Talk:Arun Pudur/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Forbes

The Forbes article below was previously referenced in this BLP article in an inflammatory way that was correctly removed. However, it is an interesting and notable piece from a reliable source that should be referenced in the article in a more neutral manner:

Chung, Grace (July 6, 2016). "Wannabe Billionaire: Arun Pudur's Tech Fortune May Be Largely Fiction". Forbes. Retrieved July 22, 2016.

Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added this to the article in a manner which I believe is straightforward and neutral. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, I have also trimmed the article of some of what I feel are self-serving and exceptional claims by Pudur that seem to have been repeated and perpetuated by multiple sources but which to do not seem to be actually verifiable.— TAnthony^Talk 05:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit, which is editor POV and original research denouncing the Forbes article and restoring claims such as the fact that Celframe's product is second to Microsoft Office. This is the same editor who removed the initial mention of the Forbes piece, which was originally added in an inappropriate way. I welcome challenges to the Forbes article that are supported by reliable sources, rather than an unsourced rant, possibly added by someone with a conflict of interest.— TAnthony^Talk 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

AGAIN, I am using all the included sources properly, noting that Wealth-X has declared him #10 on their list etc. The other sources are talking about the Wealth-X list, if Bloomberg has their own list then we can find it and add it WITH A SOURCE. Regardless of how certain editors may feel about the Forbes article, it is a reliable source that made a claim, it is being reflected here as neutrally as possible and with equal weight to other sources making other claims. Forbes may very well be mistaken, "unverified" or "controversial", but as editors we cannot say so without a reliable source saying so. I should also note that I am getting the feeling that the editor being disruptive may have a conflict of interest concerning the subject of this article. It would be great if any conflicts could be disclosed, and if the issue in the article could be discussed here on this talk page rather than risk an edit war. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 01:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking for other reliable sources on Pudur unrelated to the Wealth-X list. If any of the IP users who have mentioned other reliable sources and listings (User 1, User 2, User 3, User 4, User 5, User 6, User 7, and User 8) could refer to them, I'd be happy to implement them into the article. Thanks in advance.— TAnthony^Talk 04:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2016

This edit request to Arun Pudur has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Please remove unsubstantiated claim of "Celframe's software being the world's second most popular".

Rj509608 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I originally removed it, but there are several reliable sources which state this, even though it is likely they are just echoing the Wealth-X report and each other. You will notice my intentional wording "Celframe's software package has been cited as the world's second most popular" rather than "Celframe's software package is", which is technically supported by the sources, but which I believe also makes it clear that the cited sources are saying this, not that there is a definitive source which proves it. User:TAnthony 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral Non-Biased Editing Sorted"

TAnthony Appreciate you toning down the overly harsh conclusions you derived from one Forbes article. Your initial editing was overly biased and your complete revamp of the article to fit "Forbes" journalist style writing is worrisome.

While i still feel you can't ignore other relevant points discussed in other news articles and TV interviews.

The wiki article must be neutral and these below points has to be incorporated in the article as well. some of the points being.

He started his carrer at 13 with $150 for him mother

He made his first Million at 21 and first billion at 26

He has nine private jets

His present business is worth $13.6 Billion

He has 13,700 employees

His present company value is $72 Billion

His mining business

You wanted non-wealthX articles so here it goes

http://www.mydigitalfc.com/knowledge/india-rich-country-must-do-what-it-wants-112 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-05-08/news/61947983_1_software-business-wealth-x-billionaire http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=58296&t=1 https://arunpudur.com/who-we-are/#our-story

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS AS YOU SPENT AN HOUR READING AN FORBES ARTICLE You must watch the TV interviews as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-07-08/arun-pudur-on-high-flyers-07-07 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-12-04/asean-summit-movers-and-shakers-in-southeast-asia http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-12-23/asean-business-summit-turning-ideas-into-success

So you can't just say, yeah he discussed his upcoming projects etc Bloomberg after summarizing Forbes article in a negative fashion. I want to see a neutral non biased article. If anyone sees your initial drafts and also complete revamp of the page they will see a one sided view. If these above points are included then it will hit some balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:F40:902:A773:4583:6761:6716:AB8F (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these sources, I will definitely look at them and hopefully implement them into the article. However, what I find "worrisome" is that you don't see how it is equally inappropriate to bias the article pro-Pudur in the absence of substantative sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a PR tool for anyone ... and per WP:SELFSOURCE, anyone making "self-serving claims" about themselves is not a reliable source. You are correct that I have not yet watched the entire High Flyers clip, and I will, but just because the subject says "I'm a billionaire and I own 9 jets" and it is broadcast on a respectable program does not make it true, it only provides proof that he said it. Still, I appreciate you keeping me honest and being an advocate for Pudur's side (if there are sides)> I have no personal interest in the subject, just in presenting the sources accurately and in a neutral manner. I will do my best and welsome any feedback. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Of Article needed

TAnthony

Appreciate your updates. Here are more articles that needs to be included

In bloomberg and in Billionaire.com it was established:

His chairty is worth $400M and is working on making is $1Bn this year His chairty focuses on Education, Equal Rights and Environment He had nine private jets and has only two now Celframe turnover was $6.8 Bn in 2014 His present business is worth $13.6 Billion He has 13,700 employees His present company value is $72 Billion His mining business

References

Also an infobox has to be done with his picture, there are many in public domain for this.

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS AS YOU SPENT AN HOUR READING AN FORBES ARTICLE. AGAIN - So you can't just say, yeah he discussed his upcoming projects etc Bloomberg after summarizing Forbes article in a negative fashion. Further Bloomberg TV interview was telecasted on 7th July 6PM SGT while Forbes published the article on 6th July 9PM EST just hours after the bloomberg TV promotion started, conicident?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:f40:902:2e9a:cdef:1a7a:aae5:fd84 (talk) 10:40, August 9, 2016

I have only had a chance to watch the High Flyers piece so far (and used it in the article), but I will definitely take a look at all of these sources, thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to give an update on my progress, I have gone through all of the sources provided except these two videos [1] [2], which I hope to view soon. I believe I have included all of the pertinent facts mentioned above except for Celframe's current value, which I don't think I've come across mention of as yet. Mentioning his jets seems trivial. You seem unsatisfied with my mention of High Flyers; I have used the interview as a source for several statements, but I'm not sure what else you expect to be said about it. All in all I feel the article covers Pudur well and in a neutral fashion. Any problem you have with the mention of the Forbes article seems very much mitigated by the rest of the material. As far as a photo goes, I have yet to find any of Pudur which would be considered freely available for use at Wikipedia in the biographical article of a living person.— TAnthony^Talk 20:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No business anymore?

As of September 2018 no business ventures of Arun Pudur seem to be active. arunpudur.com is down - according to the self description on LinkedIn the company had 60 million customers. Pretty weird, that it could disappear in this way without even one press publication noticing it. celframeoffice.com is down, too - and there are no sources I could find that suggest more than a product of this name had existed at some point - surely it is no competitor to Microsoft Office in any way. celframe.com is still online, but it shows no recent signs of activity. --2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The site is up again, featuring the error message "This is a web server test, so please expect errors in this website - Webmaster ( webmaster@arunpudur.com )" and the company address "1234 Street Name, City Name, United States" --2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.