Talk:Naveen Jain

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]

Contents

[edit] 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; Chan, Sharon Pian. "Dot-con Job: How InfoSpace Took its Investors for a Ride.", The Seattle Times, 2005-03-06. )

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] COI editing resumed today

63.231.16.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 · 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 · 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)

[edit] 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)