Talk:Ralph Yarro III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions/libelous claims[edit]

This article was chock-full of unsourced assertions, original research, opinion and libelous material. Do not under any circumstances reinsert such material in the biography of a living person, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FCYTravis 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Over-aggressive reverts and deletions?[edit]

The removals and reverts, while partially justified on the grounds of POV, have went too far IMHO. Going over the history of reverts and deletions, I have to wonder about some of them.

  • The two suicides. I'm ambivalent here. On one hand there's no apparent connection between two people committing suicide and Yarro. But if you go and read all the filings and declarations, a picture emerges where Roger Penrose was passing information to the three ousted executives (Yarro, Christensen, Mott) and then confronted by the new Canopy manager (Bill Mustard) about it, putting him under tremendous pressure of conflicting loyalty and a possibility of losing his job. My interpretation of the suicide of Val Kreidel is similar: tremendous pressure related to the change of control, having to make her father's illness public in a very nasty lawsuit, and the great expense of litigation and eventual settlement. I think mentioning the suicides with external links is factual and non POV.
  • Removing the date of the Canopy coup (no explanation).
  • Removing the information on the Vultus deal on the grounds of irrelevancy. The subject of the article is the chairman of Canopy, the largest shareholder in SCO, a significant shareholder and investor in Vultus (via Canopy/Angel Partners). How can a deal in which one entity buys the other under his leadership be called irrelevant?
  • Removing an entire "external links" section. All the links were to reliable sources where Canopy headed by Yarro, or Yarro himself and his dealings are the subjects. Why the removal of articles discussing SEC filings filed by the companies involved (again, under his leadership)? Why the removal of the links to the filings in the Yarro vs Noorda litigation case? Is the mere mention, even by referral, of companies where Yarro is the largest and controlling shareholder not allowed because it might have negative connotation?

If you agree, please bring back the external links, at the very least. If you think any particular link shouldn't be included, please explain on what grounds.

The Vultus deal especially, is significant and relevant, and should be back. I agree it should be rewritten to remove all traces of POV but it should be back. The important (fully sourced by official SEC filings, links to which were removed) facts are:

  • Canopy the largest shareholder in SCO (public company)
  • Canopy is a shareholder and principal investor in Vultus (private company)
  • SCO issues new stock at a time where its stock is high and buys vultus for 2.7M
  • Less than a year later, SCO writes off the Vultus investment to zero
  • 3 years later SCOX stock is down from over $8 to less than $1 and not meeting listing requirements on the NASDAQ

You may find all the sources in the removed external links section.

Please note that this is not an attempt to start an argument. There's no intention to start a revert battle here. Instead it should be in your interest too, to reach a reasonable middle ground and support the truth. Thanks. VivaVictoria

Disclaimer: the above is my view except where facts are stated. Freedom of speech applies. I often make errors and welcome corrections.

"Your interpretation" of the suicides is exactly that - your original research and speculation, which is absolutely prohibited on Wikipedia, and especially on biographies of living persons. Find reliable sources which suggest that there is any connection. Otherwise, there is no grounds for their inclusion. As you said, "there's no apparent connection." As for "Vultus/Canopy," again, nothing there is personally about Mr. Yarro. It's a detailed history of corporate dealings, which does not belong in a personal biography. That belongs in articles about Canopy Group and Vultus, if either of those meet WP:CORP, which they probably do. None of the sources which discuss the deal even mention Yarro's name. So, how is it directly relevant to his biography? Do we have a source which says he was directly responsible for them?
Bottom line is that this is a biography of a living person, not a complete and detailed dissection of every business that Mr. Yarro can be remotely linked to. FCYTravis 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting to put any interpretation (mine or others) into the suicides. I commented in the Talk section and not in the article mostly for your own education since I got the (wrong?) impression that you haven't read the filings in the Yarro case. I wasn't even expecting you to read the filings, but now that you're so involved and seem to care maybe you should? The fact that two people lost their lives in direct connection with a power struggle involving Yarro is (a) a fact, (b) a very notable fact, and (c) totally relevant to the case which *is* in the article . Moreover, to make things clear: the original text on the suicides was *not* written by me, go back to the edits to verify, I may have added an additional source link, that's all. I was mainly wondering why the whole section was deleted. I still am.
Putting this (suicides) issue behind. Who decides what is important to a person's biography and what isn't? Why a non-profit CP80 is important and a deal that is mentioned in SEC filings done under Yarro worth almost $3M is not? I'm surprised that your opinions here against including factual, notable and sourced information are so strong. Do you have any personal relation to the subject? Please forgive me for asking, but it sounds this way.
Lastly, and most importantly. You ignored my comment on removing the external links section. Yarro was the chairman of Canopy and Chairman of the board of directors of SCO (still is). He was also on the board of directors of Vultus. Any deal Canopy, SCO and Vultus were involved with is directly and strongly related to him and done under his directorship. There's no other person in the world who is more responsible for an entity than the chairman of the board of directors *and* the largest shareholder. Canopy (now Yarro) owned 40% of SCOX stock when the deal happened (SCO buys Vultus). Yarro is also the registered agent for the entity called "Angel Partners" who benefited directly from the Vultus deal (sure, his name doesn't appear, only "Angel Partners" appears, but "Angel Partners" is controlled by him). Please feel free to verify the sources. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] there's more, inlcuding many links that are now unfortunately 404s, if you want me to dig more.
I'm not trying to be confrontational. In fact, I fully agree with some of your original deletions of POV, so please don't go back rehashing this, I'm referring to the deletions of fully sourced, relevant facts, which I don't understand.
Thanks. VivaVictoria
Your asserted "fact" that there is a "direct connection" between the suicides and Yarro is no such thing. You have cited no reliable sources which suggest there is a connection. Merely mentioning the suicides in this man's biography is thus tantamount to guilt by association. As for Groklaw, it's a blog, and thus is not a reliable source or acceptable external link for biographies of living persons. As for my interest, this article has been involved in OTRS complaints which I have responded to. It is our responsibility on Wikipedia to produce biographies of living persons which are unbiased, fact-based and do not engage in speculation or insinuation. When in doubt, leave it out. FCYTravis 12:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We're making progress. Thanks for explaining your involvement. Can you say who the complainer was? Personally, I have less problem than you might think leaving the suicides out even though I do think they are relevant, connected -- please read the filings and declarations regarding Penrose in the Yarro case, I can't really do it for you -- and notable, when stated as facts (as I said, I wasn't the person who put them in, I got dragged into this when my truth seeking links and factual minor corrections were deleted together with them). Now: you keep conveniently ignoring the vultus deal, sourced by official SEC documents, and Yarro, via "Angel Partners" and Canopy, being a direct and significant beneficiary. You also ignored the computerword and articles. Your response?
More specific questions: (a) Will you accept official SEC documents filed by SCO (Yarro's side) on the Vultus deal as good sources? (b) Why did you say the Vultus deal was irrelevant to Yarro? Was it just because of not being familiar with the facts at the time? (c) My main request was and remains to reconsider inclusion of a non-POV version of the Vultus deal. Why did you ignore the main Vultus issue in your last response? Is this a tacit agreement that it does, in fact, have relevance to Yarro? (d) Will you accept a fully sourced non-POV addition of the Vultus deal to the article? I will go further and suggest that my interest is to post the truth and nothing else, I can post it here (Talk) first to make sure that it passes all the WP standards. Can we agree on that? Other better options? Feel free to suggest your own. Thanks VivaVictoria.

Death of Val Noorda Kreidel[edit]

The death of Val Noorda Kreidel a few day after the settlement with Yarro is relevant. When Val Noorda Kreidel died virtually everybody agreed that there is some connection with the settlement. Her death was first "confirmed" by SCO. Everybody can draw his or her own conclusions. Those who have been watching the ruthless activities of Yarro and SCO for some years now might draw other conclusions than those who do not. Shall I go into details?—Comment added by Akwsws 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your use of such terms as "ruthless" clearly demonstrates that you have an axe to grind here. I suggest that you read our policy on the biographies of living persons. What you suggest "virtually everybody agreed" is utterly irrelevant and a non-sequitur, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You have not provided any reliable sources which suggest any connection between Yarro and Kreidel's death. You are intent, apparently, on spreading guilt by association and conspiracy theories in this biography, and that will not be permitted. FCYTravis (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You obviously do not know much about SCO but that is not the point here. I have not written about "guilt" and would not do that here because it would not be appropriate. It is a simple and significant fact that she died a few days after the settlement. It is quite interesting that you think that mentioning her death implies that Ralph Yarro is "guilty" of anything. You seem to be interested in rewriting history by eliminating that fact. I doubt that this is the task of editors. You asked for sources. Let me quote from a statement issued by her brother: "For some reason, Val was singled out and labeled as a villain, and so Val suffered the relentless hammering of opposing lawyers for months. Val seemed unable to stop herself from reading the fantastic fictions of analysts in the papers, and the idle speculations of unknown accusers on the internet. The onslaught was too much." [10]. The "relentless hammering of opposing lawyers" was done on behalf of Ralph Yarro. Is her brother an impartial source? Unlikely, but it is enough reason to mention her death in the context of the legal dispute and the settlement. Not even SCO or Ralph Yarro have raised any doubts that her death was somehow related to the legal dispute with Yarro. —Comment added by Akwsws 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
The settlement is only of interest and relevance here insofar as it directly relates to Yarro. It is *not significant to Yarro's biography* that Kreidel died after the settlement. What her brother might have said about what lawyers said is not relevant to Yarro.
Furthermore, Groklaw is a blog (and one with an axe to grind as well, I might add) and thus not a reliable source for controversial or negative references about a living person. I personally think SCO's anti-Linux lawsuits are a steaming pile, but we cannot allow our personal biases to affect the way in which we write about encyclopedic persons.
Ms. Kreidel's death is regrettable. But it is inappropriate in the extreme to mention it here, because it creates the prejudicial and entirely-unsupported appearance of a link between Yarro and her death.
This biography must be written neutrally, factually and in a manner that avoids speculation, innuendo and rumor. Unless there is evidence published by reliable sources directly linking Yarro to the death of Kreidel, it does not belong here. I again suggest that you read our policy on the biographies of living persons. My interest here is to ensure that all articles comply with that policy. FCYTravis (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yarro case sources[edit]

Here's a complete and true record of all filings by both sides, including direct declarations of people who are clearly supportive of Yarro, testifying on the change of control and Bob Penrose suicide in sworn declarations. These establish the direct connection between the change of control at Canopy and Penrose's suicide. They do not imply Yarro is guilty by association. Those were your words not mine. You may also find the records of trying to depose Ray Noorda who was suffering from Altzheimer's and to expose his medical records. All is there. Thanks VivaVictoria.

These documents, and perhaps most importantly: the Canopy/Noordas countersuit vs Yarro et al reveal a few more self-dealing transactions besides Vultus. Anyone interested in the subject should be aware of the Canopy Incentive Plan that was concieved by Yarro et al without board approval and review, the transactions that followed, and the enrichment of the Canopy top personel before they were ousted by the Noordas. Vultus was just once case out of several.

Self-Editing?[edit] : —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)