Talk:Naveen Jain/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Looking over refs from recent changes

Jain, Naveen. "Various Articles". forbes.com. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
I assume the idea is to use his own byline biography. That's a self-serving, promotional, primary source. Suggesting changes based upon such low-quality references was the major problem with this article in the past. Let's not repeat that error. If there is basic information in that biography not included somewhere in this article, please point it out so we can determine how to incorporate it, if at all. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
. crunchbase.com https://www.crunchbase.com/person/naveen-k-jain. Retrieved 4 November 2017. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Looks like a semi-automated aggregator. Without knowing where they are getting the info, I'm not sure how we should treat it. It looks like they are pulling heavily from public relations pieces, so I don't believe we should treat it as independent. I've asked for help at RSN. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Alan Boyle. "Entrepreneur Naveen Jain offers a gut check with Viome wellness tracking service". GeekWire. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
A bit of a puff piece, but usable. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It suggests the article is outdated and should mention Jain's latest endeavors. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm busy, so just taking a quick look: Viome, BlueDot, and TalentWise should probably be mentioned in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, let's look at these together. I wasn't 100% on some of this stuff but made an effort to revise a very negative article to something close to neutral. Obviously it will require many drafts to shape since it was in such terrible shape.

The intention with the forbes source material is not to use as Ronz suggested but rather to reference that it exists. Excluding the existence of those published works didn't seem to make much sense. That's a major problem with this article's fixation on InfoSpace instead of the subject. Quoting those articles, however, also wouldn't seem to make much sense as Ronz pointed out. However, it also might make sense, depending on if it was used to enlighten and clarify. I have no issue personally including such material as long as it is in a fair, neutral point of view.
I wasn't sure about crunchbase either. Seemed like one of the few sources of latest information out there that might be neutral. Hard to say, yet at the same time, I'm not sure it's the role of an information source like this to make those decisions, especially when those decisions fit a pattern of behavior to slant the article as much as possible in a negative direction. The information is out there from a neutral third party, so I think it's fair game.
I don't think it should be the goal of this article to decide what are "puff pieces." This wikipedia article seemed to focus solely on a grudge surrounding InfoSpace and casting the subject in as negative a light as possible. That's not a neutral point of view. Like it or not, this article appears as a descriptive block in search engines (which is how I landed here and decided to pitch in), so it really needs to be neutral and fair as opposed to as negative as possible. By the same token, an article titled, "Dot Con Job" is clearly as biased negatively as imaginable, yet it's all good in some editor's eyes. Where's the balancing opinion? Facts are neutral and you'll see my edits are aimed at fair and neutral facts while trying to keep the article about the person.
Lastly, Ronz is oddly well informed on the subject's business activities. --Lawfulneutral (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you review this article, you'll see there were multiple reviews and rewrite by independent editors, all after the last WP:SPA account was blocked multiple times for improper behavior. The article is barely changed since. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's still horribly negative and poorly written instead of neutral and well written. I fail to see how this argument of "it hasn't changed" aligns with the philosophy, as I understand it, of an open, editable encyclopedia. I'm a new editor, but not new to reading and writing.--Lawfulneutral (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the past reviews that support your opinions. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Potential sources

There are quite a few additional sources I've found with a casual search. The only explanation for keeping this article rooted solely in InfoSpace, and conflating InfoSpace (and all employees of InfoSpace) and the subject is a mystery.

Another article I discovered written by the subject, yet including the words "author" and "inventor" (he has patents from his Microsoft days according to the article) are "undue."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/17/the-rise-of-the-worlds-next-great-superpower.html --Lawfulneutral (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting absurd! There are tons of articles available on the subject:

These articles shows a perfect example of how much InfoSpace should figure into a biography of the subject.

--Lawfulneutral (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Lawfulneutral - the Infospace page seems like a better location for much of this information Wyomingfarmer (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And more...

--Lawfulneutral (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Perkins Coie

The law firm (Perkins Coie) leading the charge against Mr Jain has unclean hands in relation to journalism. It not difficult to imagine the now-debunked dossier wasn't their first foray into dirty tricks. This paints sole-source articles as suspect since Perkins Coie could easily have paid "journalists" to publish any article they wished, especially if those articles assisted the firm's litigation. From "House Intelligence Committee Trying to Find Out Why Fusion GPS Paid Journalists Who Reported on Russia":

“

The House committee has begun to zero in on the dossier to find out what role it played in the FBI’s investigation into whether there was any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

Last month, it was revealed that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier through its lawyer Marc Elias’s law firm Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS seven payments from May 24, 2016, to December 28, 2016.

In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS just over $1 million in what appears to be one of the firm’s most lucrative contracts in mostly redacted bank records turned over to the committee.

After Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS hired ex-British spy Christopher Steele to work on the dossier. The dossier was reportedly used by the FBI to launch its investigation and obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign member, despite making salacious and unverified claims.

”

— Kristina Wong, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/26/fusion-gps-paid-journalists-court-documents-show/

Just what was the Seattle Times' motivation for that article? What relationship did the Seattle Times or the author have with Perkins Coie or Mr Jain? What relationship do editors of this article have with Perkins Coie or Infospace? Wikipedia is in the middle here and that's a terrible place to be. Mike in il (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New ventures

As I pointed out above, Viome, BlueDot, and TalentWise should probably be mentioned in the article body given the new sources.

TalentWise was founded in 2006 and had some major funding in 2013. It is an Intelius/Inome spinoff.[1] It was founded by Jain. The crunchbase profile on TalentWise is confusing. TalentWise merged with Sterling Talent Solutions in 2016, terms undisclosed [2]. There's a previous discussion about TalentWise here. TalentWise was mentioned in the article body at the time but was later removed here.

Bluedot was founded in 2015 and had some major funding in 2016. This looks related to Moon Express. Jain is founder and CEO according to crunchbase.

Viome was founded in 2016 and had a major funding round this year. It is a spinoff from Bluedot. Jain is founder and CEO according to crunchbase. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of Bluedot and Viome here, and have kept the expansion tag. Given the past discussions and editing around TalentWise, I chose to leave it out. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Lawfulneutral's list of potential sources above should be very helpful in determining what more to add. I'm thinking that at least a brief description is due. If Jain is actively involved in noteworty aspects of the businesses (beyond promotion) in any of the coverage, then we should cover that as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Trying to find a good description for Bluedot. Perhaps, "Bluedot, a company that aims to commercialize research from national labs".[3] I'll look over more potential refs. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a description of Bluedot [4]. Viome is trickier since their pr is very general, "wellness monitoring service", while what they're doing is very specific, nutrigenetic testing to provide dietary advice. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've put together an overview of Viome as there are a few good non pr sources on it Wyomingfarmer (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The material is not about Jain. (And the sources are warmed over pr sources, though the CNBC is not nearly as bad as the VentureBeat piece.) --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Viome raising $21M, sourced from Inc -- Inc's cited multiple times elsewhere in the article w/negative news. Wyomingfarmer (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Negative news" says who? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale for adding more information about Moon Express. There's a separate article for that. And why is a source being removed in the process?

A brief mention of TalentWise is still needed. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can find something for TalentWise - why aren't we moving the Infospace material then? Wyomingfarmer (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

See all the past discussions, but basically because of it being the primary aspect of his notability, source of his wealth, and his high profile approach to managing and promoting the business, completely unlike anything he's done since. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions from past reviews

The past reviews contain numerous suggestions for improvement. I think it would be helpful to focus on them, especially while editors are just beginning to learn Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This version seems far more fair and proper and also seems to have been arrived at via consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naveen_Jain&oldid=648821221 Lawfulneutral (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I do like the approach it took to the Infospace material. Wyomingfarmer (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

When comparing this BLP article with [Barrett] I can see many items in this article that should be their own articles. Otherwise, the Barrett article should have many details included in it. Seems like a double standard. Either we lower the standard of the Barrett article to match Jain's or we raise the standard of the Jain article to be neutral like Barrett's. An obvious choice. Lawfulneutral (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not a valid argument in most cases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential refs regarding stock price

A couple of potential refs I found while figuring out [5]:

Bubbles, Booms, and Busts: The Rise and Fall of Financial Assets By Donald Rapp pp238-241 --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what's in the section on InfoSpace's stock price, but might be worth a look. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
How to Recover Stock Market Losses with Or Without an Attorney By Carl C. Roba, Maren K. Valent
Probably not useful. Has details on how analysts wanted to downgrade the stock, the pressures they were under not to do so, and their lack of respect for Jain at the time. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)