Talk:Rajat Gupta

Pshaw!

Eleven years for Raj. ... I was surprised by the term lengths possible; ... but excluding them from the intro? Yo'r choice ... for now, I guess. Swliv (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

a few reasons behind it: didn't want to WP:COATRACK Raj Rajaratnam, and also didn't trust the numbers -- I've seen figures as high as 105 years thrown around (say, if all the charges ran consecutively). Of course this will all evolve once the trial begins. Hope all is well! My2011 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Eliminate some duplication?

Specifically, List of professional affiliations. "Tuberculosis" is for instance listed three times in article I see. I'd say the Summary could go too, but I'd be happy to see just the List go for now. I put the "out of date" tag on the List long ago and I hate to think how poor it is now in terms of date-ness. Only caution: Make sure citations aren't orphaned in removal. I'd take the job on with a little support here, though I can't guarantee I'd cross-check every item. Maybe someone else will take it on.

Maybe a way to that 'B' assessment, eh? Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, I don't think the list should be removed, because its a great snapshot to see the range of things he's done. Where things are outdated I've put "former." In general things should be mentioned twice -- once in paragraph form and once in list form -- if we are in fact going to describe his career in this hybrid list+para way. My2011 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree quite completely. And you may have noticed my "three times" above. I'd forgotten how much had already been said on this subject in the earlier, above section. Consider my current effort "on a fresh palate". I haven't brought myself to reread the above section. I do think the article's much improved since the earlier days. But, since those days, I've also absorbed the general resistance in Wikipedia for lists within articles. I can't find anything, for example, in this style-manual article to support your "should be mentioned twice". Do you have anything to back it?

And any idea what's up with the section title? It has no bold, here. Well, cheers, onwego. Swliv (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if you add more ==s the section title becomes bold. Hmm... so should I try eliminating some of the paragraphs and just keeping the list? I think the list is essential, since he's done so much. My2011 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've never known a section-headline to come out non-bold; going up to three "="s from two does make it bold but also smaller than the rest; weird.

I hadn't tried to anticipate your preference -- list v. text -- but had tried to lean the above toward mine, which is text rather than list. Given your preference I can't see an easy solution and am willing to back down (again; for another stretch of time; let's say); leave it as is for now. If you'd like to take out third mentions it would be an improvement; I may too. Meanwhile, thanks for re-engaging. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'll think about it. Maybe we should merge the list with the "post-McKinsey" section in career. Will try out a change if I have time and report back here. :) My2011 (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another ... thought

Back to do some updates, I was now particularly struck by the excessive three-paragraph introduction to the article. The first paragraph is fully adequate to introduce the article. I would have moved the two other paragraphs to the Summary sub-section which introduces the Career section except there was so much duplication evident there it would looked even sillier.

One rationale for having a concise introduction is so the Contents box appears at least partly in the "first view" of the page. Then a reader can begin right away to get a real sense of the ... (hey!) contents of the article.

Did you, My2011, look at the Wiki policy I cited above on lists, by the way? Lists are clearly not favored.

On. (And someday maybe I'll tackle the duplication; like just eliminate those two extra intro paragraphs. How about that?) Seem to have regular bold back. That's nice. Swliv (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't had time to look at duplication at all -- so I leave it in your capable hands. Suggest we spin out the list of affiliations into a separate wikipedia article, but the idea of "List of Rajat Gupta's professional affiliations" sounds silly.... How else do we get an overview of what he's done? Doesn't feel like there's a good/easy solution here. My[2011] (talk) | 21:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Entry getting away from Wiki Guidelines

This entry is reading like a news report and a resume, which is what Wikipedia is not (see:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not). If the trial is of noteworthiness then we should build an entry for that, otherwise this entry should be trimmed down to Career, Philanthropy and Controversy. Some other notable figures with similar controversies are Raj Rajaratnam, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky. I will make some appropriate edits. Monstermike99 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monstermike99! Welcome to the page -- glad to have you with us. I reverted your three edits because I disagreed with them: 1) the career table makes sense as a summary, 2) the "mentor" line is not subjective at all, and is described verbatim in the source, and 3) it's often hard to remove entire sections without some justification. I think in this case, because it isn't defamatory material or something that violates BLP guidelines, the correct policy is to leave it up and hash it out here in the talk page. Please let me know if I'm wrong.

The second point is that this page needs a lot of work. It's very long and we should figure out what to do with some of the stuff like redundant lists (see above). Roping in User:Swliv here, since he's also interested in this page (as you can see from the talk page history). We had both been watching this page over a while, and I think it's time to tackle this more fully. Areas to tackle are:

• Redundancy (career lists, spinning off separate lists into articles)
• Shortening
• Less "news-y"
• what else?

The final point is that this subject is about to be in a criminal trial, and there will be a bunch of edits. Does it make sense for the dust to settle or hammer it out now?

Look forward to working with you! My[2011] (talk) | 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi My[2011] and Swliv, glad to be working with you both. An impending trial is a great time to clean this up before hand. Though the BLP Guidelines are mainly in place to prevent slander and false claims it does not protect filling a Wiki Entry with every source out there (hence the removal of the mentor example, just because it's quoted somewhere does not make it Wiki worthy).

I agree with your areas to tackle so let's do that in the following format:

• Career Section - minus the Career summary which is redundant. I also object to a career progression chart because it violates what Wiki is Not Guidlines WP:NOT. I do believe his accomplishments are noteworthy but we need to summarize. So we can do a rags to riches story but it should be where he started and where he ended up. Again, please look at the following entries that had similiar controversies like Raj Rajaratnam, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky.
• Philanthrophy Section - a lot of what you have cited in Career fall into this category but needs to be better sourced as most are just referencing the Wiki entry of the group or organization Gupta belongs too. The List of professional affiliations is far too long.
• Controversy - This section would include a summary of these cases, minus the sub-headers and like I mentioned if these cases are noteworthy of a page I will help in building a seperate entry
• Personal Life - this can stay also

The way to trim this down is to use this format. His pending trial should not be a line by line update on every day in court, just as the court cases that pertain to him and those cases that he wasn't on trial, like US vs Rajaratnam, should be a one liner at most in this entry. If we are all in agreement I will set the 4 section headers and we can move around existing content and then work on triming them, not because they are poorly sourced, but because Wikipedia is for the casual reader, too much intricacies of any subject loses the reader. We need to make this so the everyday person walks away saying now they understand the subject we are writing on. Monstermike99 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monster and My,

Thanks, My, for the reach out. And welcome! Monster. I appreciate your good new energy here.

There's been a seesaw between testimonials and "the case" in the building of this article. I've commented, gently I hope, on the resultant duplication above. But I haven't seen a way to reconcile the two camps. Monster, you're the first to come in with the true inclination to cut, trim and shape. And your timing and spirit seem good. But the divisions are deep and "baked in" and you risk cutting "muscle" along with duplication if you proceed as you did on your first round (as I think you've already conceded; but I have to make the point). Unlike My, I wasn't ready to challenge you because I knew how vulnerable the article was to "attack/Wikification/whatever". My likes the lists while I and maybe you, Monster, incline against them. On trial detail, maybe My is with me; or I'm alone on that one. It's tangled, for sure. Getting away from guidelines? Prob. so to some degree, but hard to solve.

My's comment above to the effect "Maybe we don't have to/want to address [it] now" ("let the dust settle") has come back to me a couple of times as I've wrestled this around and around today here. In other words, history will sift this out; meanwhile, we have to build the basics of the historical record. Fine tune but not rebuild right now. On the other hand, your "get it ready for the trial", Monster, also rang attractively and strongly to me when I first read and considered it.

Martha Stewart is the one that most comes to my mind as the relevant precedent. Boesky's good to be reminded of, here, but does seem like ancient history now. Wow. But RGupta has so much that is central to our day (building on all the precedents): the financial markets; the global economy; Goldman; P&G, too! And a tough, proven, involved judge; who's just as or more liable to challenge the prosecution as the defense. In other words, all the players are pretty central, capable, prepared. I think it has the potential to be the first real public airing of part of the mess in the world financial system since 2008. It could fizzle but that too would be a big story. It's no problem, to me, that it's taken several years already to get to such a case. It took time in the Depression: Then it was (maybe) Charles E. Mitchell and Ferdinand Pecora in 1933, four years after the "crash". (Pecora was the "the fourth and final chief counsel for the investigation" I've just learned from Wiki; for me, here, that's just another signal how these things develop slowly, complicatedly, and unpredictably.) (And we are in an election season, now, of course. Sweeping it away ....) Well, to conclude these thoughts: If premature deletion/"forgetting" happens in a more or less central case like RGupta's, then we impede the slow, tough, incremental overall process of examination, learning and accountability and then we really get in trouble (as a world; as an encyclopedia).

I think we're a big step beyond "news-y" in this article; at least in some substantial parts. Yes, there are news bits added one on the next, particularly re: the trial prep. But I think the bits are in context, integrated, at least (most of, I hope) the ones I've worked on; I feel so. I hope we won't get overly righteous on that front here, in a developing story. Like that Wiki template on "this person just died; events may change quickly": A trial is slower, but "developing" all the same, no? If we don't gather the pieces now, as we go, when will we?

The Rajaratnam connection is so central to the Gupta trial. And I don't think it's well covered in the Rajaratnam article. So it has to be here until it has somewhere else to go, I'd say.

A separate trial article is OK if you really want it. But I think it fits fine here. RGupta had a big career; and he made allegedly a big mistake(s). With some trimming of duplication, I think there's room for the story of both in one article about him.

On a smaller scale: I agree with My's "mentor" inclusion quite strongly. My has worked hard to bolster and integrate McKinsey into this article and vice versa. It's not been easy and, again, it's central to RGupta's bio. This bit on My's talk page I've just stumbled on. It's a bit scary because I knew nothing about any of it before now and still don't know much (yet). But it seems nonetheless to buttress my support of My on this one.

And, on a small scale, Monster, I did some indent editing on your entry above. For clarity, hopefully helpful.

My two cents, to start. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Great input. First step is I will implement the new section headers, without removing any content. You bring up a good example of Martha Stewart. Just look at her entry and you will see how far out of the Wiki Guidelines this has gone. This is not a resume or a paper for Law School, this is Wikipedia and the rules are clearly defined. So even with the upcoming trial this again is not a "news" site that should be updated with the daily headlines, that clearly warrants another entry. For this entry it will be post-scripted on the verdict. You guys put quality work into this and I don't want to take away from Gupta's career accomplishments, goodwill or the impending charges but Wiki is a summary, not a redundancy or bibliography of litigious charges without conviction. The US vs Rajaratnam section is way too much for this entry. I will insist and enlist more editors to trim this down. Again, this is a not a place to make a case for an upcoming trial, nor is it a Law School paper. Let's get started. You can also always reach out to me on My talk board too. It's great to meet you both and look forward to working with you on this. Monstermike99 (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome job, guys. I propose this -- can we spin off a duplicate page on someone's wiki sandbox, and then all work on it there? This is like "Project RGupta 2.0." That way we can all make changes without worrying about the existing 1.x change stream by others. My[2011] (talk) | 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To Monster: OK on another entry for the trial; as at MStewart I guess; since you're insistent; if you're willing to do it; I think most of the Rajaratnam has a place there, then. The term "encyclopedic" did come to mind to rebut your "summary". "Enlist more editors" makes me think of reputation.com. The "Law School paper" ref's I can't comment on directly -- no direct "Law" in me or my work -- but I stick by hoping that the content is not lost. I'm not "mak[ing] a case"; I'm tracking what seem to be the significant elements in a case which has been in preparation and will continue to unfold with RGupta as the central figure; he's the one on trial here. Finally, you cite one negative Wiki policy ("what it's not") and BLP; that's not much for policy backing; yes there are norms; I'm not revoking what I've conceded above here today but your air of authority on Wiki policy seems a bit high-handed, overall, I have to say. We shall see.

To My: I thought about the sandbox idea but am not sure I'll be participating. If you do it, maybe put a link to it here at least: I and others could "find you" if we want to join up. Awesome? We'll see. I'm expecting (without expectations, if that makes sense) you to have more appetite for the work on this one. Good luck.

Thanks to you both. Swliv (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some's clearly been done. More specifics below. I did a largely routine visit today, except for making the Controversy head more connected to the introduction and to the current event; will of course drop "prospective" when trial launches. Swliv (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropic activities

I don't want to diminish his vast contributions but the affiliations list is excessive. Should we reduce it to just current because I see a lot of "former" in the list? It's a tough call because obviously the Gates Foundation is notable and probably should stay. Thoughts? Monstermike99 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a "highlights" but choices are hard and there was push for them all. The "former"s are often "since the controversy". The "out of date" is also a necessary but unfortunate part of the section. I came to be comfortable with the section as is as I went back in today. The list could simply be converted to a few paragraphs of mostly names; with the formers all grouped for example. Would condense a little but would look almost as weird. Again, maybe leave it until someone's willing to do the real "writing" job. Is there a template to put on the section to encourage that/discourage the list? I think maybe. Swliv (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Friendsofrajat.com

This seems very self serving and promotional. I suggest we either remove it or make it a line in the controversy section since it has to do with his trial(s). Monstermike99 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For me it was a sign of another level of activity around the trial. I think you've already moved it to Controv. section. I can certainly live with that. I'd be less inclined to remove it. Swliv (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 with Swliv. And wasn't there a movie reference too? Yes these sorts of things are self-serving -- we should be vigilant about cutting down anything that looks like WP:PEACOCK or WP:COATRACK -- but they are indeed a relevant and notable sign of Gupta-related activity. My[2011] (talk) | 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There certainly was a movie reference. Nothing automatically self-serving about a movie. It certainly ought still to be in the article, IMHO. Mike? Swliv (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentors

I left it in for now but since neither figure is notable (no Wiki entry) I think they are irrelevant to the reader. Kind of like me pointing out my heroes as kid, nobody cares. Monstermike99 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

sorry guys, I've been away this week. Not sure which section you're talking about. I remember reading somewhere a reference to Ron Daniel as mentor. He has a wiki page, I think it's Ron Daniel (businessman). He also mentored Anil Kumar. My[2011] (talk) | 00:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's been a ton of work done on this page, I feel like I'm behind -- but great job! what should I be doing to catch up, or what sections should I be working on? My[2011] (talk) | 00:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, check out the new entry I made for the case, it needs work and trimming but goes more to what got away from the entry here in terms of summarization. And I linked Ron Daniel so I'm OK with my Mentors objection now. Thank you for that.--Monstermike99 (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy Update

Hey all, so I created an entry, actually found the idea for the Wiki Entry name from this articel (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2776), which pretty much talks about what we discussed. I based the size of the Controvesy, in terms of paragraphs off of Galleon Group and McKinsey & Company, even Raj Rajaratnam. The new entry Insider Trading 2011 needs some work in terms of prose and probably should be trimmed down as more recent news made some conrtibutions obsolete. In terms of the Gupta case we might want to hold off on more edits with the trial upcoming, as you pointed out, but also because Wiki, again is not a news source so possibly framing another entry like SEC v. Rajaratnam is in order pending the outcome. --Monstermike99 (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope we aren't deleting stuff

Are we deleting stuff? I hope not. We're moving a lot of it to the new Insider Trading 2011 page, right? Would hate to be undoing someone else's hard work. So as Mike is taking huge chunks out, I think I'll sit out and save up energy for next week's trial.

What else should I be helping with? My[2011] (talk) | 01:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder Wiki is not a newspaper, Wiki is not for daily updates on any trial, we can update after it's over. What we need help in is trimming down Insider Trading 2011. Much of that needs to be condensed or deleted. Also I am moving Insider Trading 2011 back to the bottom since it doesn't make sense to a reader who doesn't know the subject to have that as the intro, logically it would come after they read the controversy to get more info --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to "main" because that's what we mean. It should be at the top to emphasize "there's more here." My[2011] (talk) | 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On the original concern of this section: "yes, we are deleting", per movie above at least. "Mike?", I ask again.

Career highlights

Found this on friendsofrajat.com. Should I merge with the lists we have?

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (DELHI) - B. Tech; Class of ‘71

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL - MBA; CLASS OF ‘73

McKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. - Member of the Firm 1973 to 2007 - Managing Director 1994 to 2003

HUMANITARIAN CONTRIBUTIONS

1. EDUCATION

INDIAN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS - Founding Chairman for 12+ years

PRATHAM (India) - Reading, Writing, & Math skills of 3-12 year olds - Board Member from inception

INDIAN INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT) - Founding Chairman, Pan – IIT Alumni Association

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL - Board of Dean’s Advisors for 10+ years - Chairman of the Board for 3 years

HARVARD UNIVERSITY - Member of Finance Task Force; set up by then President Larry Summers

SKOLKOVO (Business School in Russia) - Board Member for 5+ years; Dmitri Medvedev, Chairman

TSINGHU UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL (Beijing, China) - Board Member for 5+ years; Zhu Rongji Chairman

KELLOGG (NORTHWESTERN), LAUDER (WHARTON), AND SLOAN SCHOOL (MIT) - Board Member at all for 5+ years

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - Trustee; Advisor to President Sonensheim

2. GLOBAL HEALTH

GLOBAL FUND FOR AIDS, MALARIA, & TUBERCOLOSIS - Founding Board Member - Chairman of the Board for 3 years

PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF INDIA - Founding Chairman for 5+ years

OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTIONS - Global Health Council; Board Member - Global Business Council (for Health); Board member - Emergency Management research Institute (EMRI); Founding Board Member - Health Management Research Institute (HMRI); Founding Board Member - Harvard School of Public Health; Board Member for 10+ years

3. GLOBAL BUSINESS

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - Chairman; 2010/2011 - Vice Chairman; 2008, 2009, & 2010

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM - Foundation Board Member for 10+ years - Member of WEF US Board since inception

US-INDIA BUSINESS COUNCIL - Board Member/ Executive Committee Member for approx. 10 years - Chairman for 3 years

4. OTHER INSTITUTIONS

GATES FOUNDATION - Strategic Advisor for 10+ years - Chairman of Advisory Council on Global Development

ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION - Board Member for 3+ years

UNITED NATIONS - Advisor to Kofi Anan on UN reform

AMERICA INDIA FOUNDATION - Founding Co- Chairman for 10 years

MILLENIUM PROMISE - Transform African villages to meet millennium development goals - Board Member

ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA - Council Member

CORPORATE BOARDS:

- Goldman Sachs - American Airlines - Harman International - Genpact - Sberbank (Russia)

thx, My[2011] (talk) | 01:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That reads like a resume, plus the site seems to be something the subject created for himself. Though I believe it is all true the source is the subject which makes it self-serving and questionable.--Monstermike99 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically agreeing with Mike, I'd say to use friends.com as citation for nothing (too partisan). If their list illuminates a gap, though, I'd certainly find a good independent source, then add it in, with both cites if you'd like maybe. I'd also say if you could add something about the friends site (even including its, say, having a stellar biography), either from the site itself or particularly from third parties, that'd be good, done right. Mike is more skeptical of the site than I but I am wary. Free advice, right? Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, agree that friends.com is out as a source. I'll go ahead and integrate these lists, with asterisks where need be. My[2011] (talk) | 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite believe you're still sticking a (re-jiggered) list like that into the body of the article ... except that I know on that I've always fought a losing battle. So far. Sorry, hafta say it. Swliv (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much elimination?

As a counterweight to my "Eliminate some duplication?" section (above, per link) and I think in line with my more recent comments on this page, I have to say we now have duplication-removal and other major shifts in the article, all fast and relatively undiscussed, in spades. And we have them at a time of presumably heightened attention to the page, with the trial. Having reviewed quickly the above series of recent comments, the recent revision history of the page and a few of the edits, I have a few concerns. I hope I haven't missed things in my relative haste.

• I'm not sold on the name for the new, controversy-only article, and have started expressing my thoughts there.

• I want to clarify that I mentioned Martha Stewart above not primarily as an example of a Wiki article to be emulated one way or another, though my mention left itself open to such an interpretation. I was referring, rather, to MStewart's insider trading case, as I recall it in history, as being a historical precedent to the RGupta case. A mention of MMilken's Wiki article also makes me want to caution against too-heavy reliance on other Wiki articles as optimal expressions of either (a) Wiki policy or (b) what's best for RGupta, policy or anything else notwithstanding. An argument needs merits of its own, too.

• I have sensed in some of Mike's comments (like the removal from the "info box" citing MMilken) the feeling that if there is a "not guilty" in the trial, all the charges and arrest and lead-up to the trial would become basically irrelevant to RGupta's story. Whether I'm right re: my sense of Mike or not, I'd still warn against that feeling. The tapes exist. They will not be "disproven". They and the rest may not be deemed "proof of a crime" but they are and will be part of history and this individual's part in history. The "not guilty" verdict, should it come, of course becomes then the court's conclusion to that segment of the individual's life, and part of history. But wipe the events out of his/r biography? Not in my world. I've now gotten myself back into the reputation.com area of my concern (see above and here). We shall see.

In conclusion, I don't feel the article has necessarily been overly trimmed/re-directed but I am concerned by the rapidity and some of the emphases of the changes. I trust the overall article and its now-accompanying Insider Trading 2011 will be well-considered as we go forward. Best, all. Swliv (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Swliv, I completely agree with you. I'm sitting out a lot of these changes because too much is happening too quickly, and I want to respect Mike's willingness to improve the article. But 1) the Insider Trading 2011 name should definitely be changed, 2) Too much about insider trading has been taken out and 3) We have to be careful to balance the positives and negatives, and be careful to undue weight. My[2011] (talk) | 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I chose that header for the article was that aside from Rajaratnam's trial there was even more insider trading and convictions that really stemmed from Rajaratnam's case. Regarding charges versus convictions, I'm not presuming anything. I'm simply saying, if say Charlie Sheen had charges in his info box it would be a mile long, so why not just wait for the verdict. I stand by that Wiki is not a news source. I've seen articles about the upcoming trial so is the intent to update every day of court? It's not what Wiki is for. Also the Affiliation list reads like a resume in it's bulleted format, I know it's important and notable but not in that metrical style. So I think we have a great opportunity to tell the story from start to finish in the Insider Trading 2011 and I'm open to other titles for the entry. --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to CSheen is a joke, right? I like 2 1/2 well enough and feel for all the Sheens/Estevezes et c.; and they continue to contribute to our understanding of how celebrity culture works as well as to our artistic/cultural life; but that's rather a different realm than P&G and Goldman boardrooms, don't you think? Just showing my biases in that? Possibly. I was aware of no charges against CSheen but I can imagine there are some, even many. If someone chose to document them conscientiously I wouldn't presume to rule that "out of bounds". But Sheen v. Gupta? Well, to each their own.

From another direction, your willingness to presume to say "what Wiki is for" continues to grate. This is an important case and the pre-trial negotiations tell much of how our legal system and society treat such behavior particularly given the centrality of the judge, Rakoff, to a wide range of financial-misdeed-accusation trials/settlements. That a blogger can even imagine that RGupta's defense may say "everybody was doing it" -- I trusted it was more than just imagining -- may end being the best encapsulation of the whole saga. Before the trial begins/began. Well, on we plunge, eh? For the record, noone's cut out the "everybody" citation/bit yet. Thank you.

How about Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases for the new article? I don't think any other profile cases appear there. Name-changing is called "moving" an article, in Wiki, for ref. Should be pretty easy. But let's get consensus on a change before a change, eh? Swliv (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the title, I commented on the Talk of Insider Trading 2011 for a possible addition. --Monstermike99 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Re: the title change (perhaps to Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Anil Kumar/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases instead of the non-Kumar one just above): Anyone else please comment at Talk:Insider Trading 2011#Inspiration; title?. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't break backlinks

A lot of related Wikipedia articles used to link to this page. Please be careful with section moves! My[2011] (talk) | 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Hopefully corrected. I have found the "What links here" link at left of article helpful on this sort of subject but don't see that it archives past links, alas, for purposes of the present issue.

I've shifted from "asterisks" (dot points) to "colons" (indents) on a number of contributions in above sections. Dot points work well within a single contribution (or list :-)) but indents, I think per Wiki custom, work well to distinguish different contributors' or different times' contributions. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation List

My[2011], you put a lot of good work into the list, we should put in prose as I always suggested and attempted before you changed it again. If we take it out before the trial the entry looses neutrality with this subjects Insider Trading section being documented a current event with the information changing rapidly as the event progresses. I will reinstate. --Monstermike99 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed you created a page, but unlike the very notable and press covered Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases, his affiliations are notable but not as a stand alone. That seems very pro-Gupta and not neutral --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See above -- User:Swliv has always hated that list -- he just said "I can't quite believe you're still sticking a (re-jiggered) list like that into the body of the article ... except that I know on that I've always fought a losing battle. So far." So I tried to put it somewhere else. Anyway, do whatever :) My[2011] (talk) | 18:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hate is a strong word, stronger I think than I have used or would use, but it's true that I don't like the list. I also, sorry, don't like it as a free-standing article, just as I don't like the free-standing (prospective) Raj Rajaratnam et al. article (now titled Insider Trading 2011). For my full opinion on the title question, please see Talk:Insider Trading 2011#Inspiration; title?. I guess, also, that my dislike of the two free-standing spin-offs comes for somewhat different reasons.

To comment on that title change either to Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Anil Kumar/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases or to the non-Kumar alternative (in red also for now, above), please go to that "Inspiration; title?" section linked to just above. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Postscript: A follow-on exchange here. Swliv (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Relationship section

Shortened and made it completely Gupta-centric. I've read many articles this weekend about Gupta's relationships as the central focus of his trial, so it should be on his wiki page. The wider stuff can go into Insider Trading 2011. Please discuss here before changing or moving. My[2011] (talk) | 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that, I will work with you. I ask the same of you, please discuss before re-inserting what we already discussed was going to be in the bigger story page. First I will ask, does it need it's own header or, as you pointed out, since it's a focal point of the Insider Trading section then it should be another paragraph or two. Something to think about. --Monstermike99 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Great -- for me there's a logical distinction between what he's accused of (the main section: the charges and history) and who he's accused of doing it with (the section in question). Sort of like the difference between data and metadata, facts and context. That's why I think a subheader is ok. We might want to add another subheader to the other half, like "charges and history" or something.

I promise to be careful before readding -- and I don't think too much needs to be readded, frankly, maybe the section about the wiretaps -- but this section was particularly important to include in a reduced and modified form.

Thx for all your work! My[2011] (talk) | 01:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Section ordering

The affiliation list feels more like an appendix to me -- can I move it to the end of the article? Thanks, My[2011] (talk) | 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that and I for one was against it in the first place but didn't want us to seem like shills for the SEC in taking that down, let me take a stab at putting it in prose for the most notable and important ones and then we can have the "glossary" of sorts at the end. OK?--Monstermike99 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already worked a bit at rewriting what you had in prose for the "post-McKinsey" section of his career biography. If I did it right, there shouldn't be anything in the affiliation list that isn't already in that section. In that case the list may already be fairly glossary-ready. :) My[2011] (talk) | 01:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: I just double checked and it looked ok? Nothing in one that wasn't in the other. So I'm going to move it near the end and retitle. Hope I'm not jumping the gun. Feel free to cmt here. My[2011] (talk) | 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The order was established so I am changing Philanthropy back to the spot after career. I am about to report this as war editing and put a lock to prevent these attacks because another anonymous editor made changes, which means this page is under attack from either a reputation.com-like outfit that represents the SEC or maybe some disgruntled ex-McKinsey people. Either way neutrality must be maintained. --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation

Just putting out for all editors, this section is in question and though I do agree the bullet format is not within Wiki guidelines, the accomplishments, career associations, etc., need to find a place in the entry itself. Help anyone? --Monstermike99 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I took a section of the list and put it into paragraph form in the Philanthropy section. Makes more sense there.Stlamanda (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Also merged part of appendix list into paragraph form in Outside McKinsey and Philanthropy sections. Tried to update status of these positions as much as possible. Let me know if anything needs fixing! Thanks, Rjp422 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merged in as much of the Educational affiliations as possible into the body of the article, and removed the rest of the appendix. This should now be more compliant with wikipedia styles I think.--Vistawhite (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to be back

For the record, the original cite covered the edit just fine. ("Corrected source that actually reflects the wiretap objections": Do I detect some sarcasm in that "actually", too?) I could scoff at three edits to do one, just before, but we all make mistakes. I do try to remember the server farms: Each edit gets stored forever. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing personal, wasn't an attack. If I mistankenly misread the original source, my apologies. Cheers. --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you had missed it on web page 6 of my source. In checking it I found my wording was a little strong for either source so I've changed the wording and restored my newer, stronger source. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read it again and the change looks good. Thanks. --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Native name"

Maybe a dumb question: Is there any use to the "রজত কুমার গুপ্ত" boxes in the lead and the infobox of the article? Swliv (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure but don't you think your new lead is redundant since there are 3 sentences that address that in the next paragraph. I mean we get it, you hate the guy, but I don't think there is a person familiar with this subject that doesn't know that happened and needs that extra lead in to finally make them aware. It's in the infobox, has a second Wiki about the trial, etc. Just search his name and everything is related to the trial. --Monstermike99 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No hatred. Just want balance. First line said nothing about most significant event of last five years of career. We don't not say what everyone knows because "everyone knows it". Now first line intros the second paragraph which in turn intros the article. Seems balanced to me. Appreciate your not just deleting it. Still open to discussion. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point. I guess if he gets the conviction overturned then this will need a major revamp. --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly something would then be needed. On the original topic of this section, I propose deleting the empty or illegibly cluttered boxes in the lead and the infobox unless there is objection/explanation. Swliv (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me know what specifically you are talking about. Obviously I'm going to object if all you want to keep is all the conviction on appeal talk and erase the rest of his life. --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm talking about right now is the language boxes. I also responded to your "if he gets the conviction overturned" with a general caution about how big a revamp might be needed. Clear? Hope so. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not clear, no hope :) Please say exactly what you are talking (give an example) about because I'm not getting what you are alluding to? --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. You made a comment about a "major revamp ... if" and I responded at 16:28 with a general caution ("something" i.e. "maybe not 'major'" i.e. further a clearance on appeal would not remove the record of the action and the conviction, just change the resolution; it'd be a major event, I'd agree, but whether it would lead to a major revamp of the article, I don't agree automatically in advance; now clear?; it's a quibble but not I don't think an irrelevancy). On the native-language name rendition, are you confused there too? Please look at the article if so, see the boxes at the head of the article and in the infobox and opine on whether you think they serve any purpose as is. I'm favoring deletion. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood but in the event he does get it overturned that gets top billing because he will be a free man and in the US Justice system that conviction is null and void and just a glorious memory of his detractors. But I haven't even read about any updates on the appeal date, etc., so not an issue for quite some time it seems. We are agreement on that. For the Native name I'm OK with deletion and in agreement with you also. 2 agreements in one day is more then we have had in 3 years so I say that is a good day my friend. --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With no reference to this discussion but saying they weren't supported by source, all native name was removed here. I can live with it though see it as a bit of a loss. Swliv (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly unrelated link, Template removed

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1017657/ re: Aswini Kumar Gupta case in 1936; from External links. If related to article subject, restoration in context encouraged. Swliv (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The template {{External links}} was placed Oct. '12 in the section. I cleaned up section a bit just now. It seems to me a valid collection of material related to the article, some I contributed. Some could be integrated into article, maybe even removed. Meanwhile, I removed the open-ended no-discussion Template. Discussion open. Swliv (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rajat Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://omnivc.com/Team2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). [Done. Swliv (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)]

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The word philanthropist could be changed to criminal very easily - add some accuracy. I doubt that his one conviction is his only crime - how many stockholders do you have to cheat to make a million. Did Goldman Sachs press charges or did they shutup and duck. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:A8C8:79CC:EA45:54A2 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rajat Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212201320/http://www.aif.org/who-we-are.html to http://www.aif.org/who-we-are.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103100230/http://www.financialexpress.com/news/isb-aiming-to-be-world-no.1-gupta/656936 to http://www.financialexpress.com/news/isb-aiming-to-be-world-no.1-gupta/656936/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing section on continuing ties with MGI

I have removed ([1]) a section of the article starting "Despite McKinsey's assertions of severing ties with Gupta, Gupta was listed as a member of the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) Council...". This section seems to rely on primary research that "Rajat Gupta" was for some time listed, following the subject of this articles' release from prison, on the MGI website and publications. However, there is a different Rajat Gupta ([2],[3]) who is a current senior partner at McKinsey, and given his professional maturity and focus it seems quite likely that it is this other Rajat Gupta who had this MGI role. Absent clearer, preferably secondary, sourcing that it would indeed be the subject of this article in this role, and not the other guy, the claim that this indicates McKinsey has renewed its relationship with the subject of this artlce seems like suspect WP:OR. No objections to having my removal reverted if whoever does so can find clear sourcing that does not rely on name alone.

Partial disclaimer: About 5 years ago, I met this other Rajat Gupta, and heard from him how there are challenges in having the same last name as the infamous one, and be a current senior partner at McKinsey after the other one's history. This has attuned me to the possibility of confusion, which is why I am making this edit. But I do not have any relationship with either one that could be considered a conflict of interest. Martinp (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)