Talk:Rothenberg Ventures

Potential Conflict of Interest
Given that the author may have a potential conflict of interest, it's worth ensuring that the article meets our standards for maintaining a neutral point of view. B figura (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential move 18 Nov 2016
I think it's appropriate now to consider a name change as this has been picked up by the press and in various places. Misterpottery (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Renamed back to Rothenberg Ventures, per CEO's Twitter (https://twitter.com/virtualgatsby/status/829540473257631744) and TechCrunch (https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/08/avirtualcycle/), so the proposed name change no longer makes sense. AustinTx1981 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rothenberg Ventures → Frontier Tech Ventures – Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this. FrontierTechVC (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NAMECHANGES. No evidence the new name is picked up by sources. SST  flyer  13:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request re: lead/introduction
On behalf of Rothenberg Ventures, I am seeking removal of content in the article's introduction that I believe violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as well as biographies of living persons, not to mention is inappropriate for the lead section of an entry about the company. More specifically, I'm requesting the removal of "..., who in a 2016 Business Insider article was described by former employees as "vengeful," "a messed-up human being," a "megalomaniac," a "master manipulator" and having a "lack of empathy." I will have additional requests with further suggestions for improving this article in the near future, but I'd like to tackle this particular concern sooner than later. I'm mentioning this violation at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, too, and I can reply to any questions there or on this article talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ by an editor visiting from BLP/N. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that  the anonymously sourced quotes about Mr. Rothenberg, which  had removed at my suggestion, without any acknowledgment of this discussion. Granted, it's no longer in the intro, but I still question how appropriate this material is for an encyclopedia entry. Meanwhile, Avno1991 has  to the introduction, supported only by a primary source.


 * I submit it is relevant that Avno has made a total of 6 edits on Wikipedia since the account was registered on March 2, and the only mainspace edits have consisted of adding material critical of Mr. Rothenberg to the entry. (It's also relevant that I have been retained by Mr. Rothenberg's firm to help address problems on this article, as disclosed above, however I will refrain from making any changes to the article itself.)


 * I tend to think these changes are intended to harm the subject's reputation, not to build an encyclopedia, and should be rolled back. However, I invite other editors to weigh in about what should be done at this time. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed the information per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Any information sourced to primary sources like court documents is a blatant BLP vio and needs to be removed on sight. Please source all content to reliable, secondary sources. Per WP:LEDE, the lede should be a summary of the sourced content in the body of the article, not a dumping ground for whatever little tid-bit a person wants to add, so any reliably sourced content should be woven into the body of the article and only then summarized in the lede. 22:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Zaereth (talk)

Suggested revision to Controversies section
Hi, all. Over the last few months, I have been advising Rothenberg Ventures regarding this entry, which is largely negative about the company, and not a great Wikipedia article to begin with. In particular, the represents approximately half of the article text, which is unusual to say the least. I believe this section is excessively detailed, that it should be made more concise, and can actually be more informative through clearer writing. I have written such a version myself, and am offering it for consideration here.

First, it's worth reviewing the current  section, followed by the specific replacement language proposed:

And here is my explanation of specific changes made:
 * Right now, the section reads more like a "news ticker" (with many sentences beginning like "In October 2016…") and doesn't clearly show how different events are related. To address this and improve clarity, I have separated it into individual paragraphs covering the following four topics: SEC investigation; employee lawsuits; River Studios funding; a "miscellaneous" section for topics with less coverage.
 * All information about the SEC is now included in the first paragraph, instead of how it is currently (and confusingly) spread across paragraphs, with information about employee lawsuits in between. Also, I've taken care with the wording to make sure that claims unconfirmed by the SEC are not represented as objective facts, but instead noted as "allegations" and from "media reports".
 * There's no recent reporting on the status of the employee lawsuits, so I have included a brief note that these are "ongoing as of June 2017", based on available sourcing.
 * Additionally, the article contains extraneous information, such as names of non-notable employees who have filed suit. Likewise, the following sentence is unnecessary and improperly sourced: "River Studios was not listed on the portfolio section of the firm's website until sometime after October 9, 2016." The source is the company's website, which is neither dispositive nor an appropriate third-party source.
 * CEO Mike Rothenberg's appearance on various year-end lists for execs "having a bad year" is noteworthy, but the specific titles of each piece are not. I've streamlined this to state the fact of this coverage more succinctly.

If you agree this is an improvement, I hope another editor will consider implementing the draft offered. Meantime, I'm willing to answer any questions editors may have about specific editorial judgments. As always, due to my financial COI I will not directly edit this page, but I do think my suggestions would make this a better, more guideline-compliant article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I have been asked to comment here, I'll give my two cents. I'm very busy in real life, thus didn't have time to read WWB Too's entire post. I skimmed through, and don't necessarily disagree with his/her reasoning. (I'll just default to male pronouns unless directed otherwise. Fewer letters to type.) This corporate stuff is a bit out of my field of expertise. (If you want to know how to make or use ancient weapons or fly a fighter plane, I'm your man.) Since I haven't had time to read through everything, and likely won't for a while, this will be very general.


 * The word "controversy" is often very misused on Wikipedia. "Controversy" is defined as "a lot of public disagreement about a topic or issue." Unless there is a lot of public debate over the things in this "controversies" section, the news is covering it four times a day for weeks at a time, and people everywhere are arguing over it, them we can not in good faith call it a controversy. For example, Obama-care (the US medical debacle) was a very controversial thing. Obama-care itself is not a controversy, but the large public debate over it was. In an article about Obama-care, it would be appropriate to have a section titled "controversy" describing the huge public debate.


 * What a controversy is not is a lawsuit, or a government investigation, or a fist-fight between neighbors. The only thing relevant to a section titled "controversy" would be the actual controversy, which is the widespread public debate. Everything else should be worked into the text and timeline of the article.


 * There are many problems with stuffing all negative information into a controversy section. First is that it imbalances the article. It's something like putting all the light stuff in the front of a boat and all the heavy stuff in the back. The boat will sink. By putting information within the proper timeline of the article, the whole thing can be balanced much better. Second is that the stuff in such a section is rarely a controversy at all, but a merely some negative info that someone wanted to stand out above the rest. (Also a form of imbalance.) Such a section just becomes a place to dump any negative information, because it is much easier to create a negative section than it is to weave the information into the relevant sections. Third is that the title itself often lends undue weight to what are usually not very controversial issues.


 * For these reasons I would recommend first eliminating the "controversies" section entirely, and working the information into the timeline of the article. When that happens, it will be much more difficult to keep any undue weight. Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy reply, . I completely agree that "Controversies" is a problematic section heading, both in concept and in wording, per WP:CRITICISM. That said, I figured I could do more good in the near term to present the information currently included in that section in a more straightforward manner. What I've proposed here is not meant to be the final treatment of this subject matter (after all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED) but merely an improvement on the current mess. If anyone reading this is open to implementing this as a step in the right direction, I'd appreciate that. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning. I started here working on what was probably the most controversial article at the time, so it provided a real learning experience. My suggestion is a lot more difficult, but when you try to work everything into the text, without walling it off in a section of it's own, that is when the problems of undue weight will stick out like a sore thumb. (I know, it's a little like planting the weeds before plucking them, but if the point is to demonstrate that there are weeds...) Either way, I don't have time to personally go through the sources and suggested changes to determine myself what is neutral and what is undue. (Keep in mind that neutral is a balance of positive and negative, which is proportional to that found in reliable sources. It does not mean that all negative information should be removed, but that it should be proportional.)


 * Someone else may come along in the meantime and decide to take a closer look. To avoid accusations of WP:CANVASSING, though, it might be more appropriate to bring your inquiries to the relevant noticeboard to get more eyes on it (in this case, WP:NPOVN or WP:COIN). Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable position, and I agree those are generally good places to start (although I've seen some at COI/N say they prefer it not be used to solicit feedback on edit suggestions, so I'll see what the latest on that is first). WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Having not had the time to carefully check all the references, both yours or the ones currently being used on the article, I would just like to point out what I believe to be an obvious, possibly irreparable problem with COI - the "conflicting" party inevitably has a lot more time and motivation to carefully work on the text to the client's benefit, than the society as a whole has to check all references, work its way through the appropriate peer-review process, to ultimately benefit itself (the society) by providing the most accurate, encyclopedic wording it can. I recognise your effort to follow the rules and your attempt to be as neutral as possible, but in the end I would still favour a bad version created by the community than a good version written by you. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to offend, but I fear that if we go down this road, the encyclopedias of the future will all be written by lawyers of the interested parties. To the extent of my possibilities, I will try to check the references and contribute to the article, certainly using your suggestions on my review, but I believe few (if any) people would be willing to add your edit given your confessed COI. Ebacci EN (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughts, . Were the scenario you describe come to pass, I would also consider that troubling. However, in practice, few entities written about in Wikipedia have the time or knowledge to engage with the entry about them meaningfully.
 * That said, I am all in favor of companies or people written about in Wikipedia having an opportunity to give feedback, as it does have an impact on their public reputations. After all, the version drafted by "the community" also may include those interested in harming the article subject; if you'll look at my earlier requests, I believe that is exactly what happened here.
 * It is that spirit in which I come here—and I am certainly no lawyer. By all means, follow my references and consider my draft. It was written with neutrality in mind, and while you may have differing judgments on some details, I hope you'll consider it a good starting point. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, I came here strictly to look into BLP violations, because that's one of my interests. I try to help out there when I can; especially to answer questions that go unanswered by others. What I don't really want is to end up being the go-to-guy every time this article needs a change. However, when asked to comment I couldn't help but soapbox a little about controversy sections in general. Anyone who has known me long enough here knows my feelings on that issue.


 * In addition, I do see someone trying very hard to follow all the rules and mostly being ignored, so that does stir some feelings. The community has good reason to be wary of COI editors, and this comes from past experience with very good reason. (In example, try working on the Donald Trump or Barak Obama articles and see how many COI editors you encounter.) However, that often does make it far too difficult for a person with a COI to get a legitimate claim heard. I try to look at these article with an uninvolved, neutral view, regardless of who is asking for the change. For example, in the case of the recent BLP violations, there indeed was good reason for the COI editor's concern. I have no doubt that there are some disgruntled people out there who have been trying to get their punches in, so that is something to keep in mind. We should be just as wary of information provided by SPA editors as we are of the COI. (They are often both one in the same.)


 * I do see may good sources here, but also some questionable ones. For example, the line that says the company's website posted some information and later deleted it is supported by past and current links to the website. This particular line is clearly a bit of original research. When I said above the word "timeline" I didn't mean it quite as literally as this article reads. It reads like a date-by-date account of what was printed about the company. To some extent that is ok, but quickly becomes monotonous. (No need to list nor provide links to every newspaper that mentions him. That is all found in the refs.) It should really be a summary of what the sources, and should include the subject's rebuttals as well.


 * I'm sorry this is so difficult at times, but like I said, we are all volunteers here. There are a lot of sources to go through, and editors like Ebacci and myself are going to want to check them ourselves to make sure we're not tossing out the baby with the bath water. Due to real-life, I just don't have time to do that at the moment, but may look into it further if and when a free moment arises. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Outdenting here to try and bring this back on-topic, as most of the above is about the challenges of COI, and not the request itself. Having little to show from outreach to WP:COI/N or WP:NPOV/N, I'd like to ping editors somewhat recently, beneficially, involved with the page:, , and. My suggestion to replace the existing Controversies section above is fairly straightforward, but given the prior discussion, one that editors are ambivalent about. The conversation as it has gone so far seems to be: a) it's agreed the current section is a problem, but b) maybe this information shouldn't be so grouped to begin with, and c) the complexity has put anyone off taking a close look at my proposed alternative. If anyone has the time or inclination, I'd be much obliged. And if any questions, ask away. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

✅ with minor changes: I kept in the titles chief of staff and chief financial officer for the suing employees, as they seem important, and I kept the Wall Street Journal reference (instead of one more Techcrunch reference) for the River Studios issue. I agree with has been written here about a Controversies section not being desirable, but "the perfect is the enemy of the good"; the proposed edit is a major improvement, and if someone wants to make it better still, more power to them, but it's been months. --20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove controversies and history
Change them to early history and current which would contain all the latest investigations, SEC info and lawsuits. Seems the current history could be expanded. TVGarfield (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, glad to see you back here, . Agreed, the whole article could be much better—it's something I'd like to try doing, if I have the opportunity. And I'm not at all opposed to splitting up the current Controversies section. Would you be interested in adding some of what I've proposed above into the History section, then removing the corresponding material in Controversies? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good start, but we should try to aim for perfect perspective rather than section titles that will quickly become outdated. If you can have some patience, I'll be back when I have time to sit down and look into this further. However, keep in mind that I'm more likely to expand rather than contract. I rarely leave an article smaller than I started with, but will look into putting things in a neutral, fair and balanced state. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It could be reorganized but I doubt this hedge fund is that notable for anything but the controversy. If anything it could be expanded.TVGarfield (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm amenable to all of this. While I'm hopeful that you'll find the draft I prepared to be useful in re-organizing things, I certainly understand both your interest in exercising your own editorial judgment. Just ping me if you have any questions. Also, I have prepared a revised introduction, but had held off proposing it just yet. Figure I may as well offer it up for consideration as well, and expect I'll post that tomorrow. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested revision to lead section
Hi, all. Continuing on the above work, and as mentioned yesterday, I am posting an additional edit request to update the article's lead section. The focuses too much on the SEC investigation, and would be improved with a little more information about Rothenberg's investment focus. (Especially, this sentence seems completely irrelevant: In a February 2017 TechCrunch article about the firm, Sean McKessy, the former chief of the SEC whistleblower's office, said that "investigations can take anywhere from two to five years.") I propose replacing the existing lead with the following, which I believe is a more appropriate and neutral overview of the company:


 * Rothenberg Ventures is an American venture capital firm based in San Francisco, California. The company was founded in 2012 by Mike Rothenberg, who continues to serve as chief executive officer. Rothenberg Ventures has invested in more than 100 companies, including Bustle, Revel Systems, and SpaceX, and has focused its investments on virtual reality and other "frontier" technologies. Rothenberg Ventures became the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2016, and multiple lawsuits have been filed against the firm.

Worth noting, all facts contained in the introduction are verified later in the article, so I have omitted citations here consistent with WP:CITELEAD. If any questions or concerns, I'll be happy to field them. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. The lead did need to focus on the company, not just the controversies, so I moved that part down to that section. I did, however, join the first two sentences, and left in the alternate name, as the name of a company is a fairly important item about the company. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)