Talk:Rajat Gupta/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 21:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a B article by now? Swliv and I have been working hard at it. My2011 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rajat Gupta (architect)
There seems to be someone intent on converting the Rajat Gupta page into a biography of an architect with the same name. The architect is certainly less notable than Rajat Gupta (McKinsey), so a separate page should be created for the architect - titled Rajat Gupta (architect). --Putlake (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these two people appear to be particularly notable, and the articles appear to be hagiographic/an attempt to gain prominence, and seem to be quite non-encyclopedic. Encourage someone familiar with the process to initiate the AFD process. Traumerei (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This Rajat Gupta is very notable. No need for AFD. My2011 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reflections; duplications
Do we still need the Prof'l Affil. detail at the bottom of the article, also? It's a fairly recent, wholesale addition. With the even newer section of affiliations in the introduction, most affil. are now in three times. I've started the ... task of de-linking the duplicate (blue) links that have resulted, as a minimum; just now, I also tried to rebalance the intro a little after the new addition.

I like the "current event" tag that's also been added recently. I am, and have been, here for quite a few days because of the current event, have been trying to back and fill as the story, in turn, unfolded. I feel the need, though, to remind newcomers to read the whole article and try not to duplicate info or imbalance the whole, as a general statement here. As well, of course, I'll do what I can with more editing. My opening question, above, would be part of that reminder.

With the big addition to the intro, I feel the need also to say that I don't sense that anyone substantially involved with the article is trying to imbalance it to Mr. Gupta's detriment. He's encountered a substantial negative event and is defending himself. The resolution will happen. Meanwhile, we want a moderate, balanced account of his whole life including the ongoing news, as best we can make it. There are Wikipedia policies I could try to quote here -- mostly under Biography of Living Persons I think, but that's not my specialty. I'm just hoping there aren't contrary feelings to mine powering some of the editing. I recognize the individual has an impressive track record. It doesn't, I don't believe, need to be reiterated three times.

Just to note, on the other extreme: There's been at least one instance of premature, impossible-in-current-case conviction of Mr. Gupta as "criminal." (Not only hasn't he been convicted, but he's not charged criminally, just civilly. The only penalty can be monetary and professional; no prison time; under the current charges, as I understand it.) That overstep, also, is within the range of Wiki editing possibility; and it's been removed; .... This is a process.

Since some of the recent edits have been by new or unestablished editors (red names on history) I'd also encourage those individuals to establish their pages so the process can play out more thoroughly. No big commitment ..., just always good ... to "get the red out," I read somewhere in Wiki.

OK? My bit. Swliv (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, new to the wiki community and a technophobe. Have been very impressed with Wikipedia's handling of this article, particularly in fighting the tendency to brand article's subject as a criminal.

I'm not sure how we should structure this article. Agree that the list of professional affiliations and the "post-McKinsey career" section is redundant -- one is in paragraph form, the other bullets. Should we merge?

Also, feel very strongly that the "intro" (before table of contents) sections should be duplicative -- many people don't read that far down and it also gives a high-level overview of the breadth of institutions this subject has been involved in. Swliv, what do you think?

I too want more balanced view into the rest of his life, but don't know how to add it without recent events overshadowing the article.

22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by My2011 (talk • contribs) My2011 (talk)


 * Thrilled to see the quick and constructive reply. It got in the way of my:
 * P.s. to "Reflections..." above I was amused to see the "Rajat Gupta (architect)" discussion above. The architect does not yet have his own page, though he's "out there." "Rajat Gupta: Carbon Counting and Carbon Reduction from Buildings and Cities"; "Architecture Studies Library Lectures"; "Images |Pictures |Photos"; "Dr Rajat Gupta is a Reader in Architecture and Climate Change; he qualified as an Architect in India, and gained an MSc in Energy; Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England Research Fellow"; I feel it's worth adding. The advice on setting up the page Rajat Gupta (architect) is correct; just click on this red link and one'll be on one's way. ... I think the latter opinion above .... Well, just for the uninitiate, AFD, click here, the blue link. I'm glad the option was not taken, in '08.
 * Back to My2011:
 * I thought the new and -phobe elements maybe were there. No prob. As with the architect red-link, first, you may just click on your own red-link to what-I-called-above-"establish" your own user page. Small but nice.
 * Next, to "Merge?" Simple yes. Personally, I think both the additions to the intro and the ProfAffil section are excessive ... but I can live with it all, too. Merging takes work. I'm not inclined to do (more of) it here at this time. I encourage you or anyone, though.
 * Oh, yeh. Your section, here, could have been added to my section with "Edit" rather created as "New section." Again, no prob. The colons (one and up) do indents, to distinguish different editors contrib's.
 * As to duplicative intro. Yes, to a degree. I think now there are many more named institutions than are necessary; and until my "rebalancing" as I called it a bit ago I felt all those names swamped the current news. (If you're trying to service those coming to the page, that's what's bringing them here; is one way to look at it.) In general, footnotes aren't even used that much in intro's. The info in the intro is expanded upon within the body of the article, with sources identified there. Within that context, I certainly don't think the post-McKinsey section is the target. I'd trim the intro, let the section(s) then support it. ... As to the Prof. Affil. I wouldn't worry too much about it; unless you can come up with an elegant compression; or the ... verve ... to eliminate it. ... Someone else ... has a stake in it. ... A few thoughts.
 * Bon voyage! Swliv (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. what do you want me to do? :-D
 * I think the intro is fine as it stands; any one of those affiliations would be a headline in other biographies. I tried to make it a representative summary.
 * Will think about merging post mckinsey and prof. affl. My2011 (talk)


 * Sorry to confuse. I don't have a strong "want." I expressed my pref's. Not too surprisingly -- a little disappointingly but not too surprisingly -- you stuck with yours. I'll just say that the Prof Affil is the oddest person out, of the three, in my opinion; rather unusual I'd say for a BLP. If you can (or have; I haven't looked at the article yet) integrate(d) it into the post-McK., that'd be good, tighten things up some. Also, as mentioned, it's best to only blue-link (double-bracket) the first mention of a name or word with an article elsewhere in Wiki. Red's worse (no article elsewhere yet, as discussed above), but too much blue, partic. duplicative, isn't great either, in my sense. There was definitely a lot of duplication, last I saw.
 * I would also say that directorships are not really, again in my opinion, exactly headline material. They're certainly interesting and important in their ways, but within Wiki I haven't seen what you express. Non-profit or for-profit. Founding, like IBS, is more important of course, though I have to say direct sourcing on that has been thin to non-existent.
 * Hope this helps. Swliv (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Swliv, awesome double-teaming on this. I think Prof Affl really should stay, because he has so many involvements it’s GREAT to get a quick list and overview. I think blue-linking the first mention of each institution is time-consuming since the article is changing so rapidly and we keep moving sections around, so the “first mention” keeps changing. Direct sourcing on ISB is very strong in Indian media, along with co-founder Kumar. Hope this helps. :) My2011 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

Adding "resolved"; I think we're done here. My2011 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Add to Raj Rajaratnam para
Updating the paragraph discussing the Raj Rajaratnam case (US SEC vs Raj), Rajaratnam was convicted on May 10/11, 2011 on all 14 counts brought against him, including ones involving Rajat Gupta. Ref NY Post May 11, 2011  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)  And Raj Rajaratnam was sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined $10 million dollars. Source - http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2011/hedge-fund-founder-raj-rajaratnam-sentenced-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-11-years-in-prison-for-insider-trading-crimes, 69.121.221.97 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC) fn the raj has announced he will will appeal conviction & sentence

Media paragraphs; general update 10/26/11
I'm just a little uncomfortable glimpsing the references to "double-teaming" above, writing as one member of the "team" but not the progenitor of the term. I don't want any implication of, even, coordination, other than the respective, respectful work that we two editors, along with many others, have done, completely transparently, on this article. I come here fresh from another incidence of the good working relationship that has seemed to develop over these months; but I just want it clear how that relationship seems, to me. I also am in no way, here, criticizing my hard-working "team"-mate. I view the "double-team" phrase as perhaps-youthful enthusiasm. I'm just painfully, almost, sensitive to our subject's I have to believe horrible anguish, here. (I'll give him that.) I am respectful of him, in any event, want no appearance of ... glee ... or unfair "ganging" ... or anything like that. Maybe I said something about this above. I'll check hereafter, link here in any event.

On a wholly different front, I'm a little uncomfortable jumping over the immediate next previous paragraph on Rajaratnam; hopefully it's resolved; I cannot at the moment take more time on it.

The "media paragraphs" -- the new "incidence" of, say, team-iness -- are right at the end of the edit portion, in the left column, of My2011's most recent edit page (halfway down the whole of the edit page; formally entitled "Media reactions to the insider-trading charges"). I appreciatively accept the editor's compliment on them ("great"); and I accept for the moment his/r judgment on their non-essential-ness in what has grown to be a large article. I do feel rather strongly about the paragraphs, as best I remember them. This battle (over the insider-trading charges) is being fought at many levels, and the media commentators whom I brought in I felt had made important parts of the argument which weren't expressed in the article otherwise. (I think I created the whole section, for that purpose.) That said, I'm not ready to do even the first level response I considered, namely, cutting out good chunks of repetitive "résumé" material that I recall to have accumulated over the months. My2011 may have done some or all of that, also, in his work today. In any event, with today's ("undisclosed"; has anyone gotten that into the article yet?) criminal charges, this "battle", as I've termed it, clearly goes into a whole new realm. The article will have to evolve accordingly. I'm comfortable letting the dust settle a little and seeing where we go from here, with the media paragraphs out for the moment.

I'll add now, though, something I wrote earlier today (but ultimately left out) as I composed a sort of Wiki-recruiting pitch to a new-ish editor. Addressing User:99.18..., I wrote, "For my part, I'm watching the Rajat Gupta article closely today. It's been a long process by many to build this Gupta article, and it's good to see apparently new parties helping in small but significant ways." I was even also sufficiently moved today to add some on the Gupta subject to my own fairly sparse user page. In short, I am appreciative, profoundly, for Wikipedia, in this whole context. I look forward, I guess I'd say, to the next chapters, doing what I can to contribute as we go. Swliv (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swliv. Wanted to clarify a few points.
 * I didn't mean to imply any sense of "teaming" or "ganging up" when I said double-teaming -- I just wanted to say how nice it was to be working with someone else. No glee. I feel terrible for these men.
 * What is the "immediate next paragraph" you mention?
 * I've added the media paragraphs to this talk page, just for posterity.
 * Tried to add today's criminal charges as best I could; yes they were unsealed.
 * We really need to cut-down the resume section.
 * Good on you for the recruiting section!

My2011 (talk)

Here are the paragraphs I took out, in their entirety:
 * .... I took out the paragraphs here; they're easily reached I think (link in my prose above); though I guess they're also now forever in the archives of this page, too; trying to minimize the scale of the pages, and archives. I wouldn't be surprised if the paragraphs in part or whole make it back to the main or a subordinate article somehow. Meantime, fine. And glad you agree on the résumé material; though we're not the ones who added it, will have to see.
 * There's a link to the "immediate next previous paragraph": to the "Add to Raj Rajaratnam para" paragraph (section). (Nice intra-page linking procedure demo'd there, using the # sign.)
 * I didn't think you meant to imply anything inappropriate. It was just how seeing the term hit me, maybe particularly in light of y'day's news.
 * Thanks for the further update (per you, above here; haven't seen the page yet) on the charges.
 * I found this story this morning and comments good to review, in the light of a new day on the subject.
 * Don't think the particular recruit took the encouragement but it does seem worthwhile.
 * All best. Swliv (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)