Talk:Naveen Jain

External links revisited

I think we should discuss each of the external links separately. Muhandes just removed them all, based on a perplexing reading of the brief and inconclusive ELN discussion, and I just put them all back. Part of my reasoning is that Ronz was clearly inappropriately forum shopping by posting there instead of discussing here.

Let's discuss each of the three in turn.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I came back to this only because I seem to be the one who started it, so I thought I should further explain my reasoning. Looking at what Cardamon posted above, it appears we don't all have the same concept of External links. If we can't agree on the concept, I can't see agreement forthcoming on the instance. Perhaps this is one of those things which unintentionally seems to vary a bit by subject area in Wikipedia. In my experience, EL has morphed from being "general references substituting for in-line citations" to being used as an 'online Further reading' section. It's not 'lower' than inline citations, but 'broader and more extensive coverage'. Hence the 'official' websites (extensive information, but all within the person's control and editing abilities) as well as other extensive or in-depth sources. The point (imo) is NOT for Wikipedia to be a dead-end source of information, "if it's not here, it doesn't exist", and to only reference specific facts, but to point our readers (particularly students, who often need some helpful pointing), to additional sources of information. That's a major advantage of an online vs. hardcopy encyclopedia, so what's the point of 'minimizing' this as an end in itself? (Reminds me of Mozart being told he used "too many notes". One uses as many as are necessary.) imo the EL guidelines don't trump Wikipedia's mission and goal, which is to provide information to all. The point of the Bloomberg link was to provide a reliable third-party source which provides ongoing, in-depth updates for whatever Jain does in the business world, just as a NYT topic does for news about him. If he gets a new Board appointment, Bloomberg will have it. That's what they do. I haven't worked on enough businesspeople articles to have come with a set of reliable, useful, extensive sources, so perhaps better links (as opposed to no links) are available. For examples in other fields, see Template:CongLinks, Template:JudgeLinks, Template:UK MP links, Template:UK Peer links. Examples for each: Jim Clyburn, Elena Kagan, David Cameron, Delyth Morgan. Are those a lot of links? Sure. We had a Wikipedian who used that as an 'reason' to delete the link to the voting record (only provided by WashPo) of one of the Congressmen. All s/he wanted the readers to know was how that person voted on three issues. Is that the point of Wikipedia? Con people into relying on us, then remove almost all links other than some cherry-picked individual articles to cite some cherry-picked factoids? I don't think so, and imo EL provides a deterrent and some checks and balances to that as well as providing what we've found to be some of the best sources. (nb: the EL guidelines mention linking to Dmoz or anything similar. That's no longer a feasible option.) That's not to pick on this article. I don't know the guy, and I'm not particularly interested in knowing any more about him. But perhaps someday I will, and I'd rather be able to go to Wikipedia than have to wade through search engine results to try to find "the rest of the story" which isn't (and never will be) in any Wikipedia article. "Trust, but verify." Citations only verify what's been included, not what's been excluded. Are we forgetting that? Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Naveen Jain Google profile

• Remove - I could go either way on this one. Quite possibly we should instead have a link to an official site, rather than a google profile.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - Does not provide any unique content which is not available from the official website. --Muhandes (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't care. I expect it's helpful for some readers to have this information in a consistent format, rather than to try to find this information on anyone's official site, but it's no big deal. It may eventually turn out like IMDb, referenced everywhere, but it's not at that point yet. LinkedIn was supposed to be something similar. I'd prefer a (not yet in existence) third-party source not controlled by the person. Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Material is not sufficiently useful to a reader to provide extra information from what should be in article, and such profiles should not be regarded as a "right" for a BLP. Having said that, the ongoing attention to the links in this article is not helpful, and this matter should be wrapped up quickly (either keep or remove would be fine for each of the links, but insisting on remove is not productive). Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - I don't like Google profiles as external links (personal preference). Everything of significance in a profile like this (if it is verifiable) should be included in the article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog at Huffington Post

• Strong keep - This is his own blog and should clearly be included.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep He has three blogs, all of which are linked from his official website, under 'Articles' or something like that. Unclear, and of course his own website can change at any time. These are third-party hosted blogs, so I'd list all three. Sometimes people like to 'remove the evidence' from their own sites if they're later proved wrong. (Some people are in Project Syndicate, so only one link is necessary. He isn't one of those people.) Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This article warrants the link as the blogs are substantive and indicate the subject's position. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove he has three blogs, all of which are linked from his own website. If he had ten blogs would we list them all? That's what his own website is for - to link to his musings. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - If he had ten blogs we might not list them all, I agree - but we should look at each according to its own merits. Jain's website is certainly a good sarting point for finding links to whatever blogs he has. But this one is the Huffington Post, which is a significant publication and makes this particular blog a little different in my opinion. One of the reasons to include a list of external links is to provide reference to additional information/research about the subject that is on topic, and this is useful to that end. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Profile at Bloomberg Businessweek

• Weak Keep - contains significant information not easily incorporated into this article, including board relationships, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - see above. Flatterworld (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral I would tend towards keep as it contains some business info that is too detailed for the article, but it could be argued that the material at the link is not significant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove I see no substantial information that couldn't be incorporated into the article, has it been a featured article (WP:ELNO #1). I would suggest using it as a source for a fact, thus providing some link to interested parties. --Muhandes (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Jimbo on this one. I would expect the information in the profile to be updated as his status on boards, etc changes. In some way, this would be like a sportsperson's profile, where statistics change. That's a useful external link, because not all these changes may be significant enough for a change in the article, but may be of interest to readers who want more detailed and specific information (i.e. further research), which is exactly what external links are supposed to provide. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Moon Express

I think it is at least important to mention in Jain's entry that Moon Express is competing in the Google Lunar X Prize. Thoughts? Jheditorials (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's competing with Google in the X Prize has nothing to do with Jain that I'm aware. It's not even in the lede of Moon Express, so I'm confused as to why it deserves any mention here. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not competing with Google. It's in a competition that Google is sponsoring to be the first company to the moon. It is in the lead paragraph of the Moon Express entry and has a separate section in the article about the competition. To me, it seems just as important to be included in the brief company section as the contract from NASA. Jheditorials (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I misread your comment.

This article is about Jain. What does this have to do with Jain? --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It provides additional, brief information about a company that Jain co-founded. I think that's a valid reason to include it in the entry. How is including this information different than including the information about the NASA contract? Jheditorials (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much significant coverage of Jain himself in the context of Moon Express - nothing remotely close to that of Infospace, and less than Intelius. A single sentence should suffice about the company, including a link to Moon Express. Otherwise we get into WP:COAT, WP:SOAP, and WP:UNDUE territory, problems that have plagued this article since it's creation. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Encylopedic style

Some recent edits have introduced text that is not compatible with an encyclopedic article. No doubt it is true that "Jain has been awarded many honors for his entrepreneurial successes and leadership skills", but that text reads like an extract from a public relations blurb. Encyclopedic articles need to stick to the due facts, not add editorial gloss. There are too many arbitrary quotations ("I knew the power the Web could put in the hands of everyday people...") that appear as if cherry picked by a publicist. The text "energetic demeanor and personality quirks" is a little older, but even more inappropriate.

Can nothing clear be said in the new "application of technology to cure global disease" section? The current text seems naively expressed (as if the subject were about to combat all "regional diseases"). In an encyclopedic article, a person may be a philanthropist, but very rarely are they a "committed philanthropist who gives to local and global charities" (what is "committed" other than market speak, and why attempt to explain what a philanthropist does?). Again, the quote about "Naveen's kids" would be great on some personal website, but is not appropriate here. The subject has done many good things, and it would be better to plainly describe them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be quotes from an article on the subject. Perhaps they should be paraphrased? A little odd that the editor doing the reversion isn't the editor leading this discussion, no?LinkBender (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have readded some of the awards with additional citations. Jheditorials (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, they are nothing but public relations blurbs, apparently copied from Jain's own websites. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as demeanor and personality quirks, we've 5 references and there are many more we could add. We've worked on it a few times, and mostly just settled with the references. Would it be better to give the common examples instead, such as referring to himself in third person during interviews, claiming that InfoSpace would one day be a trillion dollar company, etc. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

"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)