Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Title added:community

Why do you classify people based on communities or origin. What difference will it make? He was born and brought up in Mysore, Karnataka with Cauvery water.Now he is recognised throughout the world one of India's top representative by having major campus in Bangalore.

Arun


Well i dont understand why people here dont accept that Narayana murthy is a Tamil.

Alex

[edit] His photo

The main photo on this page sucks big time. any other photo? doles 14:36, 2005 July 28 (UTC) He is an INDIAN !!! NO FURTHER discussions or divisions PLEASE JAI HINDH........

AVINASH R K --- An INDIAN....

[edit] Anthem

There has been something that may approximate an edit war concerning Murthy and the playing of the Indian national anthem. In the interests of stability, please discuss the matter here so that we may have consensus before the material is included in the article, if it need be included at all. Michaelbusch 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced of Wikipedia:Notability, and all the versions that have been put up violate WP:NPOV and do not give context. Michaelbusch 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The anthem controversy issue is not notable at all! There are dozens of politicians who sing the national anthem on a daily basis, but never really do anything for the country. N. R. Narayana Murthy has changed the face of India's economy and the Indian software industry has received global recognition because of his efforts over the last two decades! The nation should certainly salute NRN and treat him with dignity. -MagicMiracle.

Reply to MagicMiracle (talk): Please see WP:NPOV. Whether a nation should salute a person or not, is irrelevant in encyclopediac article. Also, there is no point in having discussion in this talk page about comparing politicians with NRN.
Regarding, notability, the section is certainly notable, given that it is an encyclopediac article covering all the major happenings w.r.t. NRN. Covering a section on controversy is not by any means mentioned in WP:N or WP:NPOV, as indicated in your edit summaries. Also, please refer to Mahatma Gandhi, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Bill Clinton articles, just as examples, which have covered Controversy sections. Thanks, - KNM Talk 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is certainly irrelevant unless ofcourse you (KNM) are politically biased. It perfectly violates wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality and notability. The issue didn't last even for a day, making it completely insignificant and certainly not worthy of being included in NRN's Wikipedia page. I saw all the pages you mentioned. The conroversies there are way too different than this political battle. Using discretion, editors should also support me and not include politically motivated information in biography pages. KNM, stop vandalizing the page immediately. Editors, lets reach a consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicmiracle (talk • contribs)

First things first. Please stop branding content disputes as vandalism. It is considered as Personal Attack. See WP:NPA policy.
Next, the section is certainly notable. See WP:N policy on notability. It clearly states as below.
The primary criterion for notability is that:
A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."
As such, the section has been referenced from multiple non-trivial reliable sources. So please stop blanking out that section. Hope this clears. Thanks - KNM Talk 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


KNM, I am convinced that MagicMiracle is right in what he/she is saying. The NRN controversy is definitely not absolute. {Reference: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]} Moreover, it is a direct attack on a public figure without legal justification. Unless a court in India finds NRN guilty, Wikipedia cannot include this in the biography section of NRN as it would directly mean that the whole story is a personal vendetta and technically it would also qualify for contempt of the judiciary and defamation. Hope you stop adding stuff not needed.

Good luck in the future, Neoguru 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Neoguru.


There seems to be a huge consensus on not including this controvertial section in NRN's biography as it is in a poor taste. Media gossip and biased views are never ever published in WP article: Thanks.

See below:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

Attribution Neutral point of view (NPOV) We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Infotech007 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Infotech007


Yes, Magicmiracle and Micheal are both right. Non-notable and contentious material can never be a part of a person's biography on Wikipedia. Wikihero1 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)WikiHero1

This way please. Sarvagnya 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've already reported Neoguru and Infotech as sockpuppets of Magicmiracle and neoguru already got a warning. Now on my way to report Wikihero1. Gnanapiti 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All right folks, had enough. Stop vandalizing WP with non-notable, defamatory and conrtentious content. There is no such thing as the anthem controversy. Its just plain old media goppip.

Won't you feel embarassed if you were to attend a French conference, with all the French delegates singing the French anthem in French and you just standing there wondering when this is gonna finish ? Certainly it would be very embarrasing for any sane person. So playing the instrumental version is a decision which is sagacious as well as politically correct.

Leela99 17:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Leena99

I'm a completely disinterested non-Indian who has never heard of this guy before I noticed the requests for blocks at ANV today. For whatever my opinion is worth to you... I don't see any reason that an isolated incident that doesn't seem to be related to the things this man is important for would need to be included, much less discussed in such detail. I can't think of any reason that it would be included that doesn't involve the desire to publicly embarrass the man. If it were my decision, I'd leave it out per WP:BLP. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this because of the sockpuppetry. I'm also disinterested in the actual event, but the sockpuppetry and personal attacks need to stop. Discuss this rationally, without resorting to underhanded methods like sockpuppets. Leebo T/C 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Its natural that you may not have heard of him. But he is often compared to Bill Gates and infact has even been talked of as a Presidential candidate(yes. the President of India). Naturally, his disrespect to the anthem is a big deal and was made into a big deal by every media house, big and small. There were even calls from some ministers in the government to have him arrested. Imagine, if Bill Gates or George Bush were to disrespect the anthem, it surely will find a place in Bill Gates or George Bush. Sarvagnya 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my opinion would be the same in that case- I wouldn't support including this story in the George Bush article, either. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with fisherQueen. Truthshine 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)truthshine.

And I agree with Leebo. This is your only edit, and you are clearly another sockpuppet. If the argument you're making has merit, then stop the sockpuppeting and achieve consensus like a reasonable Wikipedian. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I disagree with FisherQueen. "Kyu be bhadve, tere ko bhenchod ka title de du kya sale hizde? Madarchod. Haram jada, lavde, gaandu, bhenchod". NRN is simply superb. As a matter of fact, we should all sing an anthem in his praise (Even instrumental is fine, I'm sure he won't object). He is the father of India's modern IT revolution. Remember guys, we missed the bus during the Industrial revolution? Well, we didn't miss it this time becoz of NR NarayanMurthy's sustained efforts. Original truth foundation 19:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Original TC.

Block me if you can. Original truth foundation 19:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)OTF.

Do you have any intention of discussing this with attention to neutral point of view and a less combative attitude? A list of suspected sock puppets is already filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MagicMiracle, and you're not helping your case by making statements like "Block me if you can." Leebo T/C 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Magicmiracle

This isn't even necessary. You could have used Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures to make a strong argument for the change you want to make. I really think you would have been successful, in the end; I think that policy is on your side. Instead, you chose to create sockpuppets to disrupt the process, as a result of which you will likely be blocked, and unable to work on the article further. You're a new user, so you could probably still stop, apologize, and try participating according to the rules. That would be a really smart thing to do. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I have already requested the editorial team to fire all people who cannot respect the Father of India's IT revolution.

Bhadve saale 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Bhadve Saale
Fired from what? I'm not getting paid... It's extremely hard to take your concerns seriously when you are doing the exact opposite of what we are recommending. Leebo T/C 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, stop submitting bogus reports about sockpuppetry with Gnanapiti and Sarvagnya. Neither of them are administrators, so your whole theory seems invalid. Leebo T/C 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no! Don't have me fired! Oh, wait... I'm a volunteer. Your comment is absurd, and it highlights how little you understand about Wikipedia. After you are blocked, spend some time reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines and observe some conflicts without participating in them, so you can see how our dispute resolution procedures work. It's no crime to be new, or to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, but smart people observe and learn before making nonsensical threats.-FisherQueen (Talk) 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 The anthem controversy; my clarification:

Ok, I apologize for the harsh comments/sockpuppeting and hope everybody understands that I did this out of sheer frustration and anger against people who try to pull down great leaders and philanthropists like N.R. Narayan Murthy.

Here's my clarification:

 The media-inflated issue:

The Infosys function was attended by the President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam on April 8, 2007. Dr. Kalam himself is a great admirer of N.R. Narayan Murthy (NRN). Infosys is a NASDAQ/Forbes-listed company that has earned billion dollar profits in software and IT consultancy in the past few years. During one of these big functions at the Infosys campus, N.R. Narayan Murthy decided that they should play the instrumental version of India's National Anthem instead of the vocal version. The news-hungry television channels picked up a rumour that NRN was turning into a unpatriotic soul and blew out this street gossip out of proprotion.

 Can the "Anthem controversy" be included ?

N.R. Narayan Murthy has not been found guilty by any court in India, niether has anybody arrested him for anything similar. In such a situation, it is not only unfair to publish an entire paragraph containing defamatory information against N.R. Narayan Murthy, but also a wicked personal attack/vendetta against him. A street gossip that eventually ended up being an "issue" should never have found a place in biographies of living people to begin with, unless ofcourse a court in India issued a notice to the concerned party.

In a delicate situation like this, further publicity would only help worsen the situation and it could incite riots because of the contentious information provided. Moreover, the above information, if provided in the biography would clearly violate WP's code of conduct (See WP:LIVING WP:BLP):

 Clause in WP:LIVING WP:BLP: We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced

contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Considering the above, I hereby make a strong request to the editors of Wikipedia to kindly remove any material that endorses contentious information against NRN with immediate effect.

CC: A copy of this letter has been sent to the editorial assistants.

 Thanks in advance! Great Sarkar 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Great Sarkar

[edit] reply

  • You have been blocked; that means that you should not be creating more sockpuppets.
  • Exactly what 'editorial assistants' did you send this to? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to use the dispute resolution link, but it says that they are maintaining it and its locked temporarily.

Locking the database for maintenance usually lasts about 10 seconds. Refresh and it should be back. If you are editing now, it's available. Leebo T/C 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
there's nothing even remotely contentious or libelous in the issue here. we are not spreading 'street gossip' here. everything that transpired is on video. narayanamurthy isnt any Sir M V. he is a businessman and a successful one at that. thats all. nothing more nothing less. and btw, who/what are these 'editorial assistants' and why shouldnt i be asking for a block on you as well? Sarvagnya 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
...could incite riots... :D .. LOL.. and who will riot? you and your sockpuppets? ha ha.. you're funny. Sarvagnya 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Whatever your stand in this discussion, you first stop creating more sockpuppets. Breaching the policy would only ensure extended block on you.
The entire section is well sourced. The sources are non-trivial, reputed, and there are multiple. You have no evidence that it is a street gossip. Please do not try misleading people, who are not familiar with the subject.
Riot?? No where it has happened and no signs/indications that it is going to happen. It is just your speculation. If not provide valid references for your claim.
Court order?? To mention a well-sourced controversy section doesn't need a court order. As written earlier, take a look into artcles such as Mahatma Gandhi, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid which have much more visibility, and yet covered the relevant controversies without the need for so-called court order. - KNM Talk 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Goodbye. I guess you missed the several places where I said that I do, in fact, support your reasoning, but that your bad behavior was preventing the changes you want from being made. When you say that you are quitting, I assume that this means all of your sockpuppets are quitting, as well. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he heard anything we said; it's like he was the only one talking. Leebo T/C 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, my name is Eclectic star 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) eclectic_star and here's what I have to say:

Guys, lets stop the edit war and see what everyone has to say. To me, the entire episode looks like a 1-day affair and hence it seems impolite to include it in the biography that covers several decades of somebody's life history. You cannot certainly include every detail of what happened on thursday morning in NRN's life, or Tuesday afternoon in the bathroom, in the biography! That would be hilarious. Lets take a vote on this issue and reach a point of agreement. Eclectic star 19:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)eclectic_star

Eclectic star, this was your first edit, and you sign your posts the same way as all the other sockpuppets (using the ~~~~ and manually typing your name after). You said you were leaving. If you're not leaving, don't put on the guise of an uninvolved party. Leebo T/C 20:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Eclectic star: I notice that this is your very first edit! However, unless proven otherwise, I assume good faith on you that you are not yet another sockpuppet.
First of all, I request you to go through WP:NPOV and WP:N policies.
Next. Your logic on ignoring 1-day affair w.r.t several decades of life history, is not acceptable. In fact one's history is made up of so many such incidents. The incident, whether 1-day affair or 1-minute affair, gets its place in an encyclopediac article as long as it is notable.
A person gets birth only on 1-day, and he/she dies only on 1-day. Don't they get mentioned in the articles? - KNM Talk 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks!

This is eclectic_star. I am not aware of what a sop pupet or whatever is, probably I need to read more abt this.

Regarding the 1-day issue, well ther is a tremendous amount of difference between taking a bath (a 20-minute affair or more appropriately a 1-day affair) and getting a birth/death (also a 1-day affair). There is something called as "impact" and I am sure my friends here know what "impact" means (Reference: [1]) Some things like going to the bathroom, having lunch are ultra-low impact things and a few others namely changing a country's economy, getting an award of international repute are high impact. Based on the above definition, it is more than obvious that the 1-day anthem affair was one of those low impact things which can certainly not find a place in a high impact biography that lists all the really significant aspects of a living person.

Hence, my request to the editors to remove the paragraph that has the low impact anthem controversy. Let me cite an example that will make it more clear:

In the year 2005, George W. Bush pressed the butts of a lady in public and also showed the middle finger to the camera while he was geting ready to deliver his address to the nation. Well, if you carefully read his biography, you won't find even the slightest mention of these happenings in any stanza or paragraph. Pressing a lady's butt in public is sexual harrassment (even if the lady happens to be your wife) and showing the middle finger to the camera that is later on used to address the United States is derogatory to the law-abiding US citizens.

A quick visit to Geroge W. Bush's page on Wikipedia will reveal the fact that these two controversies were NEVER added to Wikipedia by any wikipedia editor. On the other hand,NRN's anthem controversy is truly speaking, a mere question of choice. A company's co-founder certainly has the right to decide whether or not to play the vocal version of the national anthem and no external agency can interfere and impose ther decision on Infosys. Its perfectly against the law.

Now tell me folks, am I not technically/logically correct? Well, then go ahead and remove the anthem controversy from NRN's page!

Thanks, Eclectic Star.


    • You can google for this and see it right there on Utube or google videos. Well, its also there in the Michale Moore documentary. You can clearly see George Bush doing what I just mentioned earlier.

Google video: http://www.funrestarea.com/pages/bush_finger.shtml (shows that the President used the middle finger while getting ready to deliver his speech to the nation. Clearly very offensive)


It is against Wikipedia policy to disrupt the encyclopedia in order to make a point. Moreover, since your edit to George W. Bush included a personal judgement and included no sources, it does not prove your point anyway. Please don't use other articles to prove your point. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 Ok FisherQueen, I have refined my response and also included reference video.
Your edit to The President of the United States was a personal opinion. Please read more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making anymore assertions like that. Leebo T/C 21:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet dear- you make me want to cry. I feel I've sinned against a saint. :( But how the hell do I cry when I'm laughing my ass off!! :D ha ha ha. Keep them coming. keep them coming. Sarvagnya 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet-free discussion area- please move sockpuppet comments to section above

Leebo, what's your opinion about the actual material under discussion- sockpuppetry aside for a moment? I tend to think that a whole paragraph about a single incident, no matter how well sourced, seems to be intended more to make the subject look bad than to present an honest overview of his career. I wouldn't object to a sentence or two acknowledging the incident, but a whole section, in an article this length, seems out of proportion to its importance to his biography. I think that there's a problem with recentism - yes, I know that's not a guideline, but I think it's a good description of what I see as the problem here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, FisherQueen. The incident did cause a stir it seems, and can be sourced, but it deserves not more than a brief mention. Part of neutral point of view is representing all the facts, the other part is representing them with due weight. Leebo T/C 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the most natural place to place it is at the end of the 'history and family' section. I'm throwing out as a proposal/starting point: "In 2007, some Indians criticized Murthy as unpatriotic when, during a visit from Indian president Abdul Kalam, he arranged for instrumental versions of the national anthem instead of sung versions, saying in a press statement that he did not want to embarrass foreign visitors." And cite it to the yahoo article, which seems to have all the relevant information? Does that sum it up? Can it be worded more effectively? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The only change I would propose is to "some Indians." Some, as a descriptor, is better avoided because it's unclear who they were or how many felt that way. I'm trying to think of a more clear wording. Leebo T/C 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents - I really do not think that this is much ado about nothing. While I agree that the prose can be tightened and length reduced, I do not think that the section is unwarranted at all. This has been one of the few controversies that NRN has been involved(apart from his run in with Deve Gowda(a former PM of India)) and certainly merits a place. Articles arent just meant to be hagiographies.
  • Also remember that the article is far from a "Good article" and still needs to be lengthened and improved greatly. Once that happens, I am sure even this section will get duly condensed and tucked away neatly in place. Just because the article overall is under fed shouldnt be reason to go against a well fed and better written section. Sarvagnya 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This event just happened. A year from now- ten years from now- will it still be worthy of such a significant place in the man's biography? It seems to me that it will just be one small controversy- he isn't even a political figure, so his significance in India is not directly related to his opinions about the national anthem. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Leebo and FisherQueen (Thanks FisherQueen for pointing to WP:RECENTISM, which describes these edits quite appropriately). This incident is not worthy of the space it currently enjoys, let alone an entire separate section. Heck, 4 out of the 6 links under "References" are provided solely for this issue and nothing else (and one of them is a blog, for God's sake!). Obviously, this man is a successful, well-respected public figure. That is exactly the reason why irresponsible Indian news hounds clamoured to pick the story up and proceeded to fill their newspaper columns and 9 PM news slots. But just because this stuff is out there, does not mean it warrants equal weightage or space on Wikipedia.
I also read someone's comments on this talk page about how "his disrespect to the anthem is a big deal". I'd like to point out that no source has said that Murthy disrespected the anthem. Even those slimy politicians agreed that "there was no insult done to the national anthem". I reiterate that this issue has been distorted by media outlets and debated by useless armchair "patriots". I know I have no reliable sources to back this up (since the "reliable sources" themselves are involved in propagating this issue), but I can only appeal to your common sense to understand what the problem is.
In conclusion, I think that we should reduce the verbosity of the national anthem incident, and most definitely deprive it of a separate section by merging it with another extant section. FisherQueen's proposal sounds like a good starting point. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maayajaala of NRN

Today what has happened with NRN's persona is any upcoming engineer ( infact all students of karnataka are doomed into textbooks.

Son/daughter : I want this/that. Parent: Are you going to be NRN if I get that? Son/daughter : I want to play. Parent : Are you going to be Sachin? These type of questions have infact made hollowness in our generation And what for - even if they study in those VTU (Xerox based university) they all tend to become money earners in service companies. And instead of shouldering their aged parents they shoulder NRN and his likes to serve global delivery model specially the girl acts are very extra ordianry there! Still could not manage the nepotism taking place in his own company from MBAs to technicians. Thanks for a criticism section on this new breed Bangaloreans capitalists without foresight - of NRN and Mallya destroying the present talent pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.76.122 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

General Cultural criticism really doesn't belong here. Undoubtably somebody wrote a book on the topic or is famous for writing about it so you can feature him in an article, but it's not like India doesn't have enough people famous for denouncing wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally dont think this article needs to be improved. it is well written. May be, to make it comprehensive, the controversy of Murthy getting involved with national song not being sung can be added. That too, may be, to make it wholistic. (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Importance

NM's importance in Karnataka and India projects as per definition should be HIGH. I have set them here --Kalyan (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)