Talk:Naveen Jain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Reads like press release

Hi, this page reads like a press release, with no mention of Naveen's SEC investigations, shareholder lawsuits and accusations of threatening behavior. It lists no references and the only links are to websites create by Naveen Jain himself. Not surprising, since a quick check of the history page shows that the two biggest IPs editing this page are 63.231.16.57 and 70.103.74.5. According to whois 63.231.16.57 is owned by Naveen Jain and 70.103.74.5 is owned by his latest company Intelius.

This page needs a serious rewrite. I recognize that biographies of living people must be treated carefully, so I will post my suggestions here before boldly updating the main page. I'll also be including the Wikipedia community to ensure that the information is accurate, encyclopedic, conforms to Living Persons guidelines and doesn't get reverted or vandalized by anyone attempting to smear Naveen, nor by anyone attempting to use Wikipedia as a fictionalized whitewash of history.

As a first pass, here‘s my suggestion for rewriting the introduction to provide some balance and links to credible sources. The remaining page needs citations throughout, the deletion of all but one of the links to Naveen‘s personal websites and an addition of the link to the entire Seattle Times expose on the InfoSpace collapse, but this would be a start:

Naveen Jain is an entrepreneur who once, after a stint at Microsoft working on MSN, proclaimed himself smarter than Bill Gates. Naveen founded InfoSpace in March 1996 and was its Chief Executive Officer until being removed by the board in December 2002 amid accusations of deception, dubious deals, insider trading and trick accounting. (Heath, David (2005-03-06). "Dot-con Job: How InfoSpace Took its Investors for a Ride". The Seattle Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help))

His latest venture, founded in 2003 is Intelius, a “people search and background checker site“.

Naveen has received many awards including: Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year[citation needed]; and, in 1997, one of the Top 20 Entrepreneurs by Red Herring.

Naveen Jain resides in Bellevue, Washington with his wife and 3 children.



Comments by anyone not related to or employed by Naveen are appreciated. Str8tshooter (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good start--I ran across this page when researching "Intelius", and I concur--the current Wikipedia article looks like a press release/self-aggrandizement. I recall the Infospace exposé...it was huge at the time. Traumerei (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


OK, I've updated the introduction in an attempt to provide some balance. I didn't have time to clean up anything but the intro, so I added "citation needed" tags to the rest of the page. I'll try to find what I can online to provide verifiable links to his education and other activities over the next week or so. Str8tshooter (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This biographical page, as well as a number of other issues related to the history of the Web and Hi Tech, could use some considerable help in what constitutes disinterested scholarship. As this is an area that I have some familiarity with, I may be able to help here, because this is painful to read. These bios are filled with either too much self-aggrendizement or too much bashing from the other side. Just the facts, mam. Still holds true today. This is especially important when you are dealing with living people. What a reporter infers may not necessarily be factually accurate. Let the readers come to their own conclusions by supplying all the facts, not just half of them, leading them to whatever conclusion you want them to have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs)

Conflict of interest?

It would appear 63.231.16.57 has reverted the recent edits (which were definitely informative and a step in the right direction). Per Str8tshooter's comment above, that IP belongs to Naveen Jain, the subject of the article! I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm leaving it as is, but surely Wikipedia must have some sort of process for such situations, where the subject of an article is actively editing it? (Or perhaps an employee/friend/family member). Traumerei (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has been started here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Naveen_Jain --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced

While I'm going to avoid joining the edit-warring, I've added likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced to the horrible version that the article is currently in. Once the COI problems are resolved, I think we need to start removing the poorly referenced and highly promotional material. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

USA Today backs up the Seattle Times story that was largely the source of negative information. There is further information on judgements against Jain in the New York Times. And so while I can't speak specifically for the wording of the reverted text, it can now be cited sufficiently that I would call any reasonless removal to be blatant vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like there are multiple reliable sources here, enough to settle any WP:BLP concerns that others might have, hopefully. 63.231.16.57 has edited after being notified about the problems with his edits, so I don't think we need to wait for a response from him.
I suggest reverting to the last edit by SmackBot (17:29, 31 December 2007), and working from there. That would resolve most of my concerns (Likeresume, refimprove, and unbalanced). --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm also not sure we need these long lists of ego-stroking information referenced only to Jain's personal websites. I did a somewhat exhaustive search oh his Ghits for reliable sources and didn't find any real mention of that. True or not, it seems he's the only one who took notice enough to write about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Reverting as I'm suggesting leaves only one external link. A link to the individual's personal website or an official biography is standard for such articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible external link or source

I found this while looking through the article history. It might be useful here, or in Infospace:

--Ronz (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Three unreferenced sections

Please see WP:COIN#Naveen Jain for more discussion on this article, and my reasoning for removing these sections. They sounded like advertising or resume information, though his awards may deserve space if citations can be found. Please comment here if you believe those sections have value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The COIN discussion has been archived. Its new location is here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Smarter Than Bill Gates

Is this necessary for the article? A critique of the management of MSN made in 1995 says little about the actual person. Rather, to a casual reader, there is an implication that Naveen Jain is in fact, a smarter person than Bill Gates, while the link provided does not cite any recognized form of intelligence test. The cited article is itself a cited article, written in 1997, quoting an article written in 1995, the contents are vaguely referenced in the 1997 article merely as a means of drawing a title and a talking point. Unless there can be a direct citation of InfoWorld's 1995 article, this link does not belong here, as it is misleading and only serves to artificially inflate a reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the Red Herring article is "Smarter than Bill" and it is citable. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
While I still haven't unearthed the InfoWorld article that started it all, I have uncovered further aggrandizing statements in the press [1] [2] perpetuating the image of Naveen Jain as not only "smarter than Bill" Gates but also a "fireball of energy." What continues to boggle me is why anyone would leave a blank picture during that time as to the popular opinion of Jain before InfoSpace stockholders surrendered all that cash. It's as though we're telling the story of a thousand angry villagers who were duped by an average Pradeshi in a suit. Let's put down the pitchfork long enough to give a rational assessment of the media hype which garnered Naveen Jain the credibility to persuade investors to make the choices that they did. Giving Jain no credit gives investors no credit as well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion

There is no need to repeat the headline of a magazine article, and use that as a statement of fact or opinion. Magazine headlines are designed for effect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. So the point of discussion set in motion by the article title is unusable? And the subsequent references also merit no note? I think it's bizarre that we're not going to mention how the media portrayed Naveen Jain between 1995 and 2000 but include its discussion after the bubble popped. Fine, I'll boilerplate this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Standard accounting practice?

The statement and link do not match. The article linked to when mentioning that pro forma earnings estimates were common practice, and were what occured in the case of infospace are not backed by the citation. The following is an excerpt from the link pertaining to the exaggeration of stock value:


What Paul Allen, Bev Hess and hundreds of other shareholders didn't know was this: InfoSpace's success was an illusion, created by lies and deception.

Jain and other InfoSpace executives deceived the public by making the company appear far more successful than it was, a Seattle Times investigation has found.

The investigation — built on internal company e-mails, confidential documents filed in court and scores of interviews — found that Jain and others created the illusion of revenues with accounting tricks and dubious deals.

One e-mail from a venture capitalist to Jain captures the nature of the deals. The man refused to participate in an investment that Jain had proposed, bluntly telling Jain that if he did so, "I believe that I could go to jail."

The Times' investigation found:

• InfoSpace officials misled Wall Street and the public about how their company was doing, concealing that revenues were falling far short of expectations.

• Much of InfoSpace's reported revenue came from "lazy Susan" deals, whereby company officials invested in other firms that turned around and gave back the same money. p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography about a living person, who is not an accountant. Emails are not citable. Red Herring is citable, and the title of their article is "Smarter than Bill Gates". If there is some reason that the acclaim is unwelcome in a neutral article but criticism is, please explain. It sounds very much like there are some angry speculators. I don't deny this. Let's just make sure the angry speculators check their attitudes at the login page before editing an encyclopedia. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While the title is "Smarter Than Bill Gates", it still does not belong as part of a biography, as first it was not made by the source cited, second that it lacks neutrality, and third, that without anything to back it up, it adds little to the biography. Awards, accolades, any form of accomplishment (pardon the alliteration, an accident), are welcome as long as they are cited. The reason that the statement was removed was already mentioned in detail in the previous section.

As this is a neutral article, only verified and cited facts should be posted. If that means that the cited facts are negative, but backed up, they, along with proper accolades should be added, however neutrality does not necessarily mean either ignoring negative articles due to number, nor adding positive articles for the sake of having a positive article. Attitude checked...this is an encyclopedia article, and is being edited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the last edit, which I am content with, my issue was not the content, but the method it was used to interject an opposing statement, which resulted in a critical statement paraphrased from the article being altered into a lighter form. By separating the statement, the tone remains neutral and observatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragan651 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

COI editing resumed today

63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has today resumed editing this article. Whois shows that this IP address is registered to Naveen Jain. I am going to leave a warning on this editor's Talk page, and ask him to explain why he is removing sourced information that is critical of Naveen Jain. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the content he added was not actually supported by the source he used. Further, the bits of the content that was supported by this source was written on that source's website in first person, so I think it's a safe bet that Intelius itself submitted the information. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Herring Award

This was previously removed because I could not find an actual reference on the link. A second link was placed, which while it does list a "Top 100 Technology Companies 1997" and "Top 20 Entrepreneurs of 1997", references the same article already mentioned, which is dead linked. The original Red Herring article itself has no mention of an award or placement of Jain on a list, although the bottom contains a link to "The Top 20 List", this is also a dead link. Therefore, the only certifiable claim to the award comes from InfoSpace's website, not from a news source or Red Herring itself. Again, the second article is only a reference to the first article. Ragan651 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have found a Red Herring article that refers to the recognition, and will append the article accoringly.Ragan651 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ragan651 explains some of his edits

Over at User:Ragan651#Supposed Edit War/Current Activities, i.e. on his user page, Ragan651 has justified some of his recent changes to this article in more detail. I haven't checked the whole sequence of events, but Ragan's account seems plausible. ClaudeReigns left a 3RR warning for Ragan, but the latter removed it from his Talk page. I hope that Claude will check the current state of the Jain article to be sure that his concerns were addressed. My main issue is that the 2002 stock price issues as well as Jain's dismissal as CEO of InfoSpace stay in the article, since they are well-sourced. When Ragan mentions his previous editing of the Jain article as an IP, he must be referring to the account 71.221.141.197 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to these criticisms appearing in the article and I wish to revert any attempt to remove sourced material damaging or otherwise. My concerns are not addressed, and I am still awaiting the inclusion of lauds from business journalism sources from 1995-2000 to appear in the article or a guarantee they will not be deleted outright by the editor you mentioned. I also dispute certain details of the extensive monologue at that user page, but it seems untoward to detail them here. What do you suggest? ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Can you say more about what problems you still see in the article? Is Ragan preventing you from making desirable changes? EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ragan has succeeded in deleting outright the reference to the plaudits of Jain (he's been called smarter than Bill Gates) in any form of the citation, now that I've refused to edit war after giving the 3RR notice. There are now three citations ready to be given to reference the media buzz about Naveen Jain from 1995-2000 which comment on publications lauding him as "Smarter than Bill [Gates]" and being a "fireball of energy", as well as explorations into the quirks of his personality. I feel that any meaningful biography should include these, so long as they do not imply that Wikipedia actually represents Naveen Jain as being smarter than Gates, etc. Third party sources should be allowed to say what they mean to say, if indeed they are reliable or their commentary is of note. ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Diffs [3] [4] [5] [6] ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Refs [7][8][9] ClaudeReigns (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The type of information you're insisting on just never turned up in my searches. While I'm sure there were articles in the mid-90's on Jain, I can't find them online, therefore they are not useful as wikipedia sources (my problem with some of the links and statements here was just that, the links did not contain the information they were intended to back up, but sometimes referenced it). Regarding "deleting outright the reference to the plaudits of Jain", I still hold that it does not belong in the article for the countless reasons I already gave. I won't be touching this (I've already been threatened once by ClaudeReigns over it), however I am tired of the sneaky way he is insisting on replacing this in the article. As for whether I'm attempting to keep "lauds" regarding the subject away, I have personally added supportive background on Jain. Ragan651 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of those links you just posted, the only one I have seen before was "Smarter Than Bill." Ragan651 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject is editing his own article (May 1st)

In the past, this article has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It was stable for about two months, and appropriately neutral. Then, on May 1, two IP editors began removing sourced critical information about the article subject. One of the IPs is 63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which our WHOIS link shows is owned by Naveen Jain, the article subject. The latest move is to take out all mention of the Wikipedia article on the Dot com bubble, even though that describes the exact conditions that led to the collapse of the stock price of InfoSpace and other companies. I would welcome advice from other editors on how to proceed. Partisan editing in defence of private interests is blockable per WP:COI. Another account that engaged in promotional editing here, 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked in February for a similar editing pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: the latest IP engaged in whitewashing appears to be 66.238.89.2; this user has also repeatedly reverted mentions of the Infospace accounting scandal, which is certainly relevant and notable and well cited. I'm not certain if it's the same person, but user Someguy1221 and I have undone those edits. I certainly don't wish to engage in an edit war, so I'll let further edits stand in the hope that someone familiar with the conflict of interest process (or perhaps three revert rule violations) will pursue this issue through those channels. Traumerei (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Any mention of Naveen Jain should include this link about Intelius' new service and the bait and switch scam in it.

Link to Tech Crunch article and responses 66.75.246.129 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryyugo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not draft a proposed change to the article here on the Talk page? Since Intelius is the company making the offer, it's possible that the reference may belong over on their article. Arrington's views appear worthy of mention on web-related matters, but we need to keep the relative weight appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ed, I don't have time but if you'd like to or know someone who would, I hope you will.Maryyugo (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How is Arun Sarin relevant to Naveen Jain?

I don't see any relevance at all. Please provide a reference demonstrating that we should mention Arun Sarin in this article. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A better alternative would simply state Jain's position when the reported actions were taking place, with a source of course. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Now the sourced information has simply been deleted, without rationale or discussion. I'll be restoring it if no discussion is forthcoming. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Restored it along with two sources removed without any indication as to why. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the article discussion page before and instead left a message for you on your talk page. Hiring a veteran executive from Vodafone to replace himself as the CEO is important to the mindset of Naveen Jain. Major stock price drop happened during the time when Arun Sarin was infospace CEO and not Naveen Jain. A part of the stock price drop could be attributed to dot com crash which also happened during the time of Arun Sarin. By excluding him from the discussion, the article somehow misleads the reader that Naveen was the CEO of infospace from founding until he left the company and stock price drop happened under his leadership. Can you suggest better ways to incorporate this information so readers of this article are not misled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. If you could provide some sources for the opinions you present above, then we can identify and resolve any problems. --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, See the SEC filings from the year April 2000 (when Arun Sarin was hired) to 2002 (when lawsuits were filed). You will find that information that I am listing is correct and relevant to this article for the reasons I mentioned above. See SEC filings at http://idea.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-idea?company=&match=&CIK=insp&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany. I will go ahead and redo the changes and hopefully you will find the satisfactory references in the SEC filings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those do not support your opinions at all. They indicate Sarin was CEO, nothing more. Please discuss here if I'm missing something.
In general, we need independent sources to show that something is important. Otherwise we risk doing original research or giving an unbalanced presentation.
Additionally, you repeatedly remove sourced information without any indication as to why. This appears to be vandalism and edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In the past, editors connected to Naveen Jain have shown great interest in deleting negative information about him, even when it was well-sourced. One of the IPs which engaged in that was blocked. The editing pattern of Special:Contributions/Wiki-expert-edit suggests that his sole interest in Wikipedia is topics related to Naveen Jain, so another WP:Conflict of interest seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, this is looking more an more like the same problems we were having with the editors using ip's from Jain's companies. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of Sarin without a source is a WP:BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No reference to TechCrunch and Seattle Weekly expose on Mr Naveen Jain

For starters you can have this link to go through [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The100rabh (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Chen's mentioning

I added a reference to The Old New Thing. At least now we have a citation for that section. McKay (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Short swing lawsuit

I've moved the following from the article for discussion. I've yet to find a source that summarizes what has happened since. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reinstating it, though I'd like other's perspectives on all that happened in this case. It looks like Jain sued a stock management company and his former lawyers for the situation. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008831296_apscotusinfospace.html --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

In another lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain broke Short Swing law section 16 (b) by buying and selling shares of InfoSpace within 6 months. The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Jain with the Federal appeal court that asked the appeal court to overturn the lower court ruling, pointing out that judge had made a mistake in her understanding of the law. Plaintiff's lawyer settled the lawsuit while the case was still on appeal. [1]

Inaccuracies?

Please identify the specific "inaccuracies" in my rewrite: --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In another dispute, a lawsuit by shareholders, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules. Jain's lawyers settled the $247 million judgment while the case was still on appeal for $105 million. [1][2]

I'm going to restore it. I believe the first sentence is accurate and clear, with the link to Short swing providing detailed information for the reader. I removed the SEC information because I couldn't verify "that asked the appeal court to dismiss the case, pointing out that judge had made a mistake in her understanding of the law" and even if it can be verified, the notable information about the SEC amicus, according to the Seattle Times, is how they were influenced by a person hired by Jain. The $247 million judgement is accurate and notable because was the largest such judgement at the time. Multiple sources confirm the $105 million settlement amount when Jain suit against his lawyers and stock management company made news when it went to the Supreme Court, who refused to listen to the appeal. I've purposely left out mention of his suit and appeals to the Supreme Court because I haven't noticed anyone bringing it up, but it might be worth a brief mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no inaccuracies as the info can be found in the cite. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While I like most of the subsequent changes [11], I wonder if Jain's subsequent suit is worth mention without noting it went to the Supreme Court. Version copied below for easy reference: --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In another dispute, a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain.[3] While the case was on appeal, Jain settled the case for $105 million while denying liability; Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed.[1][2][4]

How about "The Supreme Court refused to hear Jain's appeal which involved blaming his former lawyers for the loss"? --NeilN talk to me 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've restored to the version above, because InfoSpace's press releases fail WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLP, and contradict every other source we've found. Here's the press release from the opposing lawyers on the original judgement Aug. 22, 2003 .
Are we presenting the type of legal dispute properly? This report gives some clarification we might be able to use. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that's referring to a different lawsuit against AOL. --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's difficult going through all these legal disputes. I'm trying to find the actual case names for reference. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
We should stick to the ones who name Jain personally and that were notable (obviously). --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This article explains the early details of the settlement. Dreiling, a shareholder, filed two separate lawsuits, one "against former company officers and former and current directors" and a separate suit against Jain on the short-swing violation that resulted in the $247 million penalty. These two, different lawsuits were settled together. Wiki-expert-edit has been confusing them.
I'm not clear on how to refer to the different lawsuits and appeals. "Dreiling v. Kellet" appears to be then name of the initial suit that was ruled against Jain, and "Dreiling v. Jain" was the name of the subsequent appeal when the settlement was reached. I'm not 100% on this, as the best references do not list case names. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What would that add to the article? This 2009 piece seems to sum up the final outcome as it relates to Jain. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The material is simply for reference if there are further content disputes. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft and MSN section edit

I propose to add the bolded part to give a bit more depth to the section as well as bring to light the fact the he holds three patents (all edits I propose are from the red herring article that the unbolded part is from) 

  In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
    and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the 
    day he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996 . In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point
    of view and what it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]  —(talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightseeder (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the Red Herring ref was written in 1997, and Jain has done so much else, I don't think the quote or the added emphasis is appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I believe that the fact that he hold 3 patents from his time at Microsoft is an interesting fact, and should be mentioned, and I don't see how the "age" of an info matters when you refer to the description of a person's accomplishments and general history (nor does the "quantity" of said person's accomplishments) --Nightseeder (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The age of the information matters because statements made at a certain time may no longer be true or clear. In addition, as I've mentioned, he's done a great deal since. His time at Microsoft is rather unimportant other than it leading to his subsequent accomplishments. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
While it is true that the age of an information matters in the regard you speak of, I do not believe this is true for this specific information (the patents he holds are still standing, patent numbers: 6,357,000, 5,655,154, and 5,434,776) as well as the fact that his Microsoft time period construct 8 years of his life and and was the place he started to make head in the hi-tech market which from a historic/biographic stand point I hold of some importance --Nightseeder (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits" hasn't aged well.
Maybe if there were another, more modern source to draw upon, we could determine better what should be emphasized. Otherwise, we don't add material just because someone believes it might be interesting to include. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the age of the source matters here as all the info is still correct. He still hold those 3 patents, and the fact that he participated (in a meaningful manner) in some of MS greatest hits as well as being part the lunching of Microsoft Networks, this [the wiki page] is suppose to be an encyclopedic entry about a person life and doings, not an "interest piece" for a magazine article. so since you disagree with the way I added that info then maybe you can offer a better way to represent/phrase it? --Nightseeder (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as there is no further input from you, and no one else is chiming in with an opinion I will put the information back in (will retouch it to account for your feedback). --Nightseeder (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
this is what I edited in to the Microsoft and MSN section (the boldded section).
        In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then worked on all of Microsoft's greatest hits for the time, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
        and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents [4][5][6]), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the day
        he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996.[2] In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what
        it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightseeder (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:UNDUE. It's one of the problems of using old sources, they by definition put undue weight upon older information. As I've also mentioned, "all of Microsoft's greatest hits" with the examples given is outdated to the point that it should not be included at all because it's no longer true. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree to the applicability of the WP:UNDUE, to this matter, as well as to your opinion regarding "all of Microsoft's greatest hits" (which in the retouched version I added "for the time" to reflect that they might have "greater" hits now), but you seem adamant on your perspective and considering that, going back and forth between us will go nowhere I suggest drawing the attention of my fellow members of "Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography" in the hope that more people might be able to assist in adjudicating this matter to a point we are both happy with :), what say you? --Nightseeder (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at this point we need others' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
With the article currently so small, I have a hard time swallowing the UNDUE complaint here. Rather than removing this content, to fix the undue weight, we should be adding more content about the other things this man has done. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
But the "all of Microsoft's greatest hits for the time" is a bit loaded...try toning it down to a phrase more like "several of Microsoft's flagship products for the time". See also: WP:PEACOCK. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the way I phrased it was a bit loaded and I like the way you offered to tone it down, also in regard to adding more info about this person, I have tried and looked for more info but there isn't much out there that would be acceptable under the wiki guidelines.--Nightseeder (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So here is a rephrased version.... would that be acceptable to add in?
         In 1989 Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Working first on OS/2 and then on several of Microsoft's flagship products for the time, including MS-Dos, Windows NT,
        and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents [4][5][6]), later moving to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service) till the day
        he left to form InfoSpace on April 1996.[2] In an interview with Red Herring Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what
        it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be," blending visions of software coders with market demands. He was a Program Manager.[2]
In a way I almost think that this entire page falls under the WP:UNDUE and should be removed, but as a general rule I prefer to add stuff in rather than remove them. --Nightseeder (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. For years now, editors have tried to remove and reduce properly sourced material about Jain, many (most?) against a coi. Given the length and scope of Jain's career, plus the huge amount of press he recieved for his activites with InfoSpace, it's not a stretch to claim that everything else is undue weight. However, we should give at least some minimal mention to notable events in his life beyond Infospace. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well the thing is that the InfoSpace affair might count as the reason for this person to be noticeable enough to make a wiki page for, but giving that this is establish, we are writing a biography of the person and as such we should not only focus on what made him noticeable, but about the entire person, otherwise his involvement in the InfoSpace affair should be noted under an entry for the company (which seems to be lacking most of the information presented here), and the entry for the person should be removed. --Nightseeder (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not going to delete this article. That's certainly what many of the problematic editors have wanted over the years, but we're not here to satisfy their personal points of view. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy editor here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. The information definitely belongs in the article in order to provide a thorough biography of the article's subject. However, the proposed input, along with the rest of the article needs copy editing, i.e.,
In 1989, Jain joined Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, working in the capacity of Program Manager. He initially began working on OS/2 and then moved on to several of Microsoft's flagship products, including MS-DOS, Windows NT, and Windows 95 (for which he holds three patents).[4][5][6] He later moved to the development of the Microsoft Network (the company's proprietary online service). In April 1996, he left to form InfoSpace.[2] In an interview with Red Herring, Jain said, "My job was to define what a product should do from a consumer point of view and what it is that Microsoft wanted the program to be."[2]
blending visions of software coders with market demands. (This last line needs to be worked, but is not appropriate where initially placed.)
The article lede needs expanded. Additionally, the "Background" section should be changed to "Early life" or "Personal life" or something like that. The term "Background" refers to the entire article and needs to be clarified. Cindamuse (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've incorporated an abridged version of your suggestion.
I've changed "Background" to "Early life", moving the 2000 net worth to "Infospace". --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions for the WP:LEDE? --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Wish I could help you with that. I really don't know anything about this person other than what is already in the article. I would just keep in mind that the lede is the place to indicate why the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It should have enough information there to draw readers into the rest of the article. In all things, have fun and enjoy editing! ;) Cindamuse (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

general cleanup

  • I don't see anywhere mentioned that Naveen Jain was a member of the Freei board of directors, nor do I see any mention of him investing anything in it. so I'm removing the entire section since the only connection is via InfoSpace which provided an infrastructure service for Freei, and a comment from Jain regarding the service offering. (maybe it should mentioned in the InfoSpace page?)
  • I'm editing the Intelius entry to refer to Jain as a co-founder (it seems he was part of 6 people who founded it together - according to the Intelius wiki page).
  • Also linking to the InfoSpace page (where appropriate).
  • Removing "^ Infospace SEC filings, see filings for 2001 and 2002, Business Wire, January 17, 2000" reference link dead.
  • Also need links to the patents if they are still valid.


All in all I believe that this page needs either a major expansion or a merging with the InfoSpace page. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the links to the patents I guess they got lost in the editing and reformatting of my suggestion, so I will pot them back in. As far as expanding, I looked for a while and couldn't really find anything of interest that is also citable, by Wiki standards, so..... :shrug shoulders: . --Nightseeder (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
you seem to have forgotten to actually take the link you said you are taking out in "* Removing "^ Infospace SEC filings, see filings for 2001 and 2002, Business Wire, January 17, 2000" reference link dead." -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk)
Thanks and fixed :) ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems like the link is back, was it decided to be OK after all? -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the Freei and added another references. Looks like it has been whitewashed and needs a proper presentation, though I think the section should remain brief. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You've also restored a dead link (Gates, Dominic; Freei Files For Bankruptcy, Infoworld, October 9, 2000). Unless there is another copy of this article somewhere, I believe the link should be removed. As such, I think you need to review this addendum to ensure that it aligns with the information presented in the articles that are available. Also it is unclear, still, how this fits into a biography of this person, but I shall not belabour the point as I've raised this point in detail below. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the dead link! Fixed. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Even better: here's an archived version of the article, per WP:LINKROT guidelines ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I was hoping it might be archived somewhere.
Speaking of archives: There's a 1999 (or late 1998?) article in Upside (magazine) on him that would be useful as a reference. Anyone have suggestions on how to find it? --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

I propose the following edit to the InfoSpace section

Old: In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain.[13] While on appeal, Jain settled the case for $105 million, while denying liability. Jain's attempt in further litigation to blame his former lawyers for the loss was dismissed.[14][15][16]

New: In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that the Jains had purchased shares of Infospace in violation of short swing trading rules and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain.[13] However, in a surprise move, the SEC rallied to his defense, and attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case with the judgment against the Jains slashed to $65 million.[14][15] The case was finally settled out of court, along with all other pending litigation, for $83 million.[16]

I would do it myself but it seem that you need special rights to edit this page or something. -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk)

BTW all the changes are within the references already given -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC).
This seems a reasonable edit, if there is no objections I will do the edit (I'll wait till tomorrow before I do so, so others might voice their opinion as well), though I think that it should be mentioned that he attempted further litigations against his lawyers but was dismissed ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added it in ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If all the facts are correct, why the change? --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this closer, I'm entirely against it. It appears to be an attempt to completely remove all material from the The Seattle Times, 9 March 2009 article. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I looked at it further and this is my rewrite of the suggested edit (with reasoning below it):
In a shareholder lawsuit, a lower court federal judge ruled that Jain had purchased shares of InfoSpace in violation of short-swing trading rules, and issued a $247 million judgment against Jain[1]. However, in an uncharacteristic behavior, the SEC rallied to his defense and urged an appeal court to reverse the ruling. Due to this intervention, the parties involved agreed to settle the case for only $65 million.[2] on March 9th 2009, the Supreme Court refused to allow Jain to sue a stock management company and his former lawyers for (allegedly) mishandling the short-swing case that resulted in the judgment against him.[3]
[1],[2],[3] are references 12,13,14 respectively on the main article
The reference to the settlement of $105 million seems ambiguous and I'm not clear if it is in fact referencing the $247 million lawsuit so I'm not including it.
I'm also removing the $83 million statement since it is from a non citable reference (the SEC press release state that "This release contains forward-looking statements regarding the litigation matters described in the body of the release and the proposed settlement agreement that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties and actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements", and I removed it from the references list), the only citable reference to the settlement seems to be the one set at $65 million. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you confusing the different lawsuits? We did a pretty good job of cutting through earlier confusion. See previous discussions here. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I also find the $105 reference ambiguous and I like the improvement to my proposed edit -- Mists of Time 68.169.46.130 (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to expand further on the linked discussion that explains the two, different lawsuits. No changes should be made based upon a lack of understanding, let alone an outright misunderstanding. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding Tags

I'm going to add the following tags

  • {{notability}} since I do not think the subject warrants Notability under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
  • {{Merge to}} because the main content of this article (the InfoSpace issue) should be under that page (just like we would not write every litigation against Microsoft or its founder under Bill Gates' bio page).

~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is easily met by the multiple references about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This Article is really about Infospace Litigations and should be merged with Infospace page as suggested by Dr. Lords. Wiki Expert Edit (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, this article is about Jain. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm putting the Merge tag back in, and suggest that the relevant information about the Dot-Con event is included in a page that is a better representation of the matter (over here. --Nightseeder (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge and notability

I do not support the merge of this article with the InfoSpace article. This article focuses on the career of an individual, and introduces his involvement in litigation pertaining to the organization he founded, rather than on the organization itself. In fact, the article does not even mention the history, organizational structure, location, product, or industry that InfoSpace offers and serves.

This article is not about litigation. In fact, only three sentences focus on litigation involving InfoSpace, totaling just 17 percent of the article. In my opinion, there is little validity to the suggested merge or question of notability.

The subject of this article holds three patents developed prior to his involvement with InfoSpace. The article presents his early life (albeit minimally) and his career prior to and after InfoSpace. As a person that had never heard of Jain prior to the GOCE drive, I believe that this article needs to be expanded. I see mention on the talk page of various issues of Jain's life, including an exposé that have been left out or removed from the article. I find myself wondering what that is all about. Quite frankly, it leaves me believing that this article is being whitewashed and censored. Cindamuse (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article needs to be expanded. The whitewashing continues to be disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, as a party interested in the Foundation's interests, this article seems to be based largely on a small set of articles from one news outlet. Yes, there are other sources, but the reality is that there seems to be a small amount of citable information out there. The articles that are cited from the Seattle Times are articles seem to be about the company (Infospace), not about this person primarily. That seems to be what Dr Lords was saying,but I don't mean to speak for Dr Lords. I am not sure how I feel about this issue, and this being Wikipedia, I'm not sure it matters how I feel WP:NOTDEMOCRACY :P but the reality is that this is a living person and defamation of character is a real possibility through acts of omission. So I'd suggest that everyone consider WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTSCANDAL and try to keep some perspective on why we're really here. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If we have problems with omission, a start would be to list references covering whatever topics editors feel have been omitted. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
An excellent idea. Perhaps more citable material will also surface to provide some more points of view to this article. Sadly, I am not a biographer, but I believe it is in the Foundation's best interest to enforce our own guidelines. ;) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Valkyrie's comments. To which foundation are you referring? Issues pertaining to defamation and libel are addressed by writing an article supported by reliable secondary and third-party sources. Criticism and praise should be included when they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. While "acts of omission" are certainly indicative of an inappropriate POV and poorly written article, it is not a reflection of defamation in regards to Wikipedia.
On another note, I just ran a search on Google and find there are numerous citable sources available to expand this article. There are also images of Jain with celebrities and heads of state, including one with George W. Bush during his presidency. What was this all about? Might be something to look in to. The photo would be acceptable to include in this article. Just looking through the Part one of the Seattle Times article, I found more personal information about Jain than I read in the article here on Wikipedia. A simple Google search brings up board memberships, philanthropy, and honors and awards received. I'm amazed that this information is not included in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
While I haven't completed law school, I would caution any of us from making legal determinations unless we have. If Wikipedia didn't have liability, then there would be no policies regarding libel. All I'm suggesting is that the Wikipedia guidelines be followed, and this discussion has already gone too deep (this is not the proper forum for this, as it isn't cogent to this person). ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would again caution that these are citable sources (my search looked to produce pages and pages of sites that were not and very little that was). But we're saying the same thing here, which is: follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. The Seattle Times article contains plenty of information, but, as it is titled, "Dot-con job: How InfoSpace took its investors for a ride" I think it is safe to say it represents one point of view. Again, we're on the same page as I feel more points of view (and lots more information) would make this a legitimate article. Sorry for being wordy, but as a future lawyer I guess I'm already gabby. ;) ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please make sure to follow guidelines when interrupting the comments of others. It becomes confusing and disruptive to the flow of conversation and oftentimes causes your comments to be overlooked. Thanks. ;) While I personally have a background in corporate and employment law, this expertise is not necessary for editors to make comments addressing their concerns. Simply said, acts of omission in regards to libel do not apply here. Acts of commission would. Presenting information along with reliable sources takes libel off the table.
  • Use of sources or lack thereof, based on the title of the source is ineffective. Cull sources for facts and information and cite the reference. No harm; no foul. That's how it's done.
  • Regarding proper forums, this is the established forum for discussions. All input is welcome. Even gabby ones. ;)
  • Questions regarding the legitimacy of the article are puzzling. All articles are "legitimate", unless they're just complete gibberish. Heck, this article has even been assessed. Even stubs are legitimate articles, simply needing developed. The article doesn't need additional points of view, it just needs to be expanded.
  • Ideas. 1. Jain is a member of various boards. Research those organizations. They generally have bios written for their members. 2. There is information in the Seattle Times regarding the personal background and childhood of Jain. Developing this information would more than double the current content in the article. 3. Include the information on the honors and awards that he has received. Dig deeper and research the other recipients to see if there is a pattern with any of his competitors or allies. Do the same by researching his philanthropic interests. 4. I understand that he presents himself favorably to Bill Gates. Are there similarities in their lives and interests? Present a comparative analysis. What about the home in Medina? Sounds kinda sketchy. Just some ideas, take them for what they are worth. Cindamuse (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
These seem like good ideas, but I'm confused on how what you propose is not in direct opposition to the Wikipedia guidelines? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up and edits

I'm planning on doing the following edits (unless there are any objections):

  • From
When stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 during the dot com "crash". The Seattle Times reported that "InfoSpace's success was built on the hype of its charismatic founder."[1][2][8][1][9][10][11]
to
nothing.
The only part of this statement that is supported by the citations is the stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 during the dot com "crash" statement and this should be part of the InfoSpace page and not this one (if it is not there already I might go over and add it in).
  • And from
Jain left Infospace as its CEO in late 2002, but remained on the board of directors through June 2005.[1][9][10][11]
to
same but less citations (as per Wikipedia:Citation_overkill) done.
  • And from
In 2003, Jain co-founded a Bellevue, Washington-based company specializing in public records information and offering service to consumers and businesses which include background checks and identity theft protection. Co-founders included John Arnold, Ed Petersen, Kevin Marcus, Niraj Shah, and Chandan Chauhan.[15][16][17][18][19][20]
to
same but less citations (as per Wikipedia:Citation_overkill)) done.

~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think using the information from the quote would be reasonable to add. The full quote is, "But InfoSpace's success was an illusion, built on accounting tricks and the hype of charismatic founder Jain, a Seattle Times investigation has found." --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You consider this line of editing to be enhancing the neutrality of this biography? That article in the Seattle Times is basically what most of this article is based on, and it presents one point of view, and not a very neutral point of view either. Without more citable sources to augment this article, I have a hard time understanding how Wikipedia's goal of an encyclopedic biography is being served. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
None of your concerns are actual problems identified in WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
First, as I see no objection to the Wikipedia:Citation_overkill issue I brought up, I shall proceed in removing the over citations where needed.
Second, my remark in regard to the "When stock fell from a peak of $1,000 per share to $2.67 du..." line still holds (even if the charismatic remark is citable) see WP:UNDUE, though maybe the part regarding Jain's charismatic influence should be mentioned somehow, as it does pertain to the person himself. Also why is it citing 6 sources (one of which is there twice), for a single statement? ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps RonZ and I are reading different WP:NPOV references. This is core to the subject of neutrality and balance, which this article is lacking (being based on a couple of articles from one news outlet). Without more sources describing this person, is this a one-hit wonder or a true person of note? Notable persons generally have a vast array of citable material to draw on (from the WP:BLP pages) and as such, a balanced NPOV Wikipedia article is generated by combining many voices into one article and presenting the differing POVs without favoring any of them. RonZ seems to favor a specific POV rather than balance, and this isn't the place for that. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTSCANDAL ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The references are acceptable sources being used in acceptable ways. NPOV doesn't require that proper sources be balanced.
Please refer to the past discussions on the notability of Jain. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done (cleaned up the over citations). I still think that the "When stock fell from a peak of..." line should be removed per WP:UNDUE, and if deemed relevant find a different way to reference Jain's charismatic abilities. Discuss? ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability

I'm not satisfied with the previous discussions on this, so here's a section for it. My concern is that this person is notable for a single thing (the Seattle Times articles). However, others are mentioned in those articles and they are not graced with a Wikipedia entry, so why this person? Where is Jean-Remy Facq's page, or Kevin Marcus' page (Mansions, cars, yachts, jewelry — then the bottom dropped out). Where are Ellen Alben: general counsel, Tammy Halstead: chief accounting officer, Larry Hile: outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche, Russell Horowitz: president, Garth MacLeod: finance director, Arun Sarin: chief executive officer, and Rick Thompson: executive vice president (When times got tough, execs hid troubles, dumped stock)? I'm having a very difficult time wrapping my brain around how these articles qualify as a biography of this person, aside from a few sentences relating to his early life and some facts about his career and a few court cases. I understand that people have strong feelings about this person, but Wikipedia is not the place to vent those feelings. WP:ENC ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion this page fails to meet the notability requirement due to WP:BLP1E, but I seemed to have been "shut down" (so to speak) when I suggested that. Since it seems the notability subject is coming up again, I'm reinstating the template for it on the main page. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Jain meets WP:N and WP:BIO many times over, and has for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This not "Nonsense", if there is a dispute in regard to something (especially when it concerns a bio of a living person), every concern is valid and should be pursued to its full extent. I'm putting back the notability template as this subject is in dispute and that what the template represent. please do not remove it until consensus is reached.
Further more I do think this is of no notability for the reasons stated (see also WP:BIO1E, WP:BARE, WP:DESCRIBE<= can be merged into InfoSpace and Intelius, WP:WSNC, and WP:IMPACT and I'm sure given time and further reading I can direct you to more sources to support lack of notability). With all due respect! --Nightseeder (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's nonsense. We've multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage about Jain. That's much, much more than enough. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm reinstating the notice of notability dispute, please do not remove (see your talk page for further information. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to respond to my points, then the tag doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I (and others) have responded to you by giving you (by now) multiple places that support the claim to no notability (multiple reliable sources are not necessarily enough to justify notability, specifically when the case is related to WP:BLP1E, which I think is the case here). Your only response seems to be "Nonsense" followed by "there is enough sources out there" (or some thing to that end). Please address the concerns provided, instead of just dismissing and reverting. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think "nonsense" continues to be an appropriate response. No one here has offered anything to further the past discussions on the matter. I see absolutely nothing in BLP1E that applies here. I suggest editors get better acquainted with the application of WP:BIO by looking through biographical AfDs. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The only event that seems to qualify to me is the $247M judgment being the largest on record. But since the Supreme Court refused to hear appeal, it didn't set any significant legal precedents, it's just a civil matter and the final settlement amount was a fraction ... so even the one event of note is not very noteworthy. Certainly it doesn't a biography make and the event doesn't really tell me much about the person (civil lawsuits are frequent, settlements are typical outcomes, and the mundane action of civil courts of law would make for millions of tedious articles and citations). Just my opinion, of course. Also the continued dismissal of opinions as "nonsense" continues to be unproductive to actual discussion. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, that's not how we determine notability here. Instead, we rely upon WP:N and WP:BIO which I've done in my assessment. If anyone has any policy- or guideline-based concerns that I've not addressed, please indicate what I've overlooked. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually I disagree on your assertion that this is not a reason to nullify a notability and I will qoet forgive the misspell, I can't figure it out from the WP:BIO (which you refer to) under the section People notable only for one event (boldded for to show my points)
"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."
Also I again refer you to WP:DESCRIBE (from Reasons not to include: "The only information about the subject comes all from a single source" Seattle Times, "Only a few sentences of information can be written, and most likely, there will never be any more (see WP:PERMASTUB)") and assert that the subject can be easily moved into a mention on the InfoSpace page and would be more appropriate there.
And even more qoets:
"There is little verifiable information to be found on the subject",
"All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles" ( or in this case should be, and I might actually put the relevant info into the InfoSpace page),
"The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage",
"The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage"
All the above are from WP:PERMASTUB.
Maybe you should take a minute and ask yourself, would this person be of notability if the InfoSpace law suit would have not happened, if the answer is no, then he is clearly notable for one event, per WP:BIO1E, if the answer is (in all honesty) yes, then please elaborate as to why. -- Nightseeder (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is significant sentiment that this article does not meet notability requirements, why not send it through WP:AfD and gather some more outside opinions? Or at least be more formal about proposing the merger into InfoSpace. My personal preference is to let the article stand. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Let me put it another way: WP:SNOW. Jain is notable for multiple events in his life. He has been regularly mentioned in the news for over a decade. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the quotes above from WP:PERMASTUB apply.
So again, does anyone have any policy- or guideline-based arguments that have not been addressed? --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? Are we done then? --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe the typical policy is to let people take 1 week on discussions before final closure of a talk thread is implemented Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I've gone ahead and removed it then, since it was added Jul 30, discussed here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am putting the notice back in, though it might have been first made on Jul 30 as you say. A talk that resembles a constructive back and forth didn't start til a few days ago. so it is still and issue (since there was no consensus on the matter)(also if I can get a link to the policy regarding a time limit, I would be appreciative). Now on to my reply to your last comment "So again, does an....that have not been addressed?"
Yes all my comments (except the one drawn from the WP:PERMASTUB which I think apply here as they show acceptable reasons why an article should not be) have not been addressed and are (IMO) the real issue here. If the event (the Infospace vs. Jain law suit) didn't happen would there have been notability? I think the answer to that is no, and because of that he falls under the WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E as well as all the other references and qoets I made in my earlier posts (non of which have been answered, and an answer of "non of them apply" and "nonsense"are not replies that address the issue at hand). So please explain why you believe my point of view on this matter is not correct.
And in regard to the WP:AfD suggestion, I'll read on it and see if I can figure it out and (if others don't object) create one for this issue --Nightseeder (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Note that WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, not policy. The BLP1E concerns would be well discussed at an AfD. The only editor that strongly argues on behalf of the topic's notability seems to be User:Ronz, so I doubt that it will actually be snowballed, though I also doubt there will be enough support to delete. If you need help starting the AfD then let me know. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Also note that WP:AfD is what you do when you think an article should be deleted but people object. If no one objects, then you can simply WP:PROD it, or replace the content with a redirect. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "If the event (the Infospace vs. Jain law suit) didn't happen would there have been notability?" Yes. See the sources. He was notable as the CEO of InfoSpace, and notable for his net worth. He's notable as CEO of Intelius, granted he wouldn't be nearly as notable in this position if his problems at InfoSpace hadn't happened.
Of course, even a quick skim of the article is enough to determine this, hence WP:SNOW. --Ronz (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

The relevant policies on how to go about resolving this dispute are WP:CON and WP:DR. For the dispute itself, the relevant wikiproject is WP:WikiProject Biography, and the relevant noticeboard is WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. While an AfD is a possible step in resolving this, my guess that it would be quickly rejected per WP:SNOW. WP:EAR would be a very appropriate next step for individual editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly notable

Jain meets WP:BASIC multiple times over. He's notable for multiple events in his life, and there is wide coverage of these events. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. Microsoft: I don't believe he's notable for his work at Microsoft. I'm not certain of this because while I'm able to find sources mentioning him during his time there, none of these sources are available online for free. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Leaving Microsoft to found InfoSpace: Again, I'm unable to find free, online sources, but there are reports of this event. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    This is an obvious area for expansion, and should be available through any detailed reference on the founding of Infospace. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. "Between 1995 and 2000, Jain was featured in several business publications which noted his manic demeanor and pointed out quirks in his personality, while noting his personal worth, which was approaching one billion dollars." We've listed only a few of the most accessible of sources on this. He's clearly notable for this. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    We currently have three sources for this. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. "In 2000, Naveen was ranked 121 on the Forbes 400 Richest Americans, with a net worth of USD$2,200 million." He's clearly notable for this, though it's hard to separate from his being a CEO at InfoSpace. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    It's hard to find a source about him that doesn't mention his net worth while at InfoSpace due to his holdings there. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. He's notable for being removed from his CEO position, and then briefly returning to the position before being fired. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    This has been whitewashed from the article. It's an obvious area for expansion. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. He's notable for the lawsuit against him ($247 million judgment). --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    We currently have four sources for this. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. He's notable for being a part of lawsuits against InfoSpace. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    This has been whitewashed from the article. It's an obvious area for expansion. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  8. He's notable for being CEO of Intelius. Granted, he'd be getting a lot less attention there if not for the problems at InfoSpace. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    I only recently restored the section on Intelius. It needs expansion and better sources. There are plenty available. See Talk:Naveen_Jain#Intelius_settlement for a few. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's no response, I'll be removing the tag. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your points.
  1. I agree he is not notable for his work there.
  2. This This is (IMO) not notable either (many people leave known companies and for new ones, even if such a thing is later (during or whatever) is reported by news sources, it still doesn't make it notable (especially when the news sources are local).
  3. I disagree, there are many people that are wealthy (even to the degree of having ~$1 billion), that by itself doesn't make someone notable (it definitely worth mentioning if the subject is notable for other reasons and gets an article because of that, but by it self it is of no value). And in regard to him being featured in articles, again that is not of notability see WP:NOTNEWS, many people are considered notable for magazines and news papers, but that doesn't mean the are notable for an Encyclopedia entree.
  4. Again like number 3, being reach is not notable. (even if you are mentioned for it on Forbes top 400), do you think there should an article for each person that appeared on that list since it was established? I think not.
  5. According to this then, every person who got removed from a position of CEO, got returned to the position, and then fired is notable, that would be hundreds (if not much much more) of articles need to be made. Again it is worth a mention if Jain get's an article, but by itself it doesn't justify one.
  6. Their war many many lawsuit following the dot com crash, so what, will we not list every person who have been sued during that time? Again I think it is of note for his article but not for the creation of one.
  7. Again of note for the article, but not for the creation of one.
  8. Being a CEO of a company have no value in regard to notability (there are literarily millions of CEOs out in the world, would you want an article made for each CEO? not to mentions pass CEOs).
I agree he has a lot of noteworthy events in his life, in addition to the ones you noted, there is: His move from India to the States, his marriage, the birth of his kid (or kids if he have more then one, not sure), his first job and so on. But non of them are notable for an Encyclopedic entree. --Nightseeder (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but we determine notability based upon the references, not personal opinions. If we have sources the meet WP:BASIC, then the person is notable for that event. It's the sources that matter. It's the sources that no one is contesting. He's notable, multiple times over. --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the tag since it specifically identifies WP:BIO and WP:RS as being the problem areas. The problem being discussed by editors against Jain's notability appears to be personal opinions about what might be considered notable without any consideration to current and potential sources. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
My reply (though might have been phrased as such) was not an opinion, it was drawn from WP:NOTNEWS, and other discussions across Wikipedia on the subject. as well as WP:BIO1E (which you keep ignoring) and in regards to WP:BASIC, it refers only to the basic criteria, and meeting it is not all that is needed in some cases (such as bios) and when meeting other criteria (as in the case of persons notable for one event, and wiki is not news) it might actually nullify it . So in this regard I'm inserting the template once again, and again I ask that you do not remove it until the case is resolve, in one way or another. With respect --Nightseeder (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That means you have some dispute about the existing sources. Please indicate which sources.
"which you keep ignoring" Absolute nonsense. I've addressed it multiple times. I'm happy to expand further to anyone that cares. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do. --Nightseeder (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What would you like clarified? If you'll note above, I've indicated the sources for the numbered events. Are you disputing any of them? If not, then we're done, since they document multiple events that meet WP:BASIC . --Ronz (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Still no discussion about sources? I guess we're done here then. Any objections to removing the tag? --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the tag. If others in this discussion feel that Jain's notability is still in dispute, please open an AFD so we can get more opinions and hopefully a consensus. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for responding so late (had internet problem at work). As suggested I had created an AfD here. --Nightseeder (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropic Activities

Found Naveen's profile on facesofphilanthropy.com and noticed his Wiki page didn't have a philanthropy section, so I added one. Sir. Somerset (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It could use better sources and some abridgement. Let's see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
After going over all the sources carefully, I've removed the section completely because all the sources a poor and don't justify such weight in the article. Addressing each individual reference:
  1. Naveen Jain Philanthropy. Faces of Philanthropy, accessed December 21st, 2010. - I'm not sure that this is a WP:RS. It appears that they just slightly edit press releases. Regardless, without other sources, we have no way to determine what weight, if any, to give to this information.
  2. Bill White (January 28th, 2010).Helping Out in Haiti. New York Post, accessed December 21st, 2010. - This reference only makes brief mention of Jain, so I'm concerned that there are WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM problems in its use.
  3. TSN:Naveen Jain. The Science Network, accessed December 21st, 2010. - An interview, a primary source, with a great deal of information. As with facesofphilanthropy.com, we need better sources to determine what information deserves presentation in the article.
  4. Andrea James (March 2nd, 2007).Indian Institutes of Technology alumni are at home in Seattle. Seattle PI, accessed December 21st, 2010. - Again, only passing mention of Jain.
--Ronz (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious why "only a passing mention" would be a reason to ignore information on his philanthropic endeavors. I found some other links in a quick search. Not sure how good they are as some do appear to be of questionable reliability.
Colacot seems to be a blog aggregator (nutridb.com and parentcue.com contribute several items and the article on Jain seems to like back to a defunct blog at naveenjain.biz) [12], News Blaze appears to a news aggregator as well [13], Cashtrio is a blog [14], Diabetes Connector is a blog[15], though The Daily Tell seems to have staff [16], so might be more reliable (good search on it's site [17]). --Habap (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. There is a huge amount of press from Intelius promoting Jain's philanthropy. It would be best to find sources that are independent of this influence. I'm not sure we can, so let's identify the best we can find and take it to WP:NPOVN along with some Intelius press for comparison. I'd hate to have to qualify the philanthropy info we add by saying it comes from Intelius. --Ronz (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reduced the level of detail to try reducing the danger of WP:UNDUE. --Habap (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This section has been much improved by the edits. Not so much information was necessary.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Technology pioneer

I have been looking through the history of this page and I see a lot of biased tampering (from a number of sides), which is most unfortunate. I also am noticing that you (Ronz) are undoing edits by others that are either neutral or that are accurate, and this is may not be the function of a disinterested reviewer. There is also a restoral to the trivial. The latest undone edit by you is with regards to the attribution that Jain is a "technology pioneer." I personally do not give a hoot whether someone is a "technology pioneer" or not and I don't care about Jain. However, Jain is a "Technology Pioneer" of the World Economic Forum, and this is a very prestigious award. My wife was awarded one many years ago by the WEF, and she is considered a "technology pioneer." In technology, this prize is the equivalent of a Nobel in science. He has filed patents in technology, he has build successful companies in high tech, and therefore, it would be appropriate that he has such an assignation. Whether or not you like the guy, it would be unfair of you to unilaterally and arbitrarily strip him of such an earned attribution. Therefore he can be classified as a "technology pioneer." I would restore this if I was allowed to edit the page.

You may think that this is a trivial matter, but I think it is indictitive of the sort of problems that I have seen throughout Wiki generally, especially on the pages of controversial personalities, which is where I chose to start. If the person is disliked the bad is overemphasized and the good is underemphasized, but both are part of the same personality. Information on Wiki should just be related to factual content. The aspersions on this page should be removed, otherwise, you just get into a clash of personalities over such issues, and Wiki is NOT a Court of Law in these types of matters. Let's stick to the standards. Let's stick to the facts, and not interpretations or misinterpretations. Let's provide the proper context and not lead the reader into false conclusions. I already alluded to some of these issues in another area in a previous discussion with you. I hope that you will find these comments neither rude, disruptive, or harmful, but only helpful in how to bring up the quality of Wiki. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not on the contributors.
We write articles based upon reliable sources and a balanced presentation, while avoiding original thought to advance a position.
The technologies pioneer program is no nobel prize, as far as I'm aware. It wasn't sourced in the article, so I removed it, per WP:BLP.
If you'll review the discussions on this page, you'll see that the article has been trimmed (with the exception of the Philanthropic Activities section) to information from reliable sources with almost no embellishment. It needs a lot of work, but no one appears to want to do the work. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


I was not adding any "original" thought here, and was pointing out that one needs to have credible sources, not aspersions, which are inherent in this article, and there are reversions back to the trivial, such as his being unable to adjust to the climate of New Jersey. This stays, but his designation for being a technology pioneer, after getting such an award from the WEF can't? You state that you are "unaware," but I AM "aware" of this award and its significance. This is not something that is arbitarily handed out, but the results of voting by the invited leaders in high tech by the WEF. Go look at the list of who's received the award, and you will see that it is a "who's who" and not favorable to Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. It would be also helpful if you checked out the credibilty of the World Economic Forum, as this is a non-trivial conference and group of attendees. It has been around a long time.

I can work on this piece, so it isn't a resume piece, and fair (good, bad, ugly), but I need to be allowed to edit the page so that proper context is included. The facts will speak for themselves, and the reader can draw a conclusion if they wish. We don't need to make it for them by favoring one interpretation over another. Truly. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article, and a very controversial one. If you haven't provided a source, don't expect sway anyone. "Contentious material about living persons 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." --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not in the habit of not providing sources.

I did a quick google search under Jain's name and "technology pioneer" and this wording turns up with what appear to be a lot of his own sites (which I have discount or repeated from such), and so this may be his own label. However, is the labeling accurate? In reading some of the other articles, one finds this link from a newspaper at the time that runs the announcement about another prestigious technology pioneer award he won: The Albert Einstein Technology Medal. This award states: "The Albert Einstein Technology Medal salutes the vanguard of the high-tech industry. With their vision, these leaders have revolutionized the perception of time and space, linking us with ever-growing speed and ingenuity. They have pushed the envelope of technology in the service of mankind and through their enterprising pursuits and willingness to take risks, have enabled others from their cutting-edge discoveries. "

- - http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Naveen+Jain,+CEO+of+InfoSpace.com+Honored+as+an+Albert+Einstein...-a056210522

For the world economic forum:

http://www.weforum.org/community/technology-pioneers

Then search under his name. Therefore, I think one can make the case that he is a "technology pioneer." Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The source you provide is a press release, failing WP:SELFPUB and thus WP:BLP. Characterizing Jain as a "technology pioneer" and placing that characterization prominently in the article will take much better sources to avoid WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the links above are not press releases. One is on the World Economic Forum site, listing the people who were awarded the pioneer prize, and he is listed. Again, this is an argument of why you need to excuse yourself from managing this page, as you have NOT removed the other material that was pointed out, but question the factual material, such as his relationship to the X PRIZE Foundation board seat, etc., which is completely appropriate, as well as his stated role on it. This is easily referenced by going to the X PRIZE Foundation's website.

This is getting quite tedious, and there needs to be a formal review of this whole page and the managing of it. If this is a systemic problem with the editing and managing of Wiki, perhaps the editor needs to revisit the various standards that are associated with source material, wiki rules, and scholarship in general. In the meantime, I will be requesting a formal review of the management of this page here. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The first source is a press release, correct?
The second is a webpage that makes no mention of Jain. Nor do I see on it any way to get a list of award recipients. It is also a self-published, primary source.
Together, we have no independent, reliable sources demonstrating that this award deserves mention.
Have we dropped the issue of characterizing him as a "technology pioneer?" --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue will be dropped when you stop tampering and interfering with independent proper edits and the process of fixing this page to proper standards. No, it was not a press release. And, the World Economic Forum's website is an accredited site, and they can both can be checked independently. I am sorry that you are unable to find his mention on the WEF technology pioneer site, in spite of instructions. That you would state the above "have we dropped the issue..." is a bit beyond the pail, or you are just not knowledgeable enough to manage this process. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for suggesting we've dropped the characterization issue.
Yes, the thefreelibrary.com link is to a press release from InfoSpace. Please follow WP:DR if you want to take this further. WP:THIRD would be an appropriate next step in determining whether or not it is a press release. Let's settle this first before continuing. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I have searched the World Economic Forum's website in several ways and not found mention that he has received their Technology Pioneer award. You point to the search at http://www.weforum.org/community/technology-pioneers. It has the same general search box as the front page http://www.weforum.org. A search on Naveen Jain at either page gives http://www.weforum.org/s?s=Naveen+Jain which doesn't mention the Technology Pioneer award. Clicking on his name there leads to http://www.weforum.org/contributors/naveen-k-jain?fo=1. I don't know whether Jain or the World Economic Forum wrote the profile there. It calls him "Entrepreneur and technology pioneer" (note that "technology pioneer" is lower case). The award section of the profile doesn't mention the Technology Pioneer award. At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Editor abusing Wiki standards and policies I asked you for a source but you didn't reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I'm surprised. I assumed our only concern would be what weight to give it. Instead, we're trying to determine if he ever received the award from WEF... From what I can tell, Intelius is using the phrase "technology pioneer" in their press releases, which is being widely spread. This would explain all the search results with the phrase. --Ronz (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look later today and provide additional source information, as I came across this information elsewhere, if you are insisting upon it. However, while you are still holding up this particular issue, I note that you have not yet deleted or changed any of the controversial material that you allowed to be posted on the site that does not meet Wiki, much less professional standards, and is most certainly below the bar of standards that you are insisting upon for the assignation of "technology pioneer." So, I am curious why there is such a resistence about the "technology pioneer," which is just a label as opposed to discussions about his character, the reason for the fall of his company, acclimation to the climate of New Jersey, etc.? I am trying to see and hoping for "good faith" in the editing process, but I am still feeling that there is a biased approach to what is allowed in and where there is resistence. Please lets have those noted sections deleted and get this page under some sort of control with a more neutral and scholarly tone. Truly. Thank you. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to move his Board seat and affilations (X PRIZE Foundation and Singularity University) out of the philanthrophic section into another section, as it may be that these are not really strictly philanthropic. His personal life could use some expansion, i.e, he is married, etc. Just factual material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science&HiTechReviewer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to provide solid references piecemeal, as one needs them to be separated out from his own sites, mirror sites, repeated sites, speaker bios, and what appears to be a lot of SEO sites. Also, was looking for contemporary and independent accounts, and since the award was given in 1999, before a lot of this was available on the Web. One has to sift through a lot... The references are as follows:

Reference from 13 October 1999 from a Seattle Newspaper (same source used in other accepted information), which discusses Jain among others to receive that week the Albert Einstein Technology Award. The article's link is here: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/tbrf13.shtml

Reference from 13 October 1999 from the Red Herring, where they attended the Award Ceremony, and list Jain amongst other technology leaders. http://www.redherring.com/Home/1743

And, an independent site, which discusses the Einstein Award (which is no longer given out), but which lists Jain, along with many others. http://www.markminevich.com/einstein-award.php

A recent and independent article, which uses the word "technology pioneer" in relationship to this award. Sometimes the word "leadership" is also associated with this award. http://www.articlealley.com/article_1413641_15.html

So, looking forward to seeing the changes made... here and elsewhere. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we agree that the thefreelibrary.com source is a press release? I don't see much use in moving forward if we can't come to consensus on something as basic and important as proper identification of sources.
Are we in agreement that he didn't win the WEF Technology Pioneer Award?
The seattlepi.com and redherring.com sources verify he won the Einstein award. They're a bit iffy on WP:WEIGHT, the first is the best, a six-sentence summary. The second is a rambling bit, mostly an interview with Jain by a reporter receiving an award at the same ceremonies. The markminevich.com site is self-published, and it's unclear if it's a reliable source. If it's reliable, it still does nothing for weight, as it only lists Jain as a recipient - nothing more. The articlealley.com source is self-published and not reliable. It looks like the author, June Hiller, writes press for Intelius.
I think we need better sources to show that the Einstein award is worth mentioning. I'm unable to find any other Wikipedia articles that mention it. I believe the first source gives the proper name, the Albert Einstein Technology Medal, and the sponsor, the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah. Strange that markminevich.com gives a different name for the award despite the author being a recipient. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

From the comments above it is clear that you are deliberately interfering with this page. You can continually be "skeptical" and question every source. It is not your place as a reviewer to state that something is "rambling." The Red Herring and Seattle papers verify he won the award. First you questioned the fact that he got the award. Now, that this has been proven, you want to now question the merit of the award! This is absolutely incredible to me! You want to find other Wiki articles that mention it, but if I had referenced another Wiki article, you would have discredited it as a source. You STILL leave the other far more contentious negative material in. PLEASE remove yourself from editing this page, as you are clearly interfering, clearly biased, clearly disruptive. I am actually quite annoyed now at your comments above. You just waste people's time who try to do good work here. WHAT proof do you have that June Hiller "writes for Intelius"??? YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT PROOF! but question anything and everything that goes against your now obvious prejudice here. I tried to give you the full benefit of the doubt, but you are obviously very biased. THIS NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO FULL DISPUTE RESOLUTION.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please express yourself more directly on how the article should be improved, without commenting on other editors. If you think someone is deliberately interfering or making assumptions without proof, you need to raise that (with evidence) at a suitable noticeboard. This talk page is to discuss issues relating to improvement of the article. The only way to be successful at Wikipedia is to calmly outline what change should occur and why; see WP:5P for an overview of the policies that apply. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the questioning of sources: To meet WP:BLP, we're required to assess all sources. I stand by my assessments of the sources offered, and am happy to provide additional details.
Concerning the articlealley.com source: Though no one is contesting that it is self published and fails WP:RS, I think it's important to point out that the author, June Hiller, most likely works for Intelius. I get over a thousand results for googling "June Hiller" + Intelius, all appearing to be references to articles she's written about Intelius. Her articles sometimes have biographical info about Jain where it would be more appropriate to have information about herself if she were an independent writer or working for anyone else [18] [19] [20]. I've yet to find any information about her other than [21] which again suggests she writes Intelius press releases. Note also she publishes on www.articlesbase.com (www.articlesbase.com/authors/june-hiller/384669), which is blacklisted from Wikipedia because it is not a reliable source and prone to abuse. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing two awards. Nobody has questioned he won the Albert Einstein Technology award. You claimed he also won the WEF Technology Pioneer Award. This was questioned and you have so far failed to give a source supporting your claim. Ronz is not questioning whether he won the Albert Einstein Technology award but whether it's worth mentioning in the article. It appears to be a little known award which isn't mentioned in any other Wikipedia article. Albert Einstein Award mentions four awards named after Einstein (or his son for one of them) but this one isn't among them. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Since the World Economic Forum only began awarding Technology Pioneers in 2003 (or 2000 accoring the WEF's site), it is rather unlikely that he was awarded it in 1999. I am surprised that S&HTR's wife could have been awarded the TP "many years ago" since I don't think of 7-10 years ago as "many". --Habap (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the Albert Einstein Technology Medal may be more for promoting Israeli relations and support than recognizing achievement in the award recipients. Aish_HaTorah#Philanthropic_fund isn't sourced, and I've yet to find any better sources than what we currently have. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Article Alley should not be considered a reliable source. They allow anyone who registers to submit articles [22] with the advantage that "Submitting articles to Article Alley will not only boost your business credibility but it will also boost your personal credibility."
Every June Hiller article there is about either Naveen Jain or an Intelius application and most were submitted on the same day, 23 February 2010.[23] That really implies that she's working for him or for Intelius. --Habap (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is important that Ronz stops vandalizing this page, which he is continuing to do. He goes on about the credibility of sources, but then in his opening remarks above, states that June Hiller, "most likely" works for Intelius. This is Ronz's assumption and inference, but such a claim is not sourced or reliable, and he can offer no such proof of such. Nor need one go down that road, by taking an approach that reporters who write negative comments, are "most likely" working for the competition.

After going to great lengths to document that Jain received the Albert Einstein Technology award, Ronz then deletes it because it may be more for promoting Israeli relations and and support than recognizing achievement in the award recipients. Again, same problem as above. This is an assumption without any credible proof, and it is not an editor's job to pass judgment in this way. It is once again vandalism. It is a factual occurance.

Again, he put back an unsubstantiated claim, and removed the factual context, by reverting to an earlier edit with a single reporter's remark about Infospace failing because of "hype." This discussion was dealt with earlier. He reverted the amount of the settlement, and other sourced information, even though the article states the correct amount. So, another vandalizing edit, where he reverts to a factually incorrect account, which could have been verified by reading the original source.

It is plainly obvious that Ronz is biased, for whatever reason, against this individual, and is hell bent on disturbing this page, by consistently removing affiliations, such as being on the Board of the X PRIZE Foundation and SIngularity University (sourced) and replacing with negative commentary. If Ronz vandalizes this page again, I will do my utmost to have him blocked from further edits on this page.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It was you who suggested http://www.articlealley.com/article_1413641_15.html by June Hiller as a reference with a claim that it was an independent article. As clearly shown by http://www.articlealley.com/about.php and http://www.articlealley.com/submit_articles.php, Article Alley not only allows but encourages authors to use the site for promotion. On talk pages it's allowed to discuss sources and make unproven speculation to determine their suitability for the article. Strong evidence (but no absolute proof) has been given that June Hiller is not independent of Jain and Intelius. Nobody is suggesting that the article should claim "June Hiller works for Intelius", but the research about her can be used to disqualify her as an allegedly independent reference. In either case, http://www.articlealley.com allows selfpublished content and is unsuitable as a reference, especially in a BLP.
Nobody asked you to document that Jain received the Albert Einstein Technology award. Nobody ever questioned that he received it. You were asked for a source to support your claim that he received the WEF Technology Pioneer award. Instead you went on about the Einstein award. You still haven't replied to the concerns about the alleged WEF award. Are you still claiming that he received it?
See Wikipedia:Vandalism. I see a content dispute here and no vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Ronz is not vandalizing the page. The two of you are having a dispute about sources and content. Calling it vandalism because you disagree with it is wrong.
Whether June Hiller works for Intelius or not is not much of an issue, as at the very least, she only writes about Jain and Intelius and always in a positive light. That makes her a biased writer at the least. Also, you should notice that more than once, in the author bio portion of articles published in her name it has no information about her, but a short one-sentence bio of Naveen Jain.[24] I'm finding her press-release-style articles on many self-publishing sites. The onus is on you to prove that she's reliable and not biased, not on the rest of Wikipedia to prove she works for Intelius or Jain personally.
In regards to the Einstein prize, the Red Herring article is so fawning as to strain credulity. The Seattle Pi article gives little information and may be drawn from a press release. Minevich's site is self-published and not even proof-read ("Outstanding Achievement in the High Tech"), so not particularly reliable. Article Alley allows anyone to publish and, as already mentioned, June Hiller wrote the article and appears rather biased.
The Seattle Pi article indicates that The Einstein medal salutes curiosity, achievement, risk taking and the time-honored Jewish commitment to tikkun ha'olam, or "repair of the world." That doesn't sound like an indication of technological pioneering, but rather of a collection of positive traits. Since the award was given while he was on a visit that sought to increase investment in Israel's technology industry, it casts doubt on the sincerity of the award. Additionally, looking at the 2005 awardee list that Minevich lists[25], it doesn't seem to be awarded technological pioneering. While he certainly won the award, you need to establish what it awards and why that is relevant in such a scant biography. --Habap (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just saw some of these comments now. I had not seen the previous posts, otherwise, I would have responded. I will start at the top of the last unresponded comments.

I don't know anything about June Hiller, and presume you don't either. These are inferences that you are making without credible proof for your assertions. I could make similar assertions the other way by saying that the negative articles should be dismissed because they are written by his competitors. You dismiss the Red Herring article as "swooning," but it isn't your place to dismiss an article based on that charge, as it was contemporaneous with the event, it is not only an established news source, but the reporter covering the award was quite well known, and it wasn't entirely swooning either. The fact that Red Herring covered the award at that time was something of significance, and many other leaders in high tech received the award. It is not the editor's place to also dismiss the award, which was handed out to leaders in high tech by the then President of Israel. Any more than we can dismiss a prize for nationalistic reasons because it is handed out by the President of the United States. It is this bias to "strip" someone of an award for unsubstantiated reasons and prejudices. It is a fact that he has received this award. It is a fact that it was given out to leaders in high tech. It was a fact that it was given out by the President of a soverign state. It was a fact that he got publicity for this award. All we are reporting is the fact that he received that award. If you can show me credible proof that he did not 1) receive this award, or 2) the award does not exist, then it should be removed, but failing that, it would be totally inappropriate to remove.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. If you'd like other's opinions, let's break this into individual concerns: Is June Hiller's article a reliable source? I've yet to see a policy/guideline-based argument that it is reliable. How about we get other experienced editors to voice opinions at WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Heath, David; Pian Chan, Sharon; Dot-con Job: Part 3: The Aftermath - Unusual ally: SEC, The Seattle Times, 2005
  2. ^ a b Court turns down appeal from Infospace founder, The Seattle Times, 9 March 2009.
  3. ^ Heath, David (23 August 2003). "Ex-InfoSpace chief ordered to pay $247 million penalty". Seattle Times. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  4. ^ http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1068875/000119312504219392/dex991.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naveen_Jain/Archive_1&oldid=1078621085"