Talk:Anil Kumar/Archives/2012

Gupta
An editor repeatedly adds assertions about another individual named Gupta. I have removed these as a WP:COATRACK as Gupta is not the subject of this article. Please discuss the information here before adding Mr. Gupta to the article again. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The material in question is 2 or 3 sentences to add context to two individuals who worked 25+ years together at McKinsey and Company. It’s extensively referenced through Rajat Gupta’s own article and in Further reading, has 0 assertions, and conforms to WP:NPOV. I’m not sure how this is WP:COATRACK material by any stretch. Can I add it back? Thanks. My2011 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems very un-encyclopedic to me, as if the idea is to work him in in places where he doesn't really belong (glass ceiling assertion at the end for example). maybe we can get the view of some other editors, here or at WP:BLPN? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kicking it up to WP:BLPN seems a little overkill, no? I think we can just resolve it here.
 * To me it seems like you can’t really talk about one without at least mentioning the other. They were mentor/protege at McKinsey, co-founders of the ISB, co-involved in New Silk Route, the two senior McKinsey guys wrapped up in the Galleon scandal, etc. 2-3 sentences (if not more) seems appropriate.
 * Perhaps a separate section or subsection of Galleon case?
 * The glass ceiling assertion isn’t random — lots of citations about Gupta being the first Indian-born CEO of a US multinational.
 * Also worth noting that these people don’t want to be found, so when you do find concrete interrelationships (if they help explain things like Galleon) it’s worth mentioning.
 * Thanks for helping edit this! My2011 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding a careful sentence or two to the biography section aqbout the fact they were co-workers. Perhaps if I have time today I may propose something. Gupta does not belong in the lede and the "glass ceiling" reference is not appropriate here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added two careful mentions of Gupta, one that he was Kumar's mentor at McKinsey and the other that he was also implicated in the case. More than that and I believe we have a coatrack. Please let me know what you think. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great edits! Added/shuffled a reference. Let me know what you think of these edits. I’d still like to put back the “glass ceiling” line, or something about the two of them being among the earliest Indian-Americans in consulting since it is notable and significant. Any objections?
 * Finally, about “correctly predicting…,” I believe it is properly sourced in BusinessWeek, Reuters, etc.My2011 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we have been able to find a middle ground on most changes and a basis for discussion of everything. The "controversial....arrogant" language is vague and rather tendentious and also violates WP:WEASEL; it either has to go or be substantially rephrased. The bit about foreseeing Silicon Valley and India can come back in if you reference a source that says that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is fun! But I'm confused why you don't think these are properly sourced, tendentious, etc. I'm getting these all from the media: "For all his towering local reputation, Mr Gupta is not without critics in India. They say Mr Gupta worked with Mr Kumar to corner private and government business and gain favour in Asia’s third-largest economy." "However, as much as Mr Kumar was admired for his business ability and sharpness, he also drew fire for what was seen as his arrogance" "Anil Kumar concluded that plummeting telecommunications rates would create a world of "remote services" whereby providers in far-flung locations such as India and China could work for customers in the U.S." "the first Indian-born CEO of any big-time transnational company" My2011 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "controversial for his relationship with rajat gupta" comes from The Financial Times:
 * "controversial for his arrogance" comes from The Financial Times:
 * forseeing rise of India comes from BusinessWeek:
 * glass ceiling comes from Wall Street Journal:
 * Can I put these all back? :-)


 * Responding point by point. 1. Controversy for Gupta relationship and for arrogance seemed vague and tendentious and create neutrality problems even if reliably sourced. Not sure why this material needs to be in the article. See WP:WEASEL for issues re "controversial". 2. "Foreseeing" the importance of India and Silicon Valley sounded like very broad and general WP:PEACOCK words, so I would rather include something like "Kumar perceived that inexpensive telecommunications would permit outsourcing of services to India" or something similar. 4. "Glass ceiling"--this language confused me. I think it applied to Gupta, not Kumar? If yes, it doesn't belong here. If it refers to Kumar, it can be quoted in the bio section, didn't belong with the Galleon material. I moved it at one point, but you put it back. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Very quick reply: 1. From what you're saying, I don't see how it's possible to include any criticism at all in a biography, even if it is properly sourced. Saying "X was controversial in these respects" and listing those respects still maintains WP:NPOV. 2. Doesn't fit with the flow of the article, so let's forget about it. You see my wording as broad and general, I see yours as narrow and pedantic. Let's call it a truce. 3. It did indeed apply to Gupta, but still has a place in the article. People don't work in isolation, they work together. If a relationship between A and B is important, in theory editors should be allowed to write as much as they want about B's context and history even if the article is about A. Anyway, it seems like all these points are sticky for us, and I'm not willing to fight them further, so let's leave them out unless someone else has a better idea. My2011 (talk)


 * I have no problem leaving it as is, but wanted to answer a couple of your points. I am a big fan of disclosing the properly sourced bad with the good in bios, but this is the first time have dealt with an editor wishing to include something as subjective as a claim of arrogance. It feels tendentious to me, but you have a good source so if you want to include a statement that "Kumar was perceived as arrogant by co-workers" I won't delete it, though someone else may. 2. If you have a source which says Kumar foresaw or predicted the importance of Silicon Valley, go ahead and include it, but as it stood you were synthesizing that from the fact he ran an office there, which we don't do. 3. We don't write as much as we want about B in an article about A, regardless of the relationship, because that is in fact a classic coatrack. I think right now the article has nearly as many references to Mr. Gupta as it can tolerate. Anyway, thanks for your civility and understanding (I don't even much mind being called pedantic). Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Got it. You’re right that it sounds weird. 2. Got it 3. Ah, I thought coatrack had to have WP:BIAS. Got it. 4. Thank you for your thank you! This was fun. I think we’re set here. My2011 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Done by Versageek. Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Anil Kumar (businessman) → Anil Kumar – Hi there. I think the disambiguation page for this subject (“Anil Kumar”) should be removed and this should be the primary article. Per Notability this subject has coverage in hundreds of independent secondary sources, while only one of the five other disambiguees (Anil_Kumar (athlete)) meets any kind of notability criteria (Notability_(sports)) — in fact, two of them don’t even have wikipedia pages at all! I’m new at this, so would love your help. Thanks for your time! My2011 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose there are multiple pages by this name, deleting the disambiguation page is clearly unwarranted. If you think the other articles are not worthy of existing, delete the articles first, before suggesting the disambiguation page should be eliminated. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the disambiguation page should be moved, not eliminated. Some of the "other articles" in the disambiguation page don't exist, so how can I delete them? My2011 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support/Oppose Anil Kumar (businessman) is by far the most trafficked and best developed Anil Kumar article. I think the main article should redirect to the businessman page, which should have a redirect template noting that and linking to the new (moved) disambiguation page.  Here's what I think should happen:
 * delete Anil Kumar (disambiguation) (currently merely a redirect to Anil Kumar)
 * move Anil Kumar to Anil Kumar (disambiguation)
 * recreate Anil Kumar as a redirect to Anil Kumar (businessman)
 * add a redirect hatnote to Anil Kumar (businessman) which looks like the following: -- this will add the following content to Anil Kumar (businessman): "Anil Kumar" redirects here. For other uses, see Anil Kumar (disambiguation).
 * I don't think the businessman page should be moved to the main page, instead the main page should point to the businessman page -- if a different Anil Kumar ever becomes more notable (the businessman dies, or the athlete wins a gold medal in the Olympics, or whatever), it'll be easy to change the main article to redirect to that person instead. Banaticus (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify – suggestion number three should virtually never happen in Wikipedia. If someone is the primary topic, then they assume the non-disambiguated title. In other words, "X" should never be pointed to "X (letter)". SFB 17:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Fact: there are only two notable Anil Kumars at present. Fact: The businessman is 10x more notable than the athlete. Banaticus's idea should only be applied if the two are equally notable, or likely to be. That does not appear to be the case here. Sceen9 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so in all cases it seems we should move Anil Kumar to Anil Kumar (disambiguation). 12.153.254.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Support As someone who is highly involved in the athletics and sports topic areas, I can conclusively say that the businessman Anil Kumar is the primary topic for this name. The sprinter and discus thrower are among the lesser Indian athletes (India is not a major country for athletics). The wrestler and judoka are similarly obscure outside of their topic areas. Judging on current prominence, this move seems an entirely reasonable one. SFB 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. So there were two steps to this: 1) moving the disambiguation page to (disambiguation) and 2) moving this page to Anil Kumar. Step 1 is done, and I just put in a request for step 2. Thanks all! My2011 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Calculation
Per WP:CALC I'm performing the following simple calculation:


 * Rajaratnam paid Kumar $1.75 million between 2003-2010 (7 years) before reinvestments into Galleon. That's $250,000 a year. (1.75 million / 7 = 250,000)
 * Kumar earned between $5 and $10 million a year as a senior director over the same period. $250,000 is 2.5% of $10 million and 5% of $5 million.

Kumar testified of a $1 million bonus for an AMD stock top; without that bonus the calculation is $107,142 a year. This is 1% of $10 million and 2% of $5 million.

Thanks!

Social media profiles
Someone just added Anil Kumar's social media profile to his wiki page. Not sure WP policy on this -- feels too primary source-ish? So I reverted. Can someone verify? My2011 (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)