lanka on Tamils.

Your argument has no basis, as he was convicted under US laws by a US court for crimes committed in the US and has been jailed in the US. Therefore he is an American criminal, American white-collar criminal. Due to the international media headlines the convition made he is a person convicted of fraud and a White-collar criminal. I dont see how war crimes and crimes against humanity falls in here. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
American and international media stated only he was convicted by the US court because the court assumed he is a white collar criminal. But American or International media never stated in their own he is a criminal. Wikipedia is not in the jurisdiction of the American court which has convicted him, hence adding Criminal Categories are POV.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The jurisdiction of Wikipedia is not relevant. The relevant Wikipedia policy is verifiability, that starts with the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." 72Dino (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The category called People convicted of insider trading, which tags number of prominent Americans buss is linked to white collar criminals so it is the appropriate category for this article. Kanatonian (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
verifiability is here only for he is convicted by the court. But adding here Criminal Categories is we are biased towards the judiciary which has convicted him or the prosecutors they want to punish him. Wikipedia is a neutral Encyclopedia and we can't bend on other systems in tagging Categories here.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no biased stating that he was convicted by a american court, that means he is a american criminal and that category should be added here as well as the other categories relevant to his crime. The way I see it, it is HudsonBreeze, who is biased trying to white wash Raj Rajaratnam. Cossde (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the American court only he is a criminal and he was convicted and sentenced. But Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of the court as an encyclopedia to tag categories on Criminality in line with the court's verdict.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────These categories have gone back and forth without resolution on the talk page. Unless someone thinks we will be able to resolve this issue soon on this talk page, it may be appropriate move this dispute to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. 72Dino (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with 72Dino we are not getting any where with this could you please take it to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Lets sort out this issue. Cossde (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
According the article Raj Rajaratnam case: a turning point in fighting white-collar crime on Wall Street;
"As the trial enters its final week, and closing arguments are made, the key focus from the prosecution will be to keep it simple, and focus on whether the information Rajaratnam traded on was available to the public, and whether it would have had a bearing on his decision to buy or sell."
But still it is a debate to which extent the the information Rajaratnam traded on was not available to others and to the extent the information have had a bearing on Rajaratnam to buy or sell, though he has been convicted by the court.
According to the article Congress looking at lawmakers insider trading;
"The interest was sparked by a CBS' "60 Minutes" story Nov. 13 that reported members of Congress can legally trade stock based on non-public information. The House memo makes clear this is not true."
Why these members of Congress can't pass those non-public information to other Hedge Fund Mangers with whom Rajaratnam is competing with in the market.
So the court's verdict should be limited within the court's jurisdiction, and can't be pass it onto Wikipedia.
I too wish to have these points highlighted on a Dispute Resolution rather than on revert on the article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a summary of the issue at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Raj Rajaratnam so more editors will weigh in so a consensus can be achieved. Hope this helps. 72Dino (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd include the categories. FWIW, I don't believe it's a WP:BLP violation to include the categories in dispute, since this subject's notability rests mostly on his administrative and criminal court cases, and this subject's criminal conviction is readily verifiable. There's nothing ambiguous or borderline about the conviction and sentence. If the conviction is vacated, or if this subject is pardoned, that would make inclusion objectively more problematic. But nothing like that is going on here; the subject was convicted and sentenced. I agree with some comments above that jurisdiction is irrelevant, and there's no bias in including the category. I think the issue of bias should be raised at WP:CfD if the argument is that there might be bias in having the category at all because of jurisdictional considerations. JFHJr () 23:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you for the inclusion of those Categories on the subject's page. If there are Categories are readily available on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we can add those Categories as we want. Taking those Categories to WP:Cfd is a different issue. I agree with the point he is Notable, because of his criminal conviction and sentence, but for that there are already Categories on the subject's page. Going deep into the Criminal Categories would make us we are going on the side of the Courts which has given the verdict or those who have prosecuted him. Wikipedia is a neutral source. We can't interpret Categories because of others or other institutions justifying them that they are correct. We need more discussion on the issue before the inclusion.HudsonBreeze (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────HudsonBreeze, so far you are the only editor that does not think these categories should be used. Reliable sources have reported that he was convicted of 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud, sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined $92.8 million. Can you point to a specific Wikipedia policy that indicates the category of "criminal" should not be used? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources has reported only he has been convicted of 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud, sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined $92.8 million. But defining a Category is far more than that and based on "definingness".
Please read the following Wikipedia policy[1];
Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative.
In disputed cases, the categories for discussion process may be used to determine whether a particular characteristic is defining or not.
Even the User:Kanatonian has the same opinion of mine.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So far the consensus suggests generally that it's a defining characteristic of this subject. This isn't just about notability or verifiability; this is at the essence of the article, and the "white collar" and "21st century" criminal categories are in fact particularly appropriate. If you disagree with the consensus, then I'll suggest a second time that you take it to WP:CfD. JFHJr () 06:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll also note your central concern here seems to be that Wikipedia might be taking on the POV of an American court by including the category. Is that essentially it? JFHJr () 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
My issue here is not that he is nota convicted white collar criminal. I am fully aware of the reliability and verifiability issues related him being tagged as such. My issue is that we are over categorizing him here. A person who is convicted of insider trading (such as Martha Stuart..) are by definition white collar criminals and if they happen to be Americans, then they are American White collar criminals.
Why do we need categories and sub categories if we are going to tag someone as convicted of insider trading which is sub category of white collar criminal ? I have been around Wikipedia for a while and for sure I don’t categorize any article with a parent category and a sub category all at once. Most of the time parent categories are to assure that we sub categorize properly. To tag him as convicted of insider trading and as a White collar criminal is over categorization. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kanatonian that tagging him as convicted of insider trading is sufficient and as White collar criminal is over categorization.HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with that. I was trying to drill down to the most specific categories with my edits and remove the parent categories but perhaps I did not go far enough. 72Dino (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yep, there's been far too over-categorisation. The only category that needs to be removed now is Category:Insider trading (parent of Category:People convicted of insider trading).--obi2canibetalk contr 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

School Attended[edit]

During a recent visit to the offices of S Thomas'College Mt Lavinia to research some articles on personalities who are connected as teachers or ex students of the school. The Persons researched were Uthum Herat, Richard De Zoysa, Chanaka Amaratunga, Rajiva Wijesinghe, DS Jayasekera, Sandadas Coperhewa and Arisen Ahubudu, Mendaka samarasinghe. While visiting the school library (school magazine an excellent reference) and office I had an oppurtunity of examining the school roll in the 1960's , 1970's and 1980's. Although several Rajaratnam's are listed non are listed as 'Raj' or names such as Rajendran etc for which Raj could be a dimunitive. The article in the Island appears to be a result of confusion between the two schools on the part of the journalist. While of no matter in the grand scheme of things it may be worth resolving this in the name of accuracy as this article has formed the basis of acrimonious debate in the Sri Lanka page under the heading " fraudulent acts by Prestigious and Elite Schools alumni"!!!!!Vishwakoshaya (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Raj-Rajaratnam.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Film[edit]

Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense? "In the Chandran Rutnam set to direct film Prince of Malacca, the arrest of the Raj Rajaratnam and the ola-leaf reading which Rajaratnam sought to forecast his future are influenced." Maproom (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)