Talk:Naveen Jain/Archive 4

Director as an occupation? Is it worth noting in lede?
Same goes for director. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Director is an occupation. Many people make a living by being on the board of various companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.110 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Do provide a source about this in general. I'm going to guess that none will be available on Jain specifically. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The source the dynamic ip meant to cite is. It's an interview with a poorly researched intro. It's a poor source, beyond being a primary source. Some info from Jain might be used for providing additional details on something demonstrated worth noting by an independent source. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

TED links as sources
Such links are primary sources written for promotional purposes without fact checking. They simply don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the information provided in the bio from the person but There is no reason not to mention that he was a TED speaker at the United Nations. Other information can be eliminated unless another source can be used to confirm it. I will make the change.70.103.74.91 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's improper use of a primary source in a BLP. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
So how about we start removing the pr and turn this into an encyclopedia article rather than a resume? --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think first thing we should remove is notable rulings. It has undue weight and mostly about details of a lawsuit that Mr. Jain had as CEO. It was settled and dismissed. We should remove it or substantially trim it. Everything else is really about the person and we can work on it after this section is removed to see how it looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.110 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to start trimming the Notable Rulings Section a bit. I think 3rd paragraph has almost nothing to do with the person but just details of the proceedings of a lawsuit. RonZ, please don't undo these changes because of your own personal agenda. 173.160.176.110 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * The paragraph is a bit long. The facts that is it was a continuation of previous lawsuits and went to SCOTUS are most certainly worth noting though. Some context is needed so we don't violate BLP. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you may know, millions of lawsuits that go to appeal also go to SCOTUS. Almost all of them are rejected to be heard by SCOTUS just like this one. Irrespective, these are just procedural details of lawsuit unrelated to this person. You really seem to be very conflicted and must not like this person. Remember, this article is about a person and not details of lawsuit.173.160.176.110 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent sometime reading up on this lawsuit and I am now ready to trim the first paragraph. It's way too long and puts undue weight to this lawsuit relating to the company and its CEO.166.147.88.46 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes to make the lawsuit more concise and easier to understand. RonZ, please don't undo these changes and let's discuss them here. I know your whole life is focused on monitoring this page as is obvious from looking at the history. Please allow other editors to contribute and not take it over. Thanks.166.147.88.46 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have removed pertinent details about the ruling against Jain personally - the wikilinked judge, the amount, the "landmark" status. This is not an improvement to the article. -- Neil N   talk to me  18:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding some of the details back and still trying to make it understandable. Hope this is better.173.160.176.111 (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the changes actually removed details and added redundancy. This article is rife with such problems. Let's not make it worse.
 * As for explaining the short swing rule, it think it's fine to add a bit. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We know you have a conflict of interest. Your assuming that other editors have similar bias just makes a case for banning you from editing these articles.
 * The only person with COI is you. You seem to have personal hatred for Mr. Jain. If you recall, you were warned by JIMBO sometime ago to not push your personal agenda on this article. You have tendency to ban everyone who disagrees with you personal bias.173.160.176.110 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying something doesn't make it so. Jimbo was mistaken and violated some of our core policies in those mistakes. Very sad that. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as the content goes, it is well-sourced and worthy of note. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP. Well sourced content doesn't make the content related. You have always had a problem with lots of well sourced content if it's positive to Mr. Jain. 173.160.176.110 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what you're writing. "This is a BLP. Well sourced content doesn't make the content related" makes no sense. Your continued need to make personal accusations doesn't help whatever point you might be trying to make. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. What I was trying to say was that well sourced content doesn't make it relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.176.111 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think introduction needed to provide few entities where is on the board rather than saying that he is on the board of many companies. It's like saying that person worked for many companies and did many things. 173.160.176.110 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they belong there at all? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because being on the board of an entity is a reflection of who the person is. Mr. Jain being on the board of Singularity and xprize means that this person cares about education, technology and making an impact. Being the director of the board is as important as founding a company. 173.160.176.110 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your personal viewpoint. Given you have a conflict of interest, and are justifying your coi- and blp-violating edits with such personal viewpoints, I think we're going to have to block/ban you from this and related articles. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only person with COI is you. You seem to have personal hatred for Mr. Jain. If you recall, you were warned by JIMBO sometime ago to not push your personal agenda on this article. You have tendency to ban everyone who disagrees with you personal bias.173.160.176.110 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want to deny your own coi, while using Jimbo's mistakes to attack me? Sorry, that you feel that this is appropriate behavior. It is not. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen your talk page and looked over WP:COI? --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as resolving the NPOV problems here, I think a rewrite is in order. As I've brought up in the past, it would also be extremely helpful if we could find WP:GA's and WP:FA's about similar individuals to work from. I also also share some of the WP:BLP1E concerns brought up in the past, in that we need to be clear about what he is notable for, give proper weight to those aspects of his life, and ensure all other aspects are not given undue weight. Currently, the article is more a resume than an article that gives due weight to the most important aspects of his life. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

So what's he notable for? Looking over the sources I'd say: While some of his philanthropy has gotten some independent press, it's worth mention, but I'm not seeing enough sources to say he's notable for it. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) InfoSpace
 * 2) The legal problems he and his companies (InfoSpace and, to a far lesser degree, Intelius) have been parties to.
 * 3) Intelius/inome
 * He is mostly know for
 * - Moon Express. See https://www.google.com/#q=naveen+jain+moon+express
 * - Innovation -https://www.google.com/#q=naveen+jain+innovation
 * - Philanthropy -https://www.google.com/#q=naveen+jain+philanthropy
 * - Singularity -naveen jain singularity


 * Lawsuit and rulings were in just local newspaper in Seattle. There has never been a mention of it in a single national credible newspaper. 166.137.191.27 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Search results mean nothing. Reliable and independent sources count for something - ones that give considerable coverage count for much more.
 * "were in just local newspaper in Seattle" We're currently using sources that don't fit this representation. Besides the ones currently used there are articles like http://www.inc.com/magazine/20010701/22958.html - Note this article was released before all the items that we currently cover - proof indeed that we're not giving it enough weight and enough detail.
 * http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2003/08/24/infospace_founder_to_pay_247m/ --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your same methodology proves you wrong, IP: - lots of non-Seattle sources. -- Neil N    talk to me  22:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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)
 * Archived here. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Article semi-protected
The article has been protected once again from editing by ip's: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efusco (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Both references use the name "Navindra Jain" and have his age at 60 or 63. This is unlikely the subject of this article. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about Naveen Jain. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead summarizes the most important facets of a biography. Both TalentWise and WII have no Wikipedia articles and have lesser notability. --Neil N  talk to me 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The TalentWise info is unsourced, so I've reverted per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 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: . 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)
 * 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)

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. --Neil N  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)
 * 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. --Neil N  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? --Neil N  talk to me</i> 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 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)

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)

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 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.   Hi DrNick ! 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. 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 (which he claims was an error on his part) and he signed commments from an Intelius ip.
 * 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: --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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  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.

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?


 * The current article text has the following statement: " "
 * What the source used actually says is " "
 * I believe it would be more representative of the source to say "
 * 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)
 * 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 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

 * 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.
 * 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,  claiming to be Naveen Jain? Are you related to WikiExperts, editors who are banned from Wikipedia [ANI ref]?

Smallbones( smalltalk )


 * 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, he said he is not Jain . --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, next question: Are you  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)
 * 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 . --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'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)

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)
 * I have noticed your baseless allegations of malice you have put forth over the years as well as your ceaseless attempts at getting rid of the lawsuit information. I can only assume this is because of your oft-repeated admiration for the subject, rather than any desire to improve the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I left 3 paragraphs of lawsuit information. As I said above, the first sentence summarizes the paragraph. I am not removing anything other than improving the article. Please reconsider and let other editors chime in. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, let others chime in before you start chopping the article again. Your smearing of the Seattle Times story is unwarranted. Good quality newspapers will do special investigative reports on local issues and people. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, Wiki-expert-edit shouldn't be touching the article other than to make minor edits that clearly meet WP:COI requirements. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the insider trading case goes: I've never seen much on this. My assumption has been that whatever happened was terminated or settled without any disclosure. The same happened with the many other legal cases with which he was involved. In roughly chronological order from what I recall from reviewing all the sources and potential sources: The earliest that got a great deal of press were the lawsuits from employees for breach of contract regarding stock options. Jain was required to set aside stock to cover any further such lawsuits as a precaution prior to the IPO. There was the Henry Blodget fraud and ethics problems, but I'm unaware of any action being taken directly against Jain as a result. When InfoSpace forced Jain to leave InfoSpace, the separation agreement disclosed there were 21 lawsuits to be settled. The big one, of course, was the record $247 million judgement against him. His actions to sue his stock management company and lawyers, and the subsequent appeals, kept it in the news for years.

So the big ones that we're currently missing are the breach of contract lawsuits and results. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as sources go, the Seattle Times article covers it well and after the dust had settled. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20010701/22958.html covers it before it was overshadowed by the short-swing judgement.

Definitely time for WEE to step away
needs to stop editing the article page. He does have a Conflict of Interest and he is causing disruption. That is enough to block him if he edits the article again. As far as removing that one sentence (referenced to Fortune) - I still believe that's best (as WEE would like), but one sentence does not justify the disruption by a COI editor. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already taken out the Fortune sentence. Support a topic ban if the problem continues. Editor already has a few short blocks from edit-warring and the behavior has continued just today. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Article?
I see that the page has settled down a bit and may actually qualify as "stable" within a few weeks. I think the article is pretty close to GAN-ready. Probably needs another lookover or two and a bit of research to see if any other sources can be found. Thoughts?

I may forget, but I'm going to try to remember to circle back in a month or so to take a fresh look and get it ready for nomination of everything is still settled by then. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the dust to settle for the most part. A few things that catch my eye:
 * As I mentioned above, at least a minor mention of the breach of contract lawsuits is deserved given the coverage and impact.
 * The lede section seems bloated, though I recognize the style of introducing the subject matter vs highlighting notability and the most prominent topics.
 * "Due to the success of InfoSpace" should be reworded. It wasn't the success of the company, but rather the stock price.
 * "He became the patent holder for three patents..." Awkward wording.
 * I'm not sure if the heavy reliance on two sources is a problem. I expect we can easily add additional sources if needed for the Seattle Times article. The other is an interview where "all that the serial entrepreneur wanted to talk about while being interviewed here by India-West on the sidelines of the Economist conference (I-W, April 8), was his philanthropic work". For an interview, we may be relying too much on it.
 * I don't know why the interview in the Further reading section is necessary.
 * "According to Red Herring..." and "The Seattle Times said..." I don't know why we're hedging like this. Are we uncertain of the reliability of the sources? --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I shortened the lead and re-worded the three patents item. The attribution seems appropriate to me for opinionated or editorialized content. Do you remember which source discussed a breach of contract? I think this may be covered in the last paragraph of the InfoSpace section, unless you're referring to something else. CorporateM (Talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Seattle Times article of course, an earlier ST article http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001220&slug=TTT22NE2N, Inc http://www.inc.com/magazine/20010701/22958.html http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=795339 (and subsequent filings if I recall, primary sources of course) --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ The Inc. story is another in-depth profile where Jain is the subject of the article and it also verifies the assessment above. Knowing more about the history of lying also gives me more context of the apparent COI presence. CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Storing sources


Source needs to be found:
 * Need a source telling us what InfoSpace is — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Need a source telling us what InfoSpace is — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

When he moved to the US
Inc Magazine says he moved to the US in 1979: "It certainly got Jain, who had emigrated from his native India in 1979, to this country"

But IndiaWest says he got an "MBA from XLRI Jamshedpur School of Management in 1982" and that college is located in India.

Not sure the best way to handle it atm, but tagging the conflict here. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble getting access to the IndiaWest reference since it was recently removed from their site.
 * The Inc and Red Herring articles agree with the 1979 date, and neither mention the MBA (nor do most other biographies). The Seattle Times article doesn't give a date (nor mentions the MBA).
 * I'm not sure what we should have in the article given the discrepancies. It may be that he came to the US, went back to India for the MBA, then returned to the US. Because all the coverage we've found of his years prior to Burroughs is so sparse, we'll probably never know. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Emphasis of Moon Express over Intelius/inome for occupation
So why are we de-emphasizing one of his current positions for another? . --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I didn't realize he currently held both positions. I've fixed it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue with WP:OWN
I want to detail here why I think it is problematic for Ronz to be involved with this article at all. We can partly move past the issue that the subject of the article is complaining about it, although it is a factor in light of what I am going to show you. For biographies, it is imperative that we put our best work forward at all times and any substantive question about bias should lead a good editor to recuse or be topic banned.

First, let's discuss the magnitude of the issue. Ronz is the number one editor by far to this entry, with his contributions being more than double the number of the second largest contributor, the esteemed CorporateM who is new on the scene (and much appreciated). For the following analysis I will not focus on the old history (though it is relevant to assessing the overall situation) of all 358 edits, but will instead focus on the most recent edits by Ronz, going back to December of last year.


 * In this edit, Ronz calls a fairly innocuous change "whitewashing". This type of attack on other editors is typical of the article ownership behavior and bias that he has displayed many times.  The substantive issue here are two: which of Jain's companies should be listed first in his biography, and whether his appearance in the Forbes 400 should include the pejorative sentence claiming that he was only "briefly" a billionaire.


 * On the latter point, it is certainly arguable which way it should be presented (i.e. just as a simple fact about the appearance in the list, or with a negative explanatory note), but it hardly justifies the personal attack on the anonymous ip as a "whitewasher". As to the second, it seems quite clear that per our usual standards, the company which should be listed first would be the one for which he is best known.  Just looking at recent news headlines, there are none for Jain and Inome in the past month, and dozens from such high quality sources as the Washington Post, CNBC, Business Standard, Deccan Chronicle (1.3 million circulation in India), El Mundo (a "newspaper of record" and 2nd largest in Spain).  As with the other change reverted, of course it is arguable how we should write it.  A substantive discussion could be had and perhaps should be had as to which is more appropriate.  My point is that what is not appropriate is to characterize such a disagreement as being about "whitewashing' - such bullying language is not the Wikipedia way.


 * In this edit, perhaps realizing in part his bad behavior earlier, Ronz introduces a new argument that Infospace should be listed first. I think that's exactly right on the basis of the history - Infospace remains to date his most famous project.  I have no objection to this edit, except to show that the original edit should never have caused Ronz to attack the anonymous ip.


 * Here we have another example of bullying. Ronz insists on keeping in his pejorative about Jain's status as a billionaire being "brief" at the "height of the dot-com" boom, and I think that a plausible case could be made.  But rather than making the case, Ronz says in his edit summary "editor warned again".  There was nothing about the previous edits which would, by any stretch of the imagination warrant a warning.  It is worth noting as well that Ronz works here to remove the positive label "philanthropist".  This removal is very hard to justify considering the very many reliable sources which discuss Jain and his philanthropic endeavors.  Again, it is easy to understand why an article subject might find this inappropriate: it is inappropriate.


 * This edit is of a different character - it isn't chastising another editor, it's just removing relevant and reliably sourced informaton. The reader is no longer told his ranking nor estimated wealth at the time of the Forbes 400 appearance but we are given a cryptic edit summary that appears to me to be making the opposite argument to what the edit actually does: "seems undue - wealth is notable, but Forbes 400 much less so".  If the wealth is notable, then why remove it?  If Forbes 400 is much less so, then why include it?


 * Here we have a removal of sourced information about a prize for him being "most admired" on the grounds of "primary source only".  This is a complete misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, which says and I quote verbatim: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."  Full policy here  The fact of winning the award is a straightforward and descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source.


 * It might be plausible to argue that the award is non-notable, but even this seems difficult to do. Silicon India is a reasonably sized business network in India, and their magazine has a decent circulation. Dismissing it strikes me as more about an unrelenting negative approach to the subject than a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.


 * In an entirely new attack we see here the wholesale removal of an entire section of material which might be deemed favorable to the subject: board memberships. We lost here at least 9 refs if I'm counting right.  Why?  One word from Ronz: "undue".  It is important to note that this had been a live controversy in the past and an editor then made the very encyclopedic argument that the board memberships should be noted because "Mr. Jain being on the board of Singularity and xprize means that this person cares about education, technology and making an impact."  Ronz responded with a personal attack, focussing on the person rather than the content.


 * We have here removal of reliable sources again with no other justification than "ditto" (referring to "undue"). Conveniently, these two references are both positive discussions of both his Moon Express project and his views on sustainable philanthropy.

All of that is just in the last few months.

Let me summarize my position here so that there is no chance of being misunderstood. Some of the above edits are outrageous to the point of being near-vandalism. Simply removing a whole section on someone's board memberships (which have been widely reported in reliable sources) with a one word "undue" summary is not ok. But much worse is the bullying of outsiders, as specified above, when the edit dispute in question was well within the bounds of reasonable disagreement. On some of those edits, I would actually side with Ronz on the content question - but never on the misguided attacks.

What we have here is a situation which has persisted for many years, and has led to many complaints - mostly justified - from the article subject. I'm formally asking Ronz to step away from this article. There are plenty of people here to keep an eye on it and improve it. Just drop it and move on, and this can end here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As a short followup, it suddenly occurred to me that whenever I take an editorial interest in something the trolls dig for some evidence that I have a conflict of interest. So I thought I'd google 'jimmy wales naveen jain'. I see there from our usual friendly neighborhood troll site that Naveen Jain and I "served together on the 2014 selection panel for the Longitude Prize 2014". That is absolutely false. I do not know who is or was on that selection panel, so far all I know Naveen Jain might be. What I did was speak at an event at the Science Museum in London. Naveen Jain spoke at the same event. We did not discuss his Wikipedia entry at all, nor anything of substance outside the discussion on the panel about the Longitude Prize that Lord Rees is chairing. I am not a friend of Naveen Jain. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever, and my interest in this article dates back to long before I spoke at this event.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet not one word from you on the obvious and blatant COI editing which has gone on from many years. Why is that? I encourage Ronz to continue work with the editors who have been recently attracted to this article and for COI editors to limit themselves to using the talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Because it wasn't what I was talking about.  I unreservedly and without any hesitation condemn COI editing in this case and all others.  But I also do not see "obvious and blatant COI editing" to be a justification for bullying behavior.--88.96.202.205 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And here is a diff between the version Ronz supposedly "owned" and the current version worked on by CorporateM. Editors can decide if the changes made showed that Ronz was keeping an attack article or something close to it. Referring to "near vandalism" and board memberships, it is interesting that Jimbo thinks that PR releases are sources we should be using. I prefer to use independent secondary sources to show whatever is being sourced is important to those other than self-interested parties. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And here we have a completely revamped article. Making basically all the major edits that I've been arguing for, and going beyond what I ever attempted to do. It looks to me that all the coi-editors and those taking up their cause only delayed the application of policy. Obviously, then, the problems were with the coi editors. I did my best to prevent them from making this article into a pr piece. I do my best to discuss my rationale. Making accusations based upon looking at edit summaries while ignoring the discussions and subsequent consensus undermines any case for ownership.

Seems that the editors here have agreed with my avoidance of primary sources. As I explain time and time again, the problem is that such sources do not demonstrate any weight, and that giving them any weight at all can easily fall into WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Granted, this article will very likely continue to be targeted by editors with a conflict of interest looking to promote Jain and whatever he is currently working upon. Despite that, I have made mistakes in being heavy handed with them. I will try to be much more careful with what I write, especially in edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An additional bit about board memberships: It's been discussed. We disagree. My solution was to look for a larger consensus. Looking over many biographies, my conclusion is that better the biographical article is, the less likely that board memberships are mentioned. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"We have here removal of reliable sources" Nope. External links. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Jimbo taking so much time to explain his complaints in-depth and provide diffs, as well as Ronz's openness to accepting feedback. I have reviewed Jimbo's comments and diffs carefully. I think some of his diffs reasonably prove the point of some bullying-type behavior, but only to an extent that is reasonable given the editor's frustration with COI editing, and being only human; nothing that is remotely close to warranting a topic-ban or calling his edits vandalism.


 * I disagree with Jimbo's depiction of the acceptability of primary sources for awards. This is one of the most common indicators of promotional COI editing and I find it concerning that we are so much more accepting of it on BLPs than we are on companies. You can see my views on awards at WP:ORGAWARDS. I don't see any reason for similar anti-promotionalism principles not to apply to BLPs.


 * I do feel there is consensus that board memberships can be included using primary sources, as a de-facto part of an article where weight is not a consideration, but I find his opposal to them reasonable, especially if he is on the defensive from persistent, promotional COI editing.


 * Jimbo indicated that this was a long-term problem. If a similar debate arises on other articles, I'd appreciate a ping whether by Ronz, Jimbo or someone else. We do need to do a better job getting rid of editors that show long-term abusive or bullying type behaviors, but at the moment, I would be more prone to saying that Jimbo is the bully in this case, than Ronz, if anything. I don't see anything going on here, except for an editor that is reasonably on the defensive and frustrated a bit. For now it's probably best for all parties to move on and start the discussion again if there is a dispute on another page. CorporateM (Talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ORGAWARDS is right on the money and should be adapted to BLPs. Too often I see something like "[Politician] received a [chicken dinner award] from the [local organization]" sourced to the local organization. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Only auto confirmed users can edit?
I have just been informed that I can no longer edit this page? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are confirmed, you can edit the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. When I tried to add more categories on 29 Aug, I was not able to edit and kept receiving a message telling me that only auto confirmed editors could edit. It looks like it must have been a transient bug, because today I have no difficulty editing (yet?). Ottawahitech (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
This article has been reviewed extensively by many editors at this point. Having WP:SPA accounts appear and attempt to change the weight and pov based only on their personal perspectives just echoes the problems we've had here long ago.

Given all the blatant WP:COI problems with this article in the past, I recommend all editors review WP:COI carefully and follow it closely. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting comment since the point of view Ronz (is that like the Fonz?) guards is clearly not neutral. Has Ronz disclosed COI? The subject of the article has much more press over the years since InfoSpace, yet the goal of the article seemed to be to sensationalize and somehow blame the subject for the dot com bubble! That's about as far from neutral as one could get, IMHO. All I'm advocating for here is a neutral article based on facts. --Lawfulneutral (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please focus on content. If you would like elaboration about any of my comments, just clearly indicate which ones, and I'm happy to do so. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ronz has accused me of being an SPA because I'm new and also that I have COI, yet he then suggests "focus on content" while refusing to disclose his COI as if I'm attacking him? I am focused on content, and the content is terrible and needs to be rewritten so it's about the subject instead of a negative attack piece which is more about a company. Again, Ronz needs to disclose his COI with the subject if it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawfulneutral (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've simply asked that you review and follow COI. Given the history of this article, I think it important to do so. I hope that clears up the situation. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

mis-Lede-ing, salacious, and libelous?
"His work at InfoSpace was one of the contributors to the dot-com bubble." -- I'm late to this InfoSpace grudge party by about 12-15 years it seems, but this statement is absolutely misleading and provably NOT true. InfoSpace was part of the dot com bubble, as were many, many companies on that dot com bubble wiki page, but this lays the WHOLE dot com bubble on one person! It isn't stated in the citations and no one would agree that somehow the subject, by himself, caused the dot com bubble. This is a perfect example of a negative POV baked in to the DNA of this article. Seriously, the subject magically went to everyone's home and got them to invest in every dot com tech stock? Maybe this article should be renamed, "Santa Claus?" I remember pets.com, among other inane startups, and I witnessed first-hand how they pumped-and-dumped, with VC complicity, and robbed investors. This statement is probably the clearest example of what is systemically wrong with this article: conflating InfoSpace, the dot com bubble, whatever grudge (and COI) editors have personally, and the subject of a biography article. Despite my numerous attempts to revise the article to a neutral point of view, there are editors who seem determined to keep it as negative and inaccurate as they can get away with. --Lawfulneutral (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Intelius/Inome sale
"The company was sold in 2015 and Jain was replaced as CEO." Was removed as unsourced. I don't think we should have a problem finding a source, if one isn't already in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.geekwire.com/2015/exclusive-intelius-sold-to-private-equity-firm-naveen-jain-leaving-to-pursue-new-health-tech-startup/ --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The company was sold in 2015 and Jain was replaced as CEO" does not appear in that article. The word "replaced" is charged. This must be rewritten or removed as it violates BLP.--Lawfulneutral (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any problem with this rewrite? I'm fine with it. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too--but that original version was hardly a BLP violation, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

InfoSpace infuence on dot-com bubble in the Northwest
I don't like "His work at InfoSpace was one of the contributors to the dot-com bubble"--"work" and "contributor" don't seem to be in the same category to me. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It reads strangely and my first thought was to check the history to see if something had been accidentally omitted. However, it was there two years ago (probably more). I would change it to "His work at InfoSpace contributed to the dot-com bubble." but verification is not straightforward. I did not see anything useful in a very quick skim of the first ref, and the second ref says:
 * "In looking back on the dot-com crash, it's easy to see that, like most bubbles, the Internet one was filled with ample quantities of hot air -- and that CEOs like Naveen Jain contributed their fair share."
 * That is not the ringing endorsement presented by the current or proposed wording. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Added here, with the concern that it's part of his notability.
 * There's some concerns about it in Talk:Naveen Jain/GA1:
 * '"His work at InfoSpace was one of the contributors to the dot-com bubble.": This is an extraordinary claim that goes further than the one in the body of the article. It's also rather vague: he was the CEO, so I imagine this has to do with how he steered the company and his policies and decisions in terms of financing, forecasting, etc., and how this in turn affected the high valuation of his company by the markets. Perhaps a more factual statement about him being CEO during the dot-com bubble and subsequent bursting of same would be appropriate, though the article might then need a bit more general information about the bursting.'
 * The Seattle Times ref says:
 * "At its peak, InfoSpace alone accounted for about a third of the $100 billion in stock value created by the Puget Sound area's 20 publicly traded dot-coms. The company played a major role in the region's dot-com boom, which produced legions of young, overnight millionaires and defined an era.
 * Most of that wealth seemed to have been the product of a speculative stock-market bubble. However, the inside story of InfoSpace shows that, at least in this case, investors were manipulated."
 * The article content seems too much OR, though I do agree that his notability is strongly tied to the dot com bubble.
 * Note that the second ref was written in 2001 while the manipulation was still occurring.
 * I've hoped that we'd have scholarly analyses of the dot-com boom with details about the Northwest by now. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have accepted 's pending deletion of the disputed version for now. Of couse a better phrased and fully sourced version could be re-added, if consensus supports it after this discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Too much OR to present, especially in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)