Talk:Samir Arora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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

Reverted edits of 64.121.49.97[edit]

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)[reply]


WP:VF[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NETO financials; POV[edit]

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)[reply]

The source of the editor says it all. I will re-introduce the sentence.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glam[edit]

"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)[reply]

The "other Samir Arora"[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Samir Arora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The article, as it currently stands, reads like a promotional piece. Many of the statements and facts appear to be using pooe reference material - much of which is unacceptable. We cannot rely on "interviews" given by Arora for facts, not can we rely on Blogs such as counternotions.com or old bio pages of Arora from various sources. I'll clear the article up in a week or so, but it might end up being brutal. If better sources turn up in the meantime, please add them. I've looked myself, but many "sources" quote Wikipedia or bio's from his company, and it is all looking rather circular. -- HighKing++ 19:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and removed sources that do not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, especially "interviews" with Mr. Arora where claims he makes are not substantiated in any reliable secondary sources WP:BLPSELFPUB, independent of Samir Arora. Please do not add these sources back in as we really can't use them or the "facts" presented in these interviews without verification. Also, I've removed the sections on "Books" and "Theatre" and "Mindfulness" as these topics have absolutely no bearing on the article and the reason Arora is notable. The sections also fail guidelines for sources in any case. -- HighKing++ 12:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HK that many edits had lost the sources and citations and therefore needed corrections. Added back original content created by Peter Eisenberg (Creator of this page) with new citations where I could find them. Tried to find new sources (SEC Legal filings, WSJ BIO, new TechCrunch and other more reliable sources. Added as best to :HighKing's edits. Looks like is a published print author with Amazon source, so Books is notable. On searching Google, found reliable references of launch of wellness, mindfulness site Bliss.com/now Mode, and part of published history—deleted information not verifiable. Used better sources — Forbes, WSJ, Times, Independent, TechCrunch fact check before their print/post interviews or bios, and legal docs such as SEC 10-K's are US legal documents. Like HK, removed any circular references. If someone can go through and check other sources, will be helpful. Checked Peter Eisenberg's original information and verification—seemed like he did a lot of work. Please check or find newer citations before deleting. --Julie
Hi Julie, I've posted on your Talk page, but I've unfortunately reverted your additions again, mainly because they fail policy. Take a look at WP:BIO and WP:ALIVE and especially WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPSPS. Thank you. -- HighKing++ 13:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the sources you added the last time. You've used the "Wall Street Journal" NetObjects profile of Arora included with their SEC filing. This information is not a reliable secondary source since it is merely repeating information provided to the SEC by NetObjects in their filing documentation. It fails WP:BLPSELFPUB. The section on "Mindfulness" is, to my mind, irrelevant as it has no bearing on any of the reasons Arora is notable. -- HighKing++ 18:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HK. Perhaps if this can go to others in the community to look at? WSJ and others have a reputation to verify all data, even if it was supplied by a company before they publish an article or bio. Even SEC supplied information is cross-checked, specially for public companies. SEC information in an S-1 in the U.S. has to be verified by the lead Investment Bankers with at least two SEC law firms, specially information about the officers and Directors. Most people in the U.S. would regard these documents as meeting WP:BIO and WP:ALIVE and especially WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. In the U.S. it is a crime for there to be any mistakes in an SEC document and the company and Investment Bankers are liable. Could you list the sources in TALK here so others can look at what you wish to delete one by one before reverting changes, so the community can decide if they agree with you? Thanks.Julie 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the references that meet WP:BLPSOURCES standards (external published sources) and we should agree to evert the items in the article from these: 1. CNET http://web.archive.org/web/20010505054830/builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/pages/Business/Innovators97/ss03.html), 2. SEC S-1, 10-K filings (Bankers/legal requirements in U.S. to be accurate) 3. Apple/Silicon Valley History book: Doug Menuez was inside Apple and other companies and is a reputable source (Working for John Sculley) https://books.google.co.th/books?isbn=1476752737 4. http://counternotions.com An external article that look sat history of Apple and Siri over a long period. 5. Michael Arington, TechCrunch. Early prototypes, includes photo of Pen Mac. TC verified 6. IIA EOY Award Annual Industry Award verified source, does background check before giving awards. 7. MacWorld, Verified external Source. 8. Patent Information with co-investors: US Patent Office, Google Searches. 9. New Patent filings: US Patent Office external source. 10. NetObjects Fusion Awards CNET, Web Archives. Fortune Magazine, InfoWorld, MacWorld, 11. Mode Media 7th Largest, Mary Meeker www.theatlantic.com, 12. Mode Platform: VentureBeat comScore 13. Wellness Topic/Bliss.com: Fast Company. 13. Wellness: Chairman of IZII: External Non-Profit company organization details. Please explain why each of these sources do not meet standards before deleting from Article. Given the time we have spent on this, revert some of your edits, or I can. If anyone else in the community wants to chime in on this will be helpful. Julie 22:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also noticed the change in the intro: from Indian-born, American entrepreneur, inventor and investor to indo-american Businessmen. 1. Article states Arora was born in India and emigrated to the US and is not American born with Indian-Heritage. Feel Indian-born, American is more accurate and complete. Article refers to Arora has 16 patents, created products, should be classified as is listed as an inventor in US Patent Office in Google search. Investor is referenced as a managing partner of Information Capital a venture firm and an early investor in Tickle, Mode. Will revert unless someone in the community disagrees. Julie 22:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julie, please revert your change to the lede as you are in breach of WP:3RR and this may lead to a block (although if you self-revert it won't). Your point above, about indo-american, is incorrect since the term indo-american does not just refer to people born in the USA with Indian heritage, but also refers to Indian immigrants that live/work and/or have American citizenship. Please read the Indo-american article and/or the List of Indian Americans. You state that Arora should also be described as both an inventor and an investor. Being listed as an inventor on filed patents does not, in itself, denote notability. In my opinion there is nothing in the article than connects the patents with the reasons why Arora is notable either - Arora is mostly notable as a businessman in relation to NetObjects and Glam Media. Similarly, Arora as an investor does not appear to be connected to his notability. Can you provide a justification for these descriptions to be included? -- HighKing++ 17:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julie, a minor point - I've fixed the formatting of your responses - there are guidelines on WP:TPG. Stuff like indenting your responses and checking how it looks by using a preview first is good practice. Also, asking the community to review sources is a good idea, but be aware that they'll be constrained by the very policies we are.
In relation to the WSJ reference, it does not meet the criteria of a secondary source, which is what we need to find. Your assertion that SEC information is checked may or may not be true - can you find a source to verify that. A quick trawl of news stories turns up a number of cases where an executive's bio either included or excluded erroneous information. For example, this story doesn't place the blame on investment bankers not doing their job, or wondering how the SEC failed to check the information properly. Probably because it isn't part of their remit or responsibility? Can you show a reference that states that if an executive's bio is incorrect, the investment bankers are liable?
Looking at the sources you state meet the criteria for WP:BLPSOURCES, it is clear that you don't understand what these policies are stating.
  1. The CNET reference is an interview with Arora. It is not a secondary source.
  2. The WSJ (as explained above) is not a reliable secondary source.
  3. The book can be used as a reference although there's nothing in the book that is notable enough to add anything into the book, and I do not see how the book somehow supports the idea that Arora influenced the development of Siri. Can you provide a page number and quotation from the book to support what you previously added please? Be aware WP:SPIP Wikipedia is not a promotional medium.
  4. counternotions is a blog. Usually not acceptable as a source. WP:SPS
  5. The Techcrunch article is an interview with Arora - fails as a secondary source.
  6. IIA EOY Award Annual Industry Award announcement reference is a PR release, again, not recognised (generally) as a reliable source. There is an argument that perhaps in this instance it might be OK as it was put out by the IIA and not NetObjects. My reluctance to use this as a reference is because it is unlikely that the information was verified (as you say) but was provided by NetObjects for use in the PR release (as this is the way these things happen). Let's see what others think.
  7. There is no text to check (Tessler). 8. What relevance is the Patent information to Arora's notability? Being a named inventor on a Patent is not notable by itself and this just looks like promotion.
  8. Ditto.
  9. Fails as a source since it comes from NetObjects, the company Arora ran, not a secondary source.
  10. The article is about Arora, not Glam Media - fail to see the relevance of Glam Media stats. There's a separate article for Glam Media which this more rightly belongs to.
  11. Ditto.
  12. None of the "wellness", etc, stuff has anything to do with Arora's notability. Wikipedia is not here to serve as Arora's promotional bio page. Please explain the relevance for inclusion as in my opinion, it adds nothing and is irrelevant.
Apologies if this seems "harsh" but as I've already mentioned before, we have very strict guidelines on how BIO articles are written. -- HighKing++ 16:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HighKing! Thanks for fixing the formatting of my responses - you time and attention to detail is very helpful and appreciated
I asked the community to chime in, but don't see any responses, so lets see if we both can agree on some items, so we can move on as this is a lot of time to spend in going back and forth (for me)
In relation to the WSJ reference, ##Just wondering if you are from the U.S.? As most Americans would regard WSJ has THE standard for checking references, backgrounds, and facts of any financial news source—specially on public companies. Qualifies as a strong secondary source. SEC information: Specially after the SOX act, a company and its investment bankers are liable for inaccuracies in SEC documents- there was a lot of news about this few years ago - perhaps someone who is a lawyer can find a post about this? In addition, the SEC has legal governance to verify IPO documents and lists "management" bios as one of the criteria required in an IPO for people to determine if they want to invest in a company. https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ipo-investorbulletin.pdf - You are correct that companies have violated this in the past, however, it is not widespread and illegal for which the company and the investment bankers are liable in the U.S. I believe we both should accept SEC documents as a reliable external reference as are more likely to be accurate than news sources.
  1. The CNET reference is an interview with Arora. It is not a secondary source. ##Agree should not be used
  2. The WSJ is an ## extremely reliable secondary source. Should be used
  3. The book can be used as a reference although there's nothing in the book that is notable enough to add anything into the book, and I do not see how the book somehow supports the idea that Arora influenced the development of Siri. Can you provide a page number and quotation from the book to support what you previously added please? ##There book was a reference to the text you deleted that Arora worked for John Sculley, and worked on Information Navigation/Knowledge Navigator. Page #154. Should be used
  4. counternotions is a blog. Usually not acceptable as a source. Blogs can be used as a reference if the post is journalistic. ##Many blogs are used as references (AllThingsD, TechCrunch) as there are increasingly less print sources. This is a tough one
  5. The Techcrunch article is an interview with Arora . ##Correct, however, Michael Arington/TechCrunch has a reputation of higher standards, unlikely he would post something without checking other sources. I see your point. Can go either way.
  6. IIA EOY Award Annual Industry Award announcement reference is a PR release, again, not recognised (generally) as a reliable source. There is an argument that perhaps in this instance it might be OK as it was put out by the IIA and not NetObjects. My reluctance to use this as a reference is because it is unlikely that the information was verified (as you say) but was provided by NetObjects for use in the PR release (as this is the way these things happen). Let's see what others think. ##IIA and EY and others that give EOY awards tend to have a process of background verification in work and education for the awards. Looking at other bios on wikipedia of silicon valley people, most education backgrounds have similar sources. OK to use
  7. Being a named inventor on a Patent is not notable by itself and this just looks like promotion. ##Do not agree, patents are important part of being notable. Important.
  8. Fails as a source since it comes from NetObjects, the company Arora ran, not a secondary source. ##agree, should not be used
  9. The article is about Arora, not Glam Media - fail to see the relevance of Glam Media stats. There's a separate article for Glam Media which this more rightly belongs to. ##Most bios have more information of the companies in the article about the person.
  10. None of the "wellness", etc, stuff has anything to do with Arora's notability. Wikipedia is not here to serve as Arora's promotional bio page. Please explain the relevance for inclusion as in my opinion, it adds nothing and is irrelevant. ##Part of notable background, launched Bliss.com site, etc. and a smaller reference should be used
Apologies if this seems "harsh" but as I've already mentioned before, we have very strict guidelines on how BIO articles are written.##Not harsh, seems you are being diligent and helping enforce good standards. My time on this article has come to an end for now - lets see if we can agree and please make the changes/revert on some of the items above. Thanks. Very helpful. See you on another article sometime... Julie 22:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Julie, just looking at where we still disagree.
2. WSJ as a source. This reference was used in the article previous but I think we agree that since it clearly states that the source is from glammedia.com it isn't acceptable. The other reference you state it is SEC information. Can we find something that says it is SEC information? Also, the SOX act was passed in 2002 which is *after* the time this information would have been submitted. While I believe the WSJ is normally a great source, with regards to this, I disagree until we can be sure that the information was independently checked and not just a repeat of what was provided by NETO when is was filing for a listing.
3. I agree that the book can be used as a reference for some things. But I still don't see it as being used as a reference to say that there's a connection between Arora and Siri, which is what the article was trying to do originally.
6. Sorry, but your response is not clear. You say that the tend to have a process of background verification and that other articles use similar sources. This is different than saying that the definitely have a process. We should not guess. If we don't know, we leave it out.
7. Regarding your response to "patents are important part of being notable". I disagree. If that was the case then every single inventor listed on a patent would have their own Wikipedia article. Unless one of the patents was for an invention that is notable in its own right (in that it has an article?)
9. I agree it can be mentioned. I don't see the point in Glam Media getting a sub-article.
10. I still disagree. Bliss.com isn't notable (it doesn't have its own article).
Thanks for your patience Julie. This article used to be over-promotional in tone and it needs to be balanced. -- HighKing++ 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HighKing, don't have much time, so trying to finalize as below. On the points we agree, pls roll back or I will when I have some time. On remaining, comments below, more balanced now with the changes.
2. WSJ as a source, I don't think WSJ repeats anything without independently fact checking. That's their reputation in the U.S> would use it.
3. I agree that the book can be used as a reference for some things.### Is a reference for your deleted content that Arora worked for John Sculley. Please restore [But I still don't see it as being used as a reference to say that there's a connection between Arora and Siri, which is what the article was trying to do originally: ###not for Siri content, blog is the source for Siri]
6. Sorry, but your response is not clear. ###They def have a a process. Well documented. Should be used.
7. Regarding your response to "patents are important part of being notable". I disagree. If that was the case then every single inventor listed on a patent would have their own Wikipedia article. Unless one of the patents was for an invention that is notable in its own right (in that it has an article?) ### Actually yes in Internet Awards/CNet as some patents were early innovation of the Internet.
9. I agree it can be mentioned. I don't see the point in Glam Media getting a sub-article. ###We both agree. Pls add back/restore
10. I still disagree. Bliss.com isn't notable (it doesn't have its own article).###Given the news on Bliss launch and interviews that mention Arora's history, I think a reference is warranted. May be you can add back reduced down, so we can move on.
Hi Julia, thanks for responding. Overall, you continue to make assertions but you have not provided any evidence to back these assertions up.
2. You say "I don't think ...." and then go on to say is should be used. Unless you can point to something that states your case as facts, then we can't use it. You "thinking" something doesn't meet the bar.
3. OK, what is the notable point of mentioning he worked for Sculley? Maybe I'm missing something? I assume thousands of people have worked for Sculley, what is notable about Arora having worked for him. This article isn't intended to be a promotional page for Arora which mentions every single nit-picking detail and is a glorified CV. That is not the point of the article at all.
6. Great. Can you point me to a link or somewhere that has details about the process?
7. Please provide more detail. All patents are "innovation" by definition. Which ones are notable?
9. I'm not sure we do agree. Section 6 already has a section on Mode Media which covers Arora's involvement and has a description of the company.
10. Can you provide links for the news on Bliss launch that associates it with Arora in shows notability?
I've added a little clarity on section 6 so that it is clear that Glam Media changed its name to Mode Media in 2014. -- HighKing++ 11:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey HighKing,
2. Unless you can point to something that states your case as facts, then we can't use it. ### See Dow Jones/WSJ Standards: http://www.dj.com/codeconduct.asp in US WSJ most trusted source for news by Pew Research http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-most-and-least-trusted-news-outlets-in-america-2014-10
3. OK, what is the notable point of mentioning he worked for Sculley? Maybe I'm missing something? I assume thousands of people have worked for Sculley, what is notable about Arora having worked for him. ### Working for Apple (10,000+ employees) vs. working directly for the CEO (<20) is def notable.
7. Please provide more detail. All patents are "innovation" by definition. Which ones are notable? ###CNET Award - notable web site builder and page layout are top patents. http://web.archive.org/web/20010505054830/builder.cnet.com/webbuilding/pages/Business/Innovators97/ss03.html
10. Can you provide links for the news on Bliss launch that associates it with Arora in shows notability? Lots of hits came up on Google search: http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/glam-media-to-launch-third-content-vertical-health-and-wellness-channel-bliss-com/ http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/154030/glam-launches-blisscom-new-health-focused-vertic.html
Will make edits based on these
Julie 14:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Julia, when you say "will make edits based on these" and then go and make the edits without waiting for feedback, I'll revert you every time. That isn't how things are done here.
2. The link you provided (http://www.dj.com/codeconduct.asp) doesn't work - it points to a 404 page.
3. I still don't get it. Does everyone who worked directly for Sculley get their own page? Where does it say that Sculley had 20 people working for him? Where does anything say that working for Sculley is notable or special or an achievement?
7. The link you provided does not mention patents.
10. So, it seems that Glam Media launched Bliss.com and not Arora which is what you appear to be trying to get inserted in this article.
I'm getting pretty fed up with your attempts to peacock Arora without providing citations and references. This has got to stop. -- HighKing++ 09:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

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)[reply]

Problematic content[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed. I added the POV tag which I believe is justified.K.e.coffman (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd second HighKing's suggestion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the great link. --Peter Eisenburger (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samir_Arora&oldid=1199018242"