Talk:Vivek Wadhwa

Not notable?
Notability here is questionable. He's basically a blogger. All the "academic appointments" are hanger-on type positions and don't meet Wikipedia's "professor test" WP:PROF. ("Visiting scholar" doesn't mean much; I've been one at Stanford, and it's not a big deal.)

His contribution to computer science involves migration tools for COBOL, and had a business doing that in the run-up to the Y2K problem..

Actual articles about him are scarce. There's Mouth piece: Vivek Wadhwa's talent for trumpeting his company shines, but observers want to see another kind of performance.. His company, Relativity Technologies (legacy COBOL conversion) is described as "a five-year-old, money-losing start-up that last year scratched less than $10 million from a fragmented market estimated at $550 million." He was associated with Seer Technologies in the 1990s, and seems to have been responsible for moving them into IBM mainframe terminal screen-scraping.. The most useful bio is from Fast Company in 2001..

A bio might be possible from these sources. What we have now is an inflated resume. --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated article with some of above info, with refs. Also removed CrunchBase ref (you put yourself on CrunchBase; it's not a reliable source), and category "Harvard University faculty" (he's not.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To judge by the references below, a more accurate summation of what Wadhwa did with Seer than


 * "moving Seer into screen scraping technology for IBM mainframe terminals, as an early form of client-server computing"


 * would be to say that he


 * "pioneered an open development environment for developing three-tier[1] applications deployed across client–server systems, initially for MVS and OS/2 and later for platforms including HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Windows NT [2]".


 * [1] Jason Pontin, "Seer migrates its three-tier SeerHPS to Windows NT", InfoWorld 27 Mar 1995, p. 34
 * [2] Brad Howarth, "SEER divines a new channel", ARN 2 October 1996


 * Would you disagree with that?


 * Sorry, don't yet know how to indent my text.


 * Signatorius (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That reads more like advertising copy. Also, Seer is not the originator of the three-tier concept, just a user of it. See Three-tier (computing). Seer's contribution is that they figured out a way to connect the business tier (on web servers) to a database tier (on IBM mainframes) through screen scraping, back when it was tough to get IBM mainframes to talk to anything but IBM terminals. --John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to parse all this critique though I've read most of it. I was glad to find the article here and concerned by the notability template. I added the bit I'd brought and, in addition, sifted through the academic and writing positions paragraph. I identified two which had no citations (amending from "is currently", for them, to "has been"; one to which I did this was the Harvard position mentioned as currently wrong above; plus gave the two a "Citation needed") and footnoted the rest.

One substance comment I'd make: writing for Bloomberg B'week, on the face, doesn't strike me as "basically blogging".* I haven't read Wadwah's work there but believe writers have a different, higher-profile (more worthy of an article, in the functional sense, I guess I'm saying; not though of course to downplay business and tech credentials) standing. ... I would hope the good work on this page gets over into the article (the "three-tier" stuff, if it's not already) and that the notability template is dropped, so we move on.

Final note. I can't immediately recall the first, but this is the 2nd time in about 3 days I've encountered the Rock school. Not a huge deal but (like the Yahoo angle on the other side of the bit I added to the Wadwah article) worthy of note, IMO. Rock doesn't have its own article yet. ... But it's intriguing; corporate governance has to be a growth discipline, is my editorial sense. The Rocks put in $10 million, to that effect. (I'll try to get that to their articles at least.) ...

That's it for now. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * * Washington Post, ditto. Will add it to article. Swliv (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've worked with Wadhwa on a few Duke University publishing projects. It seems to me that his public position on immigration opens him up to a great deal of hostility that may be expressed in attacking his credentials.

There appears to be no basis for the claim that Seer Technologies did any "screen scraping".

Based on the references below, I propose to replace the sentence about screen scraping with this:

"He and a Seer colleague, Leonid Erlikh, found and hired a team of 30 Russian mathematicians, led by Andrey Terekhov, to implement Terekhov's new, mathematical, approach to analysing the important functionality of legacy computer code and synthesising from that analysis new code that, after an initial trial run whose failure taught them all a valuable lesson in making the conversion very broadly adaptable, performed more functions and functioned faster than the legacy software had."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/1113/6613336a.html

http://www.fastcompany.com/42581/re-writing-code

http://www.informationweek.com/836/wadhwa.htm

Does that strike anybody as questionable?

Signatorius (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Undid promotional edits by SPAs
Undid some promotional edits by SPAs which deleted negative information and added marketing-type info for a new book. Please watch for promotional edits. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits by two SPAs seem to be rather similar. Hmm. --John Nagle (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring Content
Had to recover content after Nagle deleted most of the information. All information was factually substantiated and accurate. Nagle even deleted information about the titles and descriptions of works that Wadhwa produced. There needs to be more oversight about these changes here. (talk) -samisacat —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If I seem passionate about this subject, it's because I have been a student of history who has worked in and studied immigration law for over three years. A couple of us students of Wadhwa decided to update his page on our independent initiative. I have made some edits to a couple other of my professors' pages, and I am also in the process of writing another page for one of my undergrad professors independently. It is disheartening to see all our hard work destroyed, especially when we cited and substantiated all the information.


 * Strange that you are so familiar with wiki-stuff as not signing, "yeah my professor's a great guy let's just all promote his book on Wikipedia, it's only been out 10 days, but alreday quoted from NY to London", give it a rest. this wholoe article has also been flagged at the BLP noticeboard (yes you can look it up yourself, apparently you know how to use WP) ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 19:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Academic integrity? It's hard to see how any of this behavior satisfies the high values of academic integrity. A professor sends his students to an online encyclopedia with instructions on hyping him and his new book. When, following our own policies, we quite rightly attempt to block these selfish and manipulative efforts, all hell breaks loose. I know it's a rough-and-tumble world out there, but I have just one question: Mr. Wadhwa, just how does this behavior uphold the academic integrity that you are contractually bound to model for your students? Qworty (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

National media threat
So now Professor Wadhwa is threatening to take his self-promotional content dispute into the national media. Because of the Streisand effect, this will be where he loses. The minute this goes live on CNN, this talk page will receive half a million hits. Professor Wadhwa will then be in the public position of having to explain the massive promotional edits performed by one of his self-admitted students. The clear purpose of the edits was to heap praise and "recognition" upon Professor Wadhwa, as well as to help him financially by talking up his books, specifically his most recent one, which is tanking on Amazon. Is this what an academic is supposed to do in order to sell books?--send a student to Wikipedia to write promotional material? What student/faculty handbook at any university in the world states that it is professionally correct to build oneself up by sending out students to rewrite encyclopedia entries about oneself? And there's more. Does the policy WP:WIKISTALK exist? Yes, it does. Is Professor Wadhwa in violation of its letter and its spirit? Yes, he is. By privately contacting Wikipedia editors off-wiki, by threatening to escalate matters into the national media, Professor Wadhwa is trying to WP:BULLY and intimidate the guardians of Wikipedia's integrity, in an effort to get us to back off and to allow his present or former students to continue to edit his biography in a way that shines his professional status and allows him to sell books. Well, Professor Wadhwa is going to find out that when it comes to enforcing the WP:ADVERT policy, Wikipedia editors do not back down. It doesn't matter how much power Professor Wadhwa believes he has in Silicon Valley, or how much he may look down on Wikipedia as a non-profit site. The fact is that it doesn't matter how big he thinks he is in corporate boardrooms. It doesn't give him the right to use his students to hijack his Wikipedia article for his own self-promotional purposes. THAT is why the edits were reverted, and if Professor Wadhwa would like to take this to the national media so that the entire world can see what is happening here, that is his decision. But I believe he would be making a serious error. Qworty (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it has been compiled using several third party sources, and Wadhwa is affiliated with several organizations that satisfy WP:BIO given his work in media and academia. --Harro5 08:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Deletion seems unwarranted. There is documented notability here. This is a content problem, not a notability problem. At one time, the article was excessively promotional, but the level of promotion has been brought down.  We had some problems with SPAs, but that's been dealt with. Some references to published critical comments might be in order, to make the article less promotional.  --John Nagle (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some other sources that could be useful to expand:   - Separate from spam discussion above. Also there was a debate between Wadhwa and Peter Thiel on education. Harro5 08:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources about Wadhwa to fill out an article about him, and his writings and other public activities are visible enough and influential enough to easily fulfill any notability concern separate from the verifiability issue that is not at all a concern here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent recognition
If independent evaluations are worth something, the following items may be relevant. Would there be any reason not to include them on the main page?

In October 2012, the World Technology Network awarded Wadhwa the 2012 World Technology Award for policy ().

In November 2012, Foreign Policy magazine named Wadhwa one of the top 100 global thinkers for 2012 (, ).

In December 2012, The Economist named Wadhwa's book The Immigrant Exodus one of "the best books of 2012” ().

Signatorius (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excessive promotion, perhaps. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Should these links be in the article?
--John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsuccessful attempt at film production (Business Week)
 * Fired for cause from Relativity Technologies (WRAL Techwire)
 * More on termination lawsuit (WRAL Techwire)

Views on homeopathy
I doubt if this is really significant enough to be mentioned in the article, but for what it's worth, there has been some recent controversy among skeptics over Wadhwa's apparent promotion of homeopathy: Robofish (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This comment is utte rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.206.116  (talk • contribs)

This is really rubbish. I heard Professor Vadhwa speak at EPPICon 2015 in Santa Clara yesterday (http://www.eppicglobal.org) and he said about advances in modern medicine and how this would change the world. I also did Google search on his recent writings after listening him. Here are some I found:

Washington Post: Apple isn’t just satisfied reinventing health care, it’s targeting clinical trials as well Washington Post: Why we should all be thrilled about the FDA starting to embrace innovation Washington Post: The triumph of genomic medicine is just beginning Wall Street Journal: How Technology Will Eat Medicine Washington Post: Why I’m excited about the promising future of medicine Washington Post: DNA: The next big hacking frontier

It seems some people are after the Professor probably because he is Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.14.75 (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SPA problem
There have been some large promotional edits by an SPA. Please discuss on talk before adding such material. Yes, he's been involved in a flame war on Twitter. So? Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's too much written by the article subject, and not enough from third-party reliable sources about the subject. John Nagle (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nagle - I added articles that the subject has written in the context of providing sources for the subject's public policy debates. I am not an SPA - I am an entrepreneur and involved in multiple startups including one about education, and one with a globally dispersed team. I am doing what I believe is right in adding information for the world to see about the subject's debates on the various topics. Especially the debates on women in technology - and you need to stop harassing entrepreneurs who take an active interest in their fields - which for me include women, all diversity, education, technology, talent needed in the US, and etc. --KeKatie (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "I am doing what I believe is right in adding information for the world to see about the subject's debates on the various topics" is a form of advocacy. This is generally viewed negatively on Wikipedia. See WP:SOAPBOX. John Nagle (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nagle - I am one of the over 300 women that are a part of Innovating Women. I am not an SPA. I am interested in women's involvement in technology, why I add content on relevant pages. Any and all content I add is factual and with solid resources. My user name is kekatie and my IP address is listed here. You have harassed me in the past and I ask that you please stop harassing me now - it is coming across as anti-female. 184.77.53.102 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and, please see note to your talk page(s). Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo added, possible copyright problem
A photo File:Wadhwa, Vivek.jpg has been added. The photo was uploaded to Commons by KeKatie, and shortly thereafter, linked into the article by. The photo is from Wadhwa's web site. The author is listed as "John P. Harvey". Is that the uploader? Copyright status is unclear. There was a previous attempt to use a picture owned by Duke University (with a Duke University copyright notice in the EXIF data) so there probably should be copyright clearance on this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The copyright holder, John P. Harvey, sent the clearance and authorization for the photo to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org releasing it under: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They have record of the authorization, permission and clearance on file. --184.77.53.102 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversial TLDR episode
Why can't we mention criticism of his advocacy in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Criticism of Wadhwa in the TLDR episode and elsewhere seems to be pretty notable -- why can't we include it in the introduction?--The lorax (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Giving undue attention to this new drama/controversy in the lead doesn't seem fair to me. If what you added stays there, the lead should also include his accomplishments to make it more neutral. (I'd add them myself but it's not clear to me what his accomplishments are.)


 * If anyone's familiar with his work in academia, please add that to the lead because that seems to be one of his major activities.
 * He's apparently a professor (or something like that) at Stanford Law School? That's surely more relevant to the lead than saying that a couple of people who've never met him criticized him on a podcast this month.
 * https://www.law.stanford.edu/profile/vivek-wadhwa
 * "Rather than continue to engage in a public spat, I asked her via DM to come and speak to me in person at Stanford Law School, where like other professors, I hold regular office hours for students." --Vivek Wadhwa, http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/14/my-response-to-the-podcast-that-unfairly-attacked-me/


 * The criticism section talks about Amelia Greenhall (one person) critiquing him but not any of his defenders, so that's unbalanced also. I don't know who his supporters are, but if you do, please add that in.


 * The current Wikipedia article of Vivek Wadhwa isn't fair or balanced. Vaqab (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Omission of the TLDR episode strikes me as NPOV -- to the point that the entry in its current form should be flagged for it. At the very least there should be a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section so that the entry is more neutral and less of a hagiography. Dtunkelang (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Like other professors"? He's not a professor. He has a 1-year fellowship at Stanford's Rock Center for Corporate Governance in the law school, which can be renewed. That's not an professor-level appointment. John Nagle (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article says "an executive-in-residence/adjunct professor at the Masters of Engineering Management Program" (Duke University), but the site in the citation says says "Senior Research Associate". The Duke Global Engineering site hasn't been updated since 2011, though.  No recent papers or events. The "Global Engineering and Enterpreneurship" operation was under Prof. Gary Gereffi's Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness at Duke, which is active but doesn't show any activity by Wadhwa since 2010.  The article probably should read "was a senior research associate at Duke University", or something to that effect. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Duke's Master of Engineering Management website, Wadhwa is Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at the Pratt School of Engineering. A recent course taught is listed at the bottom of the page: EGRMGMT 591.01: Independent Study - Exploring the Future of Technology and Impact on Entrepreneurship (Fall 2014). Here is the section on Duke's Center for Entrepreneurship and Research and Commercialization where he is listed under the leadership section: http://www.cerc.duke.edu/about KeKatie (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That page says "Executive-in-Residence at the Pratt School of Engineering". The head of CERC listed is Dr. Barry S. Myers, who is a professor at Duke. CERC's staff seemed to consist of Meyers, Wadhwa, and a staff assistant. The CERC web site doesn't seem to have any updates since 2009.  "Executive in Residence" circa 2009 is what we have in sources. John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to some of Wadhwa's research papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=738704. Proposing to add his papers as well as what they are about. Comments? KeKatie (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have 22 links to material by the article subject. Please try to find WP:RS reliable independent sources about the subject. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Recentism - BLP issue
That one person criticized him in a podcast is no justification for commentary in the lede and a full 12% of the entry being devoted to that criticism. At this point in time, this hardly even seems worth mentioning, although I would not object much to a one sentence statement about the criticism, and a one sentence presentation of his response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are WP:RS reliable sources from mainstream media:
 * “Vivek Wadhwa is the Carrot Top of academic sources", CEO of Twitter quoted in the New York Times.
 * "Professor and author Vivek Wadhwa, who has sparred with Twitter CEO Dick Costolo in the past over the company's lack of diversity, has gone on a social media rampage criticizing Costolo and Twitter." - SF Business Journal
 * It's not "one person in a podcast" any more. As for balance, at least 22 of 48 references in the article, 45%, are by Wadhwa himself. John Nagle (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section that was there was about one person in a podcast. I do agree that his conflict with Twitter CEO, as covered in the New York Times blog, is worthy of a mention. As is, perhaps, the conflict with the person criticizing him in the podcast.  My concern is that one incident that seems really very minor (someone in a podcast criticized him, and the publisher later retracted the podcast) was an excessive part of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope you agree now that the criticism isn't isolated -- it's become newsworthy enough to be written about in Gizmodo and Gawker. But I agree that neither positive nor negative commentary belong in the lede. Dtunkelang (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't currently cite Gizmodo as a source. We do cite Gawker, a tabloid at best, which strikes me as almost always a big mistake, particularly when quality sources exist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Financial Times has a new article about the Wadhwa issue today, from a staff blogger, but it's behind a paywall. Anyone have an FT account? John Nagle (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to get behind the paywall by answering one of their questions. This link takes you to that option: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e6a83b1c-be6f-11e4-8036-00144feab7de.html#axzz3U8qYlGO8 KeKatie (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And now there's a New York Times article: -- does that count as a "quality source"? Dtunkelang (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What about these edits by an anon? No cites, just changes in tone. John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP is the same IP that made this edit, which I suspect was made by Wadhwa himself or a friend of his. Wadhwa and his friends should avoid editing this article directly due to conflict of interest.--greenrd (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More from the same IP: Reliable third party sources; looks OK.  John Nagle (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that "prominent" be removed as a descriptor of the women criticizing Wadhwa per an Upstart Business Journal article titled "What role should men play in the tech industry's diversity problem?" that was published on March 11 which states "A small group of women from Silicon Valley took to social media ( and then a radio show) to criticize Wadhwa for "speaking for women." KeKatie (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just removed "prominent" as a descriptor of the women who criticized Wadhwa. Here is additional support: What role should men play in solving the tech industry's diversity problem? http://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/profiles-strategies/2015/03/what-role-should-men-play-in-the-tech-industrys.html?ana=twt Reference article above says "A small group of women from Silicon Valley took to social media ( and then a radio show) to criticize Wadhwa for "speaking for women."KeKatie (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protection
I am seeking page protection for this article. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * done Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked, because I didn't see any protection - and it was not done, it was declined. (The "decline" response has now been moved to the rolling archive page linked from that page).--greenrd (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Fresh eyes feedback
My first time on the article. The Controversy and criticism section seems HUGE. I suspect his critics are more active on this article than his supporters or those who are neutral. That's not very encyclopedic. One medium sized paragraph would seem more appropriate. Handpolk (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this. While there's a huge amount of material written by the article subject, there's much less written about him by reliable independent sources. Look around for better sources. Here's a new article in Fortune that hasn't been cited yet.  Try looking back in the past for relevant articles not written by the subject. There must be more that we haven't found yet.  John Nagle (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sharing new article that was not written by the subject: Vivek Wadhwa Backs Off Activist Role for Women’s Empowerment http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/vivek-wadhwa-backs-off-activist-role-for-women-s-empowerment/article_2f6b232c-d3f7-11e4-9f84-731769d3b180.html#.VRb8QaKVWaB.twitter via @IndiaWest. A relevant quote: "Vivek Wadhwa, a former Indian American entrepreneur who as a researcher and columnist in BusinessWeek and other publications has primarily focused on U.S. immigration, technology firms founded by immigrants and biases against women in business, has decided to retreat from activism on the third cause, after about a half-dozen feminist critics blasted him in Twitter comments, interviews and media programs." Noting that this article states the criticism was from "about a half-dozen feminist critics" suggesting the criticism section be revised to be more NPOV. KeKatie (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

StartUp Chile
This article does not note Wadwas contribution to StartUp Chile. I was an Australian participant in Round 2 and everyone talked about how he had invented it. He has been a big critic of top-down clusters and gave a talk in Santiago about how this would create the alternate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.206.116 (talk • contribs)
 * He's one of many people on their advisory board, and he spoke at one of their meetups. Not finding any reliable source that says he "invented it".  John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote about Startup Chile: "I helped design the Start-Up Chile program and serve on its advisory board. My involvement with Chile began in 2008, when the Chilean government asked my research team at Duke University to review Chile’s engineering-education system and its I.T. outsourcing cluster. I told the government that the cluster would not create the innovation or employment it hoped for, because Chile lacked the numbers of engineering graduates. Instead, I advised it to focus on entrepreneurship and emulate Israel and Finland: small countries with highly skilled, highly motivated innovators." Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/06/11/chile-teaches-the-world-a-lesson-about-innovation/ Also suggesting Startup Chile be added. KeKatie (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

An additional source: Startup Chile's Global Footprint: http://www.entrepreneurship.org/resource-center/start-up-chiles-global-footprint.aspx Helping a government design a program and serving as an advisor is notable - along with the participant in the program also suggesting this be added to the page. KeKatie (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Advisor to Startup Chile" we have reliable sources for. Reliable third-party sources do not confirm anything more than that. The statement by Wadhwa may be literally correct yet says no more than that he talked to them. The big-name advisors behind Startup Chile are mostly Stanford professors.  John Nagle (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Prosperity through Connectedness (Innovations Case Narrative: Start-Up Chile)" written by Horacio Melo, the Executive Director of Start-Up Chile, in "Innovations" the Quarterly MIT Journal includes this:

"Start-Up Chile was born in 2010 from the ideas of two people: a Chilean, Nicolas Shea, who was living in the United States and finishing his master’s at Stanford University, and Vivek Wadhwa, an Indian academic and technology entrepreneur who lives in Silicon Valley. They believed that the best way to go to the next level in innovation and entrepreneurship in Chile was through immigration. Their idea: to bring foreign entrepreneurs to launch their start-ups in Chile, and in so doing to increase the countries access to worldwide business networks" Here are links to the sources: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/INOV_a_00124#.VRApwTR4q7F and to the full PDF: http://wadhwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/INNOVATIONS-7-2_Enabling-Entrepreneurial-Ecosystems.pdf KeKatie (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is an additional source for Wadhwa's role in co-creating Startup Chile: From Inc.com: "The Silicon Valley of South America? To spur innovation, Chile is offering American start-ups $40,000 in seed funding." by Ryan Underwood (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110401/the-silicon-valley-of-south-america.html) "'Money is not the problem. It's finding good companies to invest in,' says Vivek Wadhwa, a former tech entrepreneur and Duke University engineering professor who helped create Chile's program after being tapped as an adviser by people he knew in the government." KeKatie (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article by Horatio Melo, the head of Startup Chile, is a good source. I'd suggest keeping that, and cutting out the Wadhwa-generated material.  The Inc. article is a "says Vivek Wadhwa" source.  John Nagle (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is an additional source: IDG Connect: Viewpoint: UK's Tallyfye on Startup Chile written by David Lee: "I’ll start with the general nature of the program in Chile. It was started by, or initially inspired by a guy called Vivek Wadhwa - with others behind the movement as well. He pushed the Chilean government to create a program that funded micro sums of money to people who had ideas."KeKatie (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is another source: BBC News: "Latin America catches entrepreneurship fever" by Gideon Long: "Vivek Wadhwa, a US-based technology entrepreneur who advised the Chilean government on Start-up Chile..."KeKatie (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much "Wadhwa says".
There's getting to be too much self-promotion in this article. Compare George Will, who's may be America's most notable columnist and pundit. That article just has concise third-party summaries of Will's positions. Charles Krauthammer is longer, but he's been a notable columnist for 35 years, his positions have changed over time, and that's covered. Both of those have Pulitzer Prizes. Some trimming and summarization may be indicated. John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Savantas Policy Institute
Vivek Wadwa also advised Hong Kong Government. He worked with Savantas Policy Institute on a project to advice Government on how to Reinvigorating Hong Kong's Innovation System and develop workforce. This report has been very instrumental to us in deciding policy. I would like to add links to all of the professor who contributed. Here is link to report summary--http://www.savantas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/overview.pdf

Here is link to Wadwa chapter and recommendations for us--http://www.savantas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/7_Wadhwa.pdf Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.176.50.18 (talk • contribs)
 * When adding comments to a talk page, please add them at the bottom, not the top. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Savantas Policy Institute" doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. They have a writeup in the South China Morning Post, so we have a reliable source for the organization.[1]. They have a good web site.. They're a policy think tank for Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee of the New People's Party, according to the SCMP, and they have a redlink mention in her article. The SCMP article indicates that political think tanks in HK are part of a politician's support system, and their funding goes up and down with the political fortunes of their politician. Someone with more knowledge of HK politics might want to take a look. There's a recent article in the SCMP about this think tank's study of Hong Kong's slow growth problem. No mention of Wadhwa. John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection?
In this edit, removed a promotional warning template previously added by  with the comment "(I removed the flag as Jimbo Wales has indicated for this page to be protected.)"  This is strange. The article isn't protected. If Jimbo Wales wants to protect it, he has admin authority to do that, but has not done so. More explanation is indicated. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding further explanation: Jimbo Wales originally intervened saying "At least a couple of editors need to leave this entry alone and stop attacking the subject" as it is very clear that there are haters of this subject that violate the policies on biographies. This page was flagged when I added an article from Financial Times, a very reputable source, about the subject. Please advise if further explanation will be helpful. 2602:30A:2EC8:4D00:882F:3978:C548:1F0C (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I had forgotten to login. Comment immediately above is mineKeKatie (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean you own the article. You have, as I understand it, some connection to the article subject, which is usually considered a conflict of interest on Wikipedia.  Do you want to declare a COI?  See WP:COI for current policy, which has been made more strict in recent months. John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I am one of the over 500 women who worked on Innovating Women, and am not in a conflict of interest. In everything I have added it has been factual, well sourced, and with a neutral point of view. The positive and negative points are included in the page. Re; the subject, Jimbo had undone your previous changes and comments and advised backing off. KeKatie (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vivek Wadhwa. 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 https://web.archive.org/20120326055208/http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar12/leading_edge.cfm to http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar12/leading_edge.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Vivek Wadhwa. 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 https://web.archive.org/20120626142104/http://singularityu.org:80/community/management/ to http://singularityu.org/community/management/#vivek
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131217132330/http://www.prism-magazine.org:80/sept11/leading_edge.cfm to http://www.prism-magazine.org/sept11/leading_edge.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111221055225/http://www.prism-magazine.org/summer06/last_word.cfm to http://www.prism-magazine.org/summer06/last_word.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140319233734/http://www.prism-magazine.org/dec11/leading_edge.cfm to http://www.prism-magazine.org/dec11/leading_edge.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Vivek Wadhwa. 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/20140320010402/http://halleinstitute.emory.edu/research/visiting_scholars/wadhwa.html to http://halleinstitute.emory.edu/research/visiting_scholars/wadhwa.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006130436/http://www.prism-magazine.org/google-search.cfm?cx=016590455638624070743%3A750qbe39hf0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Vivek+Wadhwa&siteurl=www.prism-magazine.org%2Fmar12%2Fleading_edge.cfm&ref=&ss=4662j2279046j16 to http://www.prism-magazine.org/google-search.cfm?cx=016590455638624070743%3A750qbe39hf0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Vivek+Wadhwa&siteurl=www.prism-magazine.org%2Fmar12%2Fleading_edge.cfm&ref=&ss=4662j2279046j16
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140320040814/http://foreignpolicy.com/profiles/Vivek-Wadhwa to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/profiles/Vivek-Wadhwa

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 05:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Career updates
I'd suggest updating Wadhwa's academic positions and publications. According to Carnegie Mellon, he is presently a Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Mellon University, Silicon Valley. I'm not sure about his other positions.

His regular publications also include VentureBeat and LinkedIn Influencers.

Also, two unmentioned books he has authored or co-authored are The Immigrant Exodus and The Driver in the Driverless Car: How Our Technology Choices Will Create the Future. Nature magazine has declared the latter a "best science pick".

Signatorius (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vivek Wadhwa. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618164754/http://www.microfocus.com/aboutmicrofocus/pressroom/releases/pr20090105295388.asp to http://www.microfocus.com/aboutmicrofocus/pressroom/releases/pr20090105295388.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prism-magazine.org/google-search.cfm?cx=016590455638624070743%3A750qbe39hf0&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Vivek%20Wadhwa&siteurl=www.prism-magazine.org%2Fmar12%2Fleading_edge.cfm&ref=&ss=4662j2279046j16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221010304/http://newsfeed.gawker.com/vivek-wadhwa-makes-great-case-against-vivek-wadhwa-on-w-1687016630 to http://newsfeed.gawker.com/vivek-wadhwa-makes-great-case-against-vivek-wadhwa-on-w-1687016630

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)