Talk:Naveen Jain

Invalid accusations of NPOV violations

Editors are once again throwing around NPOV like a club. I've tagged the article in the hope of evidence will be provided rather than just drama and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed perfectly valid and non-promotional material which is now back in the article and well-sourced. Can you point to a specific problem with the article that you'd like to see changed? What is not NPOV about it today?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got some serious behavioral problems when it comes to this article. Please leave it alone if you cannot control yourself.

I guess the npov claims were nothing more than harrassment then? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As you know, this is very much the wrong place for a discussion of that nature. Jimbo asked a specific question, and it would be reasonable to answer or ignore it, or to make an assertion that it is somehow "wrong", or say that "today" was snarky, but there is only one person here showing an emotional reaction and inappropriate responses. Your recent edits don't seem to have addressed any particular NPOV issue, so I was puzzled when you added the NPOV tag. Please just say what the problem is. My recent quick read found only one tagged issue, namely "his energetic demeanor and personality quirks" which certainly should be refactored. Unfortunately I have only had time for routine stuff lately, and while I would have taken the time to fix that, the five references put me off as I would have had to study them. What else warrants the article being tagged? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo repeatedly says I'm an NPOV problem. He's yet to provide any evidence at all to back him. He uses it as an attack, harassment, and a way to dissuade me from improving this article.

Jimbo refuses to respond to these problems of his behavior on his talk page.

Jimbo repeatedly uses this talk page to harass me.

Until this matter is addressed, Jimbo's harassment of me is disrupting this article.

If you'd like to suggest a better venue to address Jimbo's behavioral problems, feel free. Until the problem is resolved, I certainly don't feel safe working on this article in any meaningful way. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop: you know this talk page should not be used to list the alleged shortcomings of another editor, even if it's Jimbo. I understand that communicating with Jimbo on his talk page can be tricky because lots of chatter (and important discussion) on that page causes distractions. However, to do everyone a favor I am going to remove any further commentary on other editors here. If I am reverted I will try again with escalation to ANI as off-topic commentary at a BLP talk page is unacceptable. I sometimes find it stressful when I contemplate a long watchlist and recognize that I cannot deal with all the problems I encounter. A good strategy is to walk away and let others deal with it. If the NPOV problems here are so egregious that they require talk of harassment and safety, there are only two solutions: (1) focus on other topics as an individual cannot solve all problems (and indeed, no individual should feel personally responsible for "fixing" this article); or, (2) escalate to WP:ANI and see what happens. It is not reasonable to add an NPOV tag and then make vague assertions regarding having explained the issues in the past—if the tag is not explained, it must be removed. For the record, I have searched this page for all occurrences of "Jimbo" and cannot see anything to justify any of the above claims regarding harassment (there is one post dated 18:45, 19 June 2011 where the phrase "I am going to term it nothing short of 'vandalism'" is used, but that is nothing like an attack). Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I brought the exact same concern up in June, yet he's persisted.

If you want to pretend they are something other than attacks, then please let me know what they are. They certainly are not within the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Current harassment on this page, plus the recent off-page harassment: --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC) "I have reverted this edit by Ronz, and I am going to term it nothing short of 'vandalism'." "Ronz's ongoing POV pushing against the subject of this article, and constant personal attacks on me and other NPOV editors is beginning to try my patience." "Part of my reasoning is that Ronz was clearly inappropriately forum shopping by posting there instead of discussing here." "It is unfortunate that, despite Johnuniq's thoughtful and valid suggestions, User:Ronz who has been properly criticized in the past for WP:OWN issues related to this article simply reverted everything to push his traditional agenda against the subject, rather than editing it for NPOV and style." "RV Ronz pov pushing" [1] Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced. I know you hate Naveen Jain - but you should go start a blog about him or something, and not use Wikipedia in this way. [2] "You should know that Ronz, who did the revert, has a long and problematic POV-pushing history with this article." [3]

The most recent example is perhaps the best to illustrate what is going on here. You removed perfectly valid information, which might in some way be deemed as favorable to the subject of the article, claiming that it was inaccurate and promotional. It proved upon a few moments work to be neither. This follows a very long history of your editing this article to cast a negative light on the subject. I'm sorry if it seems bad to you for me to point that out, but in the interest of the encyclopedia, it's important to speak openly about bad editing. If you want me to dig deeper into the history of the article to illustrate the point more, I'm happy to do that if you will find it useful in reflecting on the problems you have encountered here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So you want to make an example of your harassment against me?! Ok. I made a mistake. I rarely make such mistakes. I was unable to find verifying information in the current sources, nor was able to find a verifying source elsewhere. I did, however, follow BLP, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation."

The proper way to proceed was add the source and move on. Not make accuse others of pov-pushing [4] [5] [6]. Not make grandiose, harassing, accusations, "I know you hate Naveen Jain" [7]

"I'm sorry if it seems bad to you for me to point that out, but in the interest of the encyclopedia, it's important to speak openly about bad editing. " Oh really!?? Looks like harassment to me. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my words. I'm sorry it makes you unhappy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So you know that I hate Naveen Jain? You stand by that statement? It's a completely absurd statement for you to make, much less stand by. It's harassment, a personal attack, and a blp violation. More importantly, it's clearly not based upon any reality.

So you are exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines?

The time has long come and gone for you to justify your accusations. Don't cave now. Show that you are able to follow our guidelines/policies and your own advise/demands. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that you don't hate him, and I apologize for that remark. It was a natural conclusion to draw given your edit history here, but if it is wrong, I'm glad to hear it. The empirical record is clear, though: you have a very strong pattern of editing this article in a negative way. The issues with WP:OWN are clear (230 edits by you, dramatically more than anyone else, with the second runner up having only 61!). I can walk you through the details of some particular edits that I have a problem with, but for most of them, they are long since gone from the article and so I see no value in going through them again. Most of them are already discussed on this talk page. The only current issue is that you'd like to see the article tagged for NPOV violations, but you seem unwilling to tell us what NPOV violations you see. If you'd like to discuss that, I'd be happy to replace the NPOV template for you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I just went back to the beginning of the article and looked for your first substantive edit to the article, which anyone can see here. You took a neutral paragraph and turned it into a hatchet job. I can walk you through what is wrong with the edit, but perhaps you can just look at it and think about it yourself. You can see how any editor might get the idea that you have something against Mr. Jain, and if it is true that that isn't the case, then I am again happy to hear it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're going to try to justify your accusations by a revert I made, where I was discussing the matter on the talk page. That justifies your harassment? It seems as grounded in reality as your claiming I hate Jain. It seems like all your statements are as grounded in reality as that claim. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"It was a natural conclusion to draw given your edit history here" Nothing natural about it at all. Quite the contrary, and in violation of multiple policies and guidelines. More importantly, when faced with it, you stood by it until it was denied. Is that how we should work here? Throw )(*& on the fan making accusations of others, then stand by them unless the accused party denies? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"The empirical record is clear, though: you have a very strong pattern of editing this article in a negative way." Negative? Once again, this is just bias on your part, and an inability to follow our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know what you are talking about now. How about you address why you made the edit I outlined above, turning a perfectly valid paragraph into a hatchet job? I can go through and list a lot more edits of the same kind. But I don't see any particular reason to bother, as you seem uninterested in constructively working with me to improve the article. So let me make my offer one last time: you want to put an NPOV tag on the article now. Why? What is wrong with the article today and what can we improve about it. I'm prepared to forgive your negative editing history, so long as you can do the right thing going forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't even know what you are talking about now." I'm talking about your inability to back your statements. Your inability to rationalize your accusations with anything based in reality.

Your accusations are complete and total nonsense. Sorry for previously using a mixed metaphor: You're just throwing out accusations, trying to make me defend myself when the accusations are absolutely nothing but harassment.

"I can go through and list a lot more edits of the same kind." You keep making such claims, but you've yet to back them. They appear just as valid as your saying that I hate Naveen Jain.

"you seem uninterested in constructively working with me to improve the article" You're harassing me. You expect me to work with you while you harass me!

"I'm prepared to forgive your negative editing history" More accusations. Sorry. No. Your accusations are baseless. They are personal attacks and harassment. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Done here then? To summarize: Jimbo feels it's "natural" to attack other editors, harass them, and to disrupt editing based upon accusations which he is unable to support. He apparently feels that repeating attacks over and over is evidence enough to rationalize their use. When confronted with his behavior, he "stands by" it, claims he has an "empirical record" to back him, yet is unable to provide any evidence all the while repeating his attacks.

Any problems with that summary? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I never thought I'd be disagreeing with Jimbo Wales, but here I am. I just looked through all the talk archives since I stopped editing the article about a year ago, coincidentally when Jimbo got involved. Anyway, the only behavioral problem I see here is Jimbo's assumption of bad faith on Ronz. All of Ronz's decisions to remove "positive" information about Jain are, correct or not, based on his honest interpretations of policy (particularly UNDUE, RS), and not on any ill feelings toward the man so far as I can tell. If Ronz has been short in providing his explanations, I assume it's for the same reason I stopped watching the article for a year; namely, it was tiring to deal with Jain's own employees attempting for years to whitewash the article. Anyway, of course Ronz is not always right, and no one expects you to agree with him all the time or even ever. But for shit' sake, Jim, you created Wikipedia, you know that people interpret policies differently, and you know that accusing an editor of bad faith is the worst way to kick off a collaborative discussion (to your own credit, Jimbo, I understand how strongly you feel about this, given this is a BLP). I'd like it if the two of you sat down so I could serve you some tea. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but that kind of discussion won't help as it just continues the problem. I started watching this mess some time ago and frankly I have no idea who is right and who is wrong, but I do know that editors have made all sorts of hard-to-understand commentary when all that is needed is a clear summary of any problems in the article, and suggestions for how to fix them. Of course there have been SPAs spreading cheerful news about the subject, but they are pretty easy to recognize, and there are enough of us here now to fix any remaining or future problems. So let's stick to discussing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but until the problem is resolved, it continues. Jimbo has said he stands by his remarks. He's provided no rational explanation for them, but he's continued despite multiple requests that he stop or provide very compelling evidence for the continued disruptions and policy/guideline violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've come from the ANI thread where Jimbo mentions his issues about Ronz behaviour here and I have to say I feel that from what I've seen so far the problem is with him not Ronz. He makes repeated assertions of a personal nature and fails to back these up with diffs. The few diffs he has provided do not indicate that Ronz 'hates' Naveen Jain as far as I can see, or that he has edited in a particularly tendentious manner. For instance, this diff has Ronz revert an edit that includes the claim that the company was awarded a $10M contract by NASA with the summary "rv - as with last time - undue weight, inaccurate info, promotional info, off topic". The $10M claim was not supported by any of the refs provided, the LA Times ref instead speculates that the contract could be worth upto $10M. Jimbo Wales claim that the edit was neither inaccurate or promotional is just false. There is the issue that Ronz removes good material along with the bad material (obviously it would have been better if only the offending text was removed), but Jimbo misrepresents the situation. The other diff provided shows Ronz reverting after a series of biased COI edits, that removed well sourced text, to an earlier version before these edits (see COI noticeboard thread). You'll see admins EdJohnston (eg) and Someguy1221 (eg) making very similar (or the same) edits after more COI edit warring. While Ronz could have made better edits I don't see evidence of what Wales claims, rather Jimbo Wales has misrepresented the situation in the diffs he provided. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point. Read this thread from the NPOV heading to see an example of the problem, namely, an inability to respond to valid discussion. If a user were to systematically make bad edits and be unable to discuss them, they would have been blocked long ago. The problem is not concerned with any particular edit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the point. We're discussing invalid assumptions, statements, and accusations. --Ronz (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem currently being discussed at WP:ANI is that you are unable or unwilling to explain your point (and this is not the correct page to make a point unless it concerns the article). Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I see two other editors who have explained it quite well. Like I said, you have missed the point.

If you'd like me to explain further, I can. I've written a great deal already. Do I need to elaborate further, or are their topics that I've missed? What would you like explained? --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: I did read this Talk page from the Moon Express section down before commenting. I am concerned by Jimbo Wales behavior here, he makes very strong accusations and provides only 2 diffs to support these. It might be that his accusations are true, but not judging by the diffs he provides. In fact, he misrepresents the situation in those diffs. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"energetic demeanor and personality quirks"

We have this tagged as disputed, and we have 5 references for it. I wanted to work through this and seek for a consensus improvement.

First, the Red Herring article is now a 404 not found. Here it is at archive.org. The relevant bits seem to be this: "a fireball of energy and salesman extraordinaire". As a side note of some relevance to the history of this article: despite some odd wording in the Red Herring article, it does not show that Naveen declared himself smarter than Bill, but that with some clear amusement, he cited an article written by "Nicholas Petreley on July 17, 1995" which said that. So I think what we get out of this one is that he's "a fireball of energy and salesman extraordinaire".

Second, the Financial Express article seems to only repeat the "fireball of energy" claim and should probably not be referenced here, because it provides no independent verification of that view, nor any alternative view. It merely reports on what has been said about him in the press to that date.

Third, the Sunday Business article is apparently only available through Highbeam. But in any event This link does not resolve for me - not sure if it is a local internet problem at this moment, or a bigger issue.

Fourth, we have a Q&A with CNET news, and as far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the question. The introductory paragraph doesn't mention his personality, nor are any of the questions about his personality, nor does he answer in any way that would suggest personality quirks. But I may have missed something for the simple reason that the article is so boring I found myself zoning out while reading it, i.e. ironically it suggests to me that far from an interesting manic personality, he can be quite dull in an interview! :-)

Fifth, the Business Week link goes to the main page (essentially, it's a 404). Unlike with the Red Herring article, I can't find a functional version in Archive.org, despite it having been crawled by them 77 times.

Therefore, what I propose we do is replace our synthesis to a specific quote from the one valid source that we do have, the Red Herring article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done a more radical restructuring of the sentences in question, and will be interested to hear views on that. I started with your ideas (which were similar to mine at the time), but began to wonder why an editor (me) was scanning miscellaneous business commentary and an interview to look for choice pieces to put in the article (WP:SYNTH). Eventually I decided that the best thing was to just omit the personality comments because the sources are too light weight to show that Jain is somehow significantly different in terms of energy and quirks from many other dotcom entrepreneurs. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am perplexed by Jimbo Wales' claim that the linked to Red Herring article does not state that Naveen claims to be smarter than Bill Gates. It clearly does in the first few sentences of the article: "Bill Gates, head of the largest software company in the world, has a rival. His name is Naveen Jain, and if you ask him, he'll tell you: Naveen is smarter than Bill." I have no idea why Jimbo Wales ignores this but then quotes the very next sentence in the article. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fun to poke Jimbo, but that should be done at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I assume you are not seriously suggesting that an encyclopedic article should use the throw-away space-filling commentary on Jain to make an assertion regarding Jain's opinion of his smartness. People are entitled to make amusing commentary (and to puff themselves up a bit) without such ephemeral fluff being used in an article—see WP:DUE. Jimbo's point above is that it is not appropriate to use the commentary from that article as a basis for an encyclopedic conclusion. This page should only be used to discuss proposals for improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to poke him, the material mentioned relates to a diff he provided above in the previous section and forms part of his reasoning in this section. I was pointing out a mistake. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added a welcome at your talk, and would normally add the following comment there, but it seems appropriate to put it here because others may want to see my reasoning (BTW, the welcome is sincere—the fact that you responded calmly and clearly without any drama shows exactly the qualities that are needed when editing Wikipedia).

Here is the problem: An article talk page is intended to discuss improvements to the article, and is definitely the wrong place to point out to people how wrong they are. Of course comments about possible mistakes regarding actionable proposals are welcome, but my remark above was based on the assumption that no one wants to suggest adding material to this article to assert that Jain is smarter than Gates, or that one article says Jain is smarter than Gates, or that one article says Jain says another article says Jain is smarter than Gates. None of those formulations are appropriate in an encyclopedic article (one of them might be if the claim had been widely discussed in multiple reliable sources—see WP:DUE). A comment on this talk page should be framed in terms like "I think X should [or should not] be in the article because of Y, and I think the reasoning from Jimbo that opposes X is invalid because of Z." That is, it is fine to claim Jimbo is wrong on this page if that might help article development. In principle, what happens at article talk pages follows WP:TALK and WP:TPG, but in practice the degree of latitude varies widely depending on how contentious is the topic, and how heated are the back-and-forth exchanges. This page has a history of poking and off-topic commentary, so I was quick to complain about your message. In case you are wondering, yes, this comment also violates the talk page guidelines and I am posting it in the hope that anyone else who wants to comment here will do so while focusing on actionable proposals for the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that the talk page is the wrong place to state that a claim about a source is incorrect, particularly when that claim forms part of a chain of reasoning pertaining to content decisions as above. My tone in the above comment may not be the best, it reflects some irritation resulting from going through the previous NPOV section and other claims made there by the same contributor. As to whether description of personality should enter the article, my opinion is that a well researched synthesis of material in RS concerning Jain's personality would be appropriate, but the phrase "energetic demeanor and personality quirks" is definitely not. Specifically, the phrase "personality quirks" is weasely, could mean anything and is sometimes used to reflect poorly on a subject. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I removed the stuff about "quirks" four weeks ago. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else look at the article in the Highbeam archive? It's a nasty piece of work, though I don't have reason to question it's veracity. We should be extremely careful if and how we use it. --Ronz (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead/Family

• Reading the lead I am told that Jain is an executive and entrepreneur and I am given a list of his businesses, but I don't know what these businesses do. I don't think a list of companies the reader might have no knowledge of is particularly helpful in a lead, the reader should be given some idea of what his companies do in general. 92.2.79.209

  This is an article about Jain, not his businesses. We've already far too much detail on his recent businesses, which is glaringly different than what's mentioned about his early career. Basically, the early career information is presented fairly well, but has been reduced to minimal information, while his current work has been padded with details only indirectly related to Jain, if at all. This is called coatracking. It an ongoing problem with this article. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Could you clarify for me. I'm suggesting the inclusion of a general statement describing what category his work as an executive and entrepreneur fits into. Are you opposed to this or are you commenting on the list of companies appearing in the lead? Thanks. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. Good idea! How about proposing a something? He's gotten pretty diverse, so I can't think of any succinct summary, which is what I'd hope for - a few additional words only.

  The lede needs context, and this would be a great way to start getting some context in. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  I would simply describe him as a tech or technology entrepreneur (similar to this article) and say that he has founded several tech companies. Also, is there any reason why the largest section of the article, the court cases related to him, receives no mention in the lead? 92.2.79.209 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Technology entrepreneur" might work. His family foundation uses "information technology entrepreneur", but I think "technology entrepreneur" is better encompassing. Let's see what others think.

  The lede, like other sections of the article, is minimal. I see it as a compromise to keep disputes and disruptions at bay. What would we mention in the lede? The $247 million ruling is probably the most notable bit of information. Without a source that demonstrates it's importance in a historical context (eg a biography of Jain, a history of insider-trading law and rulings, etc), I think we need to be very cautious. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, I wouldn't say anything specific about the court cases in the lead, just state that he has been involved in several related to his companies as both defendant and plaintiff. On the description of his activities, I think technology entrepreneur is sufficiently broad. Jain has also described himself as a high-tech entrepreneur on his Forbes blog. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• In the family section the sentence "Within one year, the society went global" appears. I don't think this is a particularly encyclopaedic turn of phrase (global could mean there are some international members, or, as implied here, a massive international expansion in membership). On a wider note, is it normal to have extensive biographical detail about family members in an individual's biography? 92.2.79.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

  This is also a WP:COAT problem, as well as a violation of WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTSOAP), which is an ongoing problem.

  So, no, extensive detail about family members is not normal nor justified here in the current level of detail. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  It does look very much to me like an attempt at biography by proxy, particularly the material on his son. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable rulings

• I don't think this is a particularly good heading for the section, it is somewhat vague (what sort of rulings does it refer to?) and is not particularly reflective of the section content. Something like "Legal controversies" or maybe "Court cases" would be more informative.
• The sentence "Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the judge ruled, Jain had violated six month short swing stock trading rules" does not read particularly well. I suggest it be changed to "The judge ruled that Jain had violated six month short swing stock trading rules under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934".
• The sentence, "Attorneys representing InfoSpace shareholders agreed to settle the case, fearing the weight of the SEC brief could result in a complete reversal of their ruling during the appeal process", is obviously not NPOV. None of the supporting refs ascribe fear to the attorneys or shareholders (the first ref notes that the SEC brief was cited as a reason for settling). The phrase "complete reversal" is obvious POV OR. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good suggestions all. The cases are all related to his work at InfoSpace, with some being about how he started Intelius while at InfoSpace. That context would help, but I'm not sure it could be fit into the heading. A simple heading change as you're suggesting should work.

There's a short article on the short swing rule that we can link. Maybe just simply say he violated insider trading laws.

As for the settlement, we have only verified a very small part of the story. The SEC's brief did put pressure on InfoSpace to settle (see ref 42 - ^ Heath, David (March 6–8, 2005)). Unfortunately, the details on the changes to the settlement are unknown to us at this point - we have multiple sources showing that the dollar amount was changed over the years during all the appeals, but we have no idea why. I hope that someone will find sources that can shed light on what happened. (There are legal docs available online like this that might help). --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you point to some examples of the settlement changing? From what I can find, the 04/05 settlement agreement makes the Jains liable for a minimum of $93 million under 1(a)(1) and 1(b)(4)(i). I then see a figure of $105 million cited as the final 2009 settlement by the Jains in a few places (eg), where presumably the extra $12 million comes from the portion of the settlement under paragraph 1(b) in which it is expressly stated that this portion has a value in excess of $25 million. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The reported settlement amount changed, and this has caused confusion here in the past. The combined settlement in 2004 was for "approximately $83 million", but it's a combined settlement that included what appear to be all legal proceedings between Jain and InfoSpace. Later references give the $105 that you cite. As I pointed out, the references lack detail, and we've not gone through the legal documents for the specifics. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, it's not at all obvious how the $83.2 million cash payment reported by InfoSpace in their quarterly report tallies with the $114.4 million they are supposed to receive in cash under the settlement agreement. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I have the $83 million figure worked out. The full settlement agreement can be found here. In paragraph 7 InfoSpace agrees to pay Dreiling's counsel fees of $31 million for both the State Derivative Suit and the Section 16(b) Suit plus other much smaller costs. This means that in cash InfoSpace should have received around $114.4 million - $31 million = $83.4 million as a result of the settlement. 92.2.79.209 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The material on his daughter is just copied and pasted from [39] and needs changing.

Source: "Daughter Priyanka, 17, is the founder and president of iCAREweCARE.org, a social network that connects philanthropically minded high school and college students with local opportunities to give. The United Nations Foundation named her a 'Teen Role Model' and 'Teen Advisor'."

Wiki: "His daughter, Priyanka, is the founder and president of iCAREweCARE.org, a social network that connects philanthropically minded high school and college students with local opportunities to give. The United Nations Foundation named her a 'Teen Role Model' and 'Teen Advisor'."

92.2.79.209 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's an ongoing problem as well. Plus the magazine article was written by a public relations consultant. --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)