Talk:Samir Arora

Untitled
Articles about NetOjects Inc. and NetObjects Fusion to follow soon. --Peter Eisenburger 06:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits of 64.121.49.97
Have reverted changes from anonymous user IP

Edits were a mixture of


 * deletions without rationales: Samir Arora indeed took prominent part in creating the term “web site”


 * errors: NetObjects, Inc. was not the successor of Rae; Rae was a affiliate of Apple, NETO of IBM; while its true that there was an initial investmant by Rae - NETO was not the successor in a legal way; the relation between Rae and NETO will be covered in my forthcoming NETO article, it should not be a part of the introduction to this bio


 * errors: Rae is not defunct


 * irrelevant details: relationship between brothers; however I would accept when edited this point again.

Feel free to discuss on discussion page. But always give rationales when you delete sth. --Peter Eisenburger 20:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:VF

 * Personal e-mail from Samir Arora to the first author of this article with biographical details.

is not. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02 22 September 2006 (GMT).


 * I will add more external links.--Peter Eisenburger 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Sdsouza 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All sources, that are available over the Web, have been worked through diligently. As long as I am not allowed to use original research I can't extend the article. --Peter Eisenburger 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't items that cannot be verified with references, be removed? Given our different viewpoints, I will leave it to you Peter to decide rather than make the edits myself given this is on of your pages that you track...--Obgydd 23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your behaviour well. "Our different viewpoints" were that you deleted referenced facts in articles about companies that you are affiliated with in some way. Now you come with your sockpuppet account, check my work and give me warnings.
 * I wrote this article at a time when I used to reference mainly with "external links and references". Since you follow my work now you have seen that lately in my articles I reference each single statement in the separate reference section. (As it is up-to-date now in English Wikipedia. I'm German. Here we don't need the "Einzelnachweis").
 * Each fact of this article can be found in the external links or in articles of referenced internal wiki links. But since I'm working through new material for another article I will give more links for your convenience.--Peter Eisenburger 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was checking out your work, by the way, out of curiosity. If the references are there, no need to make changes on my account.--Obgydd 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NETO financials; POV
In the sum the latest edits look POV to me. Especially I found the statements about NETO's financials not well placed in the context and poorly sourced. The source only shows numbers of 2000/01 as far as I could see. Anyways there are only published numbers since going public in 1999. So you can't say "did never show a profit". I think the description of NETO financials in the corresponding NetObjects article are fair enough, so I deleted this one sentence. I also think, "as a teenager" gives a special taste to the sentence. These works were between the age of 16 and 19. The creation years are given and that says it all. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The |other source of the editor says it all. I will re-introduce the sentence.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Glam
"Web property" should be consensual. It's the jargon of Comscore. - "Owns London-based agency" is wrong. Ex-Monetise is now a part of Glam.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The "other Samir Arora"
Just a note to be aware that there is another high-profile Samir Arora - investment fund manager @Iamsamirarora

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Samir Arora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060720121608/http://www.theatreworks.org:80/images/Annual-Report.pdf to http://www.theatreworks.org/images/Annual-Report.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080828203459/http://theatreworks.org/images/dev_AnnualReport06_07.pdf to http://www.theatreworks.org/images/dev_AnnualReport06_07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Samir Arora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/movers_and_shakers/article4186873.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Samir Arora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vnunet.com/crn/features/2010314/face-face-net-luminary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. I see a long list of questions back-and-forth between the two editors. I don't know which of the questions are agreed on and which of them are still in disagreement. If one of the editors will provide a revised list, either another editor or I may try to answer them point-by-point. On the other hand, the list may be too long for Third Opinion and it may be that moderated dispute resolution may be more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic content
The article content appears to be poorly sourced and comes across as overly promotional. I made some edits for concision and removed some intricate detail cited to primary sources, or otherwise superfluous. Perhaps a POV tag would be appropriate? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your edits. I agree that the article is poorly sourced and the discussion with Julie above tried to highlight this and explain the requirements. I am concerned that most of the "promotional" sections and assertions in this article are sourced from "interviews" with Arora or are attributed to companies where he was involved. The Alternative Health & Wellness section is irrelevant and uses unreliable sourcing and similarly, the Books section is entirely promotional. The "Foodie" book is self-published and the inclusion of his being mentioned in another book is irrelevant and I don't see any reason for the mention of Steve Jobs in the same sentence. The Theatre, Film and Entertainment is also irrelevant and problematic as it also relies on references using "interviews" of Arora or press releases from Mode Media when he was CEO. His description as an inventor in the lede is questionable as there are no references to support this description or have used this description and is appears to be WP:SYNTH to use this description here even based on the fact he is listed as a co-inventor on several patents. Other problematic references are:
 * This NYT reference doesn't support the claims in the article. Doesn't even mention Arora.
 * This Forbes reference is an interview with Arora and as such is not a reliable source
 * This is also an interview with Arora
 * This WSJ "profile" is taken from Glam Media and is not a third party source
 * This Sunday Times reference is also an interview with Arora and therefore not a reliable source
 * This Techcrunch reference is also an interview with Arora and the reference does not support
 * All in all, what started out as a simple clean-up has turned into a major job in order to meet the strict guidelines and policies associated with WP:BLP. I appreciate any help on this. -- HighKing ++ 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I added the POV tag which I believe is justified.K.e.coffman (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey k.e.c.
 * Thank you for stepping in, I requested community support several weeks ago in helping editing this article, to help balance between the conversations between HK and me on the edits on this page. There was content from the past that wiki old timer Peter Eisenberg maintained and checked sources that over time had become poorly sourced and/or problematic and needed fixing, however, it needed help from someone else to resolve.
 * Your edits focus on material that is relevant that were edited, and it also reduces the overall promotional items.
 * Will try to dig out the remaining citations needed to complete the article, and fix items that need better sources.
 * Interviews can be used as citations—in the U.S. sources such as WSJ, Forbes have stated editorial policies to verify content and rate high on fact checking, though they are not perfect even in interviews. In addition, financial press has a higher focus on public companies, officers and directors, and though they use SEC companies filings and profile information from their material, the reputation of the Journal is to verify before publishing or correct any errors found. There is a link to a study of U.S. factual reliability in one of the notes in the Talk page, we should use sources that are strong, as per your edits—agreed.
 * Thank you, these edits took a lot of personal time, and your input will help resolve.
 * Julie 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Julie, you say Interviews can be used as citations. Can you please post where in the guidelines this is stated please? And please explain how interviews can be viewed as neutral third party reliable sources? Throughout our discussions you continue to throw out statements like this that are not based on guidelines and I believe this is the root of many of the disagreements on this article. -- HighKing ++ 01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Please see the guidelines of Citations on Wikipedia: They clearly state interviews as well as Personal interviews may be included:
 * 'Citation content can vary depending on the type of source and may include: Interview: name of interviewer, interview descriptor (ex. personal interview) and date of interview.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
 * HK: Personal interviews CAN be used as Citations, source should be listed with regard to the reputation of the publication (personal blog to major journalistic news source) Your edits and comments lean towards "if there is an article or interview with a major news source like WSJ/NYT etc. they cannot be used." These are valid citations as above and we should use and note if needed that "In an interview" or In a personal interview..." Sources like WSJ for bio's or non interview articles of (specially public) company executives, even if the material is from SEC or company filings or webs site still fall into the publications standards of editorial publishing and fact checking guidelines and can be used (There is a link to WSJ/NYT in Talk above somewhere above with WSJ code of ethics from their site)
 * All the sources k.e.c is using are professional, valid and verifiable. Occasionally personal self published material in a book, web site can be used if it meets our criteria on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. k.e.c's version edits seem neutral with a clear POV.
 * k.e.c. Thank you for your intervention and edits, at this point there are 2 editors that agree on the version, and we should move on to other articles and close this discussion on talk here. If there are any other editors that want to step in or add to k.e.c edits or older content that Peter and others maintained, please step in.
 * Julie 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Julie, I note that you half answered the question I posed. The main part of my question was when I asked you to explain how a personal interview with Arora - which you are trying to use to establish facts - meets the criteria set down in WP:BLP. An interview may be acceptable in some articles and depending on the context, may even be acceptable in a biography of a living person. But they are definitely not acceptable as the sole source where they're used to establish a controversial detail or fact that has not been independently documented elsewhere. Your explanation that interviews can be used solely because it was a major journalistic news source is based on your assumption that the major journalistic news source checked all the facts (as they would do for a major journalistic news story) and this simply is most unlikely and most certainly cannot be assumed. Interviews should never be used as a source for controversial or impossible to verify information.
 * You reverted my last edit while stating that the edits were not agreed in Talk. Please note the following from the WP:BLP page:
 * Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
 * I have been operating on this principal from the start and I have also been examining the sources. You appear to be less concerned with a factually accurate article and more concerned with keeping any material that shows Arora in a positive light with a certain spin. For example, I changed *your* text (which was unsourced) which read "Arora was the founder and first investor of Mode Media". I replaced it with a more accurate (and sourced) version which stated that he was *one* of the founders - which is also more in keeping with the Mode Media page where Arora is one of *nine* founders. I also removed the bit where it states that "Arora launched Bliss.com" especially seeing as the title of the provided reference states that "Glam Launches Bliss.com". It looks very odd and calls into question your motives as to why *you* want to state that Arora was *the* founder and Aurora launched Bliss.com when in reality these stretch the facts.
 * Finally, you profusely thank k.e.c. for his intervention and edits and state that there are 2 editors that are in agreement, while in the next breath you try to shut down any more examination and editing of this article and tell people to move on to other content. Allow me to refresh your memory. I requested a Third Opinion because you were stubbornly refusing to either read the policies and guidelines or to properly understand them. The first couple of comments made by k.e.c. were:
 * The article content appears to be poorly sourced and comes across as overly promotional.
 * Agreed. I added the POV tag which I believe is justified
 * Over a period of a couple of days, k.e.c. repeated just about all of my edits (which you objected to and fought against), agreed that the article was clearly overly promotional and poorly sourced and has since run a bigger chainsaw through the content than I had initially. I understand why you'd like to get k.e.c. (and other editors) "on side" but my advice is for you to step away from this article, read (and understand) the WP:BLP guidelines, and perhapd edit in other areas (unconnected with Arora) for a while. -- HighKing ++ 22:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd second HighKing's suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks kec — was following your lead as the 3rd opinion, and I agreed and supported your version. Unlike what HK suggests, your version was much clearer and complete to me, while achieve the goal he had of editing the article. Nothing personal, and while I agreed with HK's points, just not how he did it and I agreed with your version. HK: though you come off very strong and heavy handed in your style, I do agree with what you are trying to do. We all have different perspectives, and hope these interactions have been learning for you—they certainly are to me. Have read and re-read the guidelines, and like you both doing my best to help after Peter who started this article left off. Have done my best and as suggested, time to move on. If all items seem resolved, pls remove the POV tag if you think kec' last version is OK—I am OK with his and your last edits.
 * Julie 14:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Julie, it takes a while to realise that everything on here is based on strict policies and that the policies and guidelines relating to living person bios are the strictest of all. Take some time editing in different areas and you'll quickly learn how things work. -- HighKing ++ 12:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Source
Rather than puff content that the article had so much of, here's an interesting source on Arora and his struggles at Net Objects: Fearless Genius: The Digital Revolution in Silicon Valley 1985-2000: "Samir Arora facing down his investors". If there's interest, I'd suggest adding some citations from the linked pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the great link. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your edits K.e.coffman– thanks for your link. Looks like you fixed the earlier neutrality issues and should be good to remove the flag. --AMJ101 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed the POV based on edits by K.e.coffman and original article details by Peter Eisenburger. --AMJ101 (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Several wikipedia editors have changed the original article by Peter Eisenburger to the shorter structure by K.e.coffman and on talk here, we should be good to remove the flags. AMJ101 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * david gerard's edits to remove techcrunch ref that may not be essential to the subject/notability / reverted to facts  AMJ101 (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)