# Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir

I have a COI/financial connection/affiliation with Kheradpir's former employer, Juniper Networks. I began working on a more proper draft article on November 3rd, while he was still the current CEO of the company. Since I already completed a first draft and there is still some content relevant to Juniper's corporate affairs, we decided to improve the page anyway.
The current article relies heavily on press releases and primary sources. It also contains promotional content like awards, "at the forefront of consumer Internet" and the usual promotional fodder. This seems especially unnecessary, because there are plenty of strong sources available through the library that do in fact support a very positive profile on him without needing to use promotional language and poor sources.
To avoid even the remote appearance of impropriety, I'd like to ask a disinterested editor to review and consider the draft at User:CorporateM/Shaygan_Kheradpir, per WP:COI. Thanks in advance for your time! CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by SPA user:Intchar* do not appear to be directly supported by the sources given and are often exaggerations of what is actually stated in the source. It adds promotional content like "and the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development" and seems to remove sourced content about the size of budget he controlled, the prototyping process he implemented at Verizon and so on. A press release was used as the primary citation for his work on the TRANSFORM program at Barclays.
I think the article would be much improved if the article was reverted to its prior state. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, user:CorporateM .  Three comments on your note:
First, I think my recent edits to this article are an improvement overall, but I agree with your observation on the TRANSFORM citation.  As such, I’ve edited the document to change the primary reference to a CIO Magazine article (new reference 4), in which Kheradpir says his work will be “fundamental to achieving our Transform programme commitments,” and his boss, the group CEO talks about the strategic importance of the work and Kheradpir’s contribution.  I also moved the company briefing farther down in the article (new reference 17), as it provides concrete information on what the Barclays TRANSFORM plan is about.
Second, the reason I removed the IT budget figure of $1.5B from the article is that these kinds of numbers are counted different ways in different companies, and are notoriously unreliable.  IT budget figures can vary widely -- depending on whether one counts capital vs. expense, hw/sw acquisition vs. license & maintenance, system vs. network cost, which business units are included, etc.  For example, another article cites the FiOS budget, for which Kheradpir was largely responsible, as being $23B (reference 1: http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-bets-big-on-network-infrastructure).  I don’t believe the originally stated number was meaningful, so I removed it from the article.
Finally, I don’t think it’s at all promotional to say that Kheradpir pointed out “the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development.”  Kheradpir’s position on this is well established in the references, and I think, well known in the IT community.  However, on another point, I understand the importance of not appearing to be promotional, so I removed the phrase “award winning” in front of Barclays Pingit (even though, in fact, the app did win a number of awards in the UK).
I believe the recent edits and the resulting article are verifiable, neutral, broad, and (I hope!) well written.  Thanks again for your careful review!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intchar* (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, lets hammer it out one item at a time top-down. I noticed the early life section was removed?  CorporateM (Talk) 02:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't think it was relevant that his father was a ear, throat, and nose doctor (but maybe readers want to know that kind of thing?).  I believe he is Iranian, but I could not find any references that say where he actually grew up (other than that he was born in London).  Overall, the Early Life section just didn't seem relevant, ... but we can add it back if you think it is.  Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intchar* (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
user:CorporateM: I am going to have to drop for the eve.  Let me know if you want to discuss any points in person, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intchar* (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It's unlikely for any two editors to live in the same country and state such that in-person meetings are practical. However, we can talk on the phone if that's easier. Yah, we almost always have an Early life section when sources are available for it and it typically briefly mentions what their parents did for a living, as well as birthplace, education, where they grew up, etc. as part of a biographical profile. I do notice that the Wall Street Journal source that was cited just says "A 42-year-old native of Iran, Mr. Kheradpir came to the U.S. to earn bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in electrical engineering" so it is probably more accurate to the source to just say that he moved to the US from Iran and not state where he grew up. Do you mind restoring that section? Because I have a potential conflict of interest, I am not suppose to edit the article directly, myself. CorporateM (Talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, let me look at adding the Early life section back.  Thanks. Intchar* (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


### Request edit
Requesting someone restore the prior early life section, per the discussion above. It's a pretty default section for a BLP article, is sourced and neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.  Intchar* (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @user:Intchart*. I'm scrolling down the article now comparing the current version to the prior one and I see that a substantial amount of sourced content was removed regarding his tenure at Verizon. (see original here. For example, the original said that he led product development from the IT department, discussed some of the products his team created (iobi, Verizon One, FIOS), as well as his aggressive negotiating with vendors and out-sourcing to reduce costs. Any reason so much of it was removed? CorporateM (Talk) 07:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @user:CorporateM.  I retained a lot of material on FiOS, but iobi & Verizon One seem to be short-lived products and don’t appear to be significant in his bio (e.g., the official iobi page http://www.verizon.com/iobi is no longer active).  The part about aggressively negotiating with vendors is ok, but seems to be based on a single day’s visit with a reporter; since it doesn’t come out in any of the other references I didn’t think it was appropriate.  Hope that helps, thanks.  Intchar* (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you object to restoring this bit?: "In 2001 he formed small teams that were each responsible for coming up with and developing new product ideas.[7] Kheradpir implemented a 30-day prototype cycle to rapidly test and modify new technologies in development. His team of approximately 7,000 staff often worked late hours, but getting a job at Verizon was still in high demand, due to the department's rapid pace of new product development.[10]" I don't think the product's failing in the marketplace are a good reason to omit them from the article. On the contrary, that is to be expected with a rapid experimentation model. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@user:CorporateM: Agreed, and done.  Intchar* (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Intchar*. Working my way down the article, I also see the failed products (Verizone One and iobi) as well as staffing cuts and outsourcing were removed. I didn't think just because the products were unsuccessful in the marketplace was a good reason to remove them. On the contrary, its representative of the types of rapid experimentation he was conducting and such failures are always a cost associated with innovation. From the original:
In 2003 his team created iobi, which manages address books, caller ID and other features across devices.[7][10] The Verizon One, a combination phone, router, modem and portable device, was developed from his department the following year.[7] 
From 2000 to 2003, he reduced IT staff by 20 percent and reduced purchasing from technology vendors by 30 percent.[1] He negotiated aggressively with vendors to reduce prices and lobbied Verizon to eliminate its policy against purchasing IT equipment being auctioned on eBay by failed dot-com businesses.[1][13] Many contract programming positions were out-sourced to lower-cost labor in India. Additionally, new software was installed that improved Verizon's utilization of IT hardware.[1]
CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Intchar*: Just wanted to see if this was still on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 20:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes CorporateM.  Thanks for your suggestion, but I think the article has the proper amount of detail.  The current Wikipedia article refers both to FiOS and the rapid development of other products.  FiOS was a major multi-billion dollar program; the other products are interesting footnotes, but clearly not as big a part of the story.  Further, the material you suggested adding contains references that already occur ten times in the existing article, so I think the interested reader could easily consult these sources for more detail.  Intchar* (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting someone restore the prior references to the Barclay's work.  Again, more references to sourced content were removed regarding his tenure at Barclay's.  Also, here is an obvious reference for his work at Verizon that should be included: http://www.verizon.com/Content/Microsites/Includes/Bio/Shaygan_Kheradpir.doc .  @user:Intchar* looks like you originated the page - can you please make the necessary changes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauloperry (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 

The vast majority of what's in that Verizon biography has already been included here, and what is not included here is generally the kind of material that WP:SPS requires we find secondary sourcing for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done.  Changes:
A) Restored references in the lead section, and more clearly outlined the progression of Kheradpir's career from Telecom (Verizon), to Financial Services (Barclays), to Networking (Juniper).
B) Improved references confirming Kheradpir's key role on FiOS.  Specifically, added the suggested reference to his leadership on FiOS (from Verizon itself) which says "Kheradpir led technology development and innovation for key Verizon initiatives, including developing and implementing the systems supporting the rollout of Verizon’s all-fiber network and the FiOS broadband voice and TV services provided over that network" (http://www.verizon.com/Content/Microsites/Includes/Bio/Shaygan_Kheradpir.doc) Also added new reference from IT World which says that Kheradpir is "credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public" (http://www.itworld.com/article/2822906/business/128425-New-Juniper-CEO-Meet-the-real-Shaygan-Kheradpir.html#slide4).
C) Removed references to iobi and Verizon One, which are clearly less important than the FiOS program as evidenced by their absence in Verizon's own biography of Kheradpir (http://www.verizon.com/Content/Microsites/Includes/Bio/Shaygan_Kheradpir.doc).  Also note, the mere fact that something is mentioned in a published article doesn't necessarily mean it should be included in a Wikipedia article (if that were the case, Wikipedia would simply mirror the Internet, and wouldn't need to exist!).
D) Restored material on commoditization of IT and consumerization of tech.  Kheradpir was vocal on these points, and they belong in the lead section.  The references cited are indeed among the earliest on the subject.
Intchar* (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Around January 12, user:Intchar* removed some sourced, neutral content regarding some of the products Kheradpir led development of apparently under the rationale that they did not warrant inclusion since they were unsuccessful. I'd like to request the content be restored (see content below) at the end of the Verizon section.

Also I'd like to replace: "Kheradpir's group was instrumental in the creation of Verizon’s FiOS platform, including services such as FiOS TV.[1]" This sentence is promotional and not directly supported by the source. Instead, I'd like to replace it with the original: "Kheradpir's group also supported expansion of FIOS service, which extends fiber optic cabling to individual homes."
CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM: Thanks for the suggested edits, but I don't think it's promotional to say that Kheradpir's group was instrumental in the creation of FiOS.  The FiOS platform required design and development of completely new IT systems for a completely new network.  It could not have been created without in-depth, hands-on involvement of the IT team from beginning, i.e., the team headed by Kheradpir.  The fact that Kheradpir hosted journalists at his home to talk about FiOS technology and services further demonstrates that he held a senior leadership role in the company for the development of FiOS.  Intchar* (talk)
Inthcar, I understand what you're saying and maybe calling it promotional was a bit harsh, but all we can do on Wikipedia is repeat what is stated by credible, independent sources. In this case, the source just says that he hosted journalists at his house and not that his group actually founded FIOS. We need a source that directly supports the article-content, per WP:BLP, among other policies. CorporateM (Talk) 05:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I was asked by CorporateM to take a look at this discussion. I have no interest in this person and I know very little about the field. But I do know and care about Wikipedia's policies, above all Neutrality and Verifiability. CorporateM has raised two issues above. 1) I can see no reason to remove the two sourced sentences in the collapsed box above, and Intchar didn't provide any reason in an edit summary. Would you care to explain why you think this sourced information should be deleted? 2) As to whether he was "instrumental" in developing FiOS, the sources don't directly use that word but they certainly suggest he personally played a big role, if not in creating it, then certainly in promoting it. As he was head of IT it might be reasonable to say that his group developed it. Can we find some way of describing his role that is in agreement with the sources? (I deleted one of the three sources in the lead because it didn't mention him.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @MelanieN: You'll see in the Request Edit at the top of this string that I proposed the following sentence: "Kheradpir's group also supported expansion of FIOS service, which extends fiber optic cabling to individual homes." I don't have public URLs for the sources (library access), but the SD Times source says "His current pet project is the nationwide deployment of 'FIOS,'" and the Infoworld source says "and contributed to the development of Verizon's FiOS fiber optic video initiative" CorporateM (Talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to be the decision maker about what should go in the article. I am here to see that Wikipedia's policies are upheld and to encourage the two of you to agree on what the article should say. @Intchar*:, can you please contribute to this discussion? --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, @MelanieN:.  I’ll do my best to explain the changes.
On point #1, note that the current article refers both to FiOS and the rapid development of other products.  But whereas FiOS was a major multi-billion dollar program, the other products mentioned are more like interesting footnotes, clearly not a big part of the story.  If the article listed every product Kheradpir had a hand in, I’m sure it would become unmanageably long.  Further, the material CorporateM suggested adding contains references that already occur ten times in the existing article.  I think the interested reader can easily consult these sources if interested in more detail.
On point #2, I think it’s fairly self-evident that the CIO of Verizon must have been instrumental in delivery of a service like FiOS.  But in the interest of adding a clear reference, we can use this one: http://www.itworld.com/article/2822906/business/128425-New-Juniper-CEO-Meet-the-real-Shaygan-Kheradpir.html#slide4, which says “Kheradpir is ... credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public.” Intchar* (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we just repeat what the sources say. For example, your source above just says his team "brought... FIOS... to the public", not that they invented it. This seems pretty consistent among all the sources we have discussed thus far; they explain that his team helped FIOS get implemented, but they do not credit his department as the sole inventor. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The result from the jury is in: The sourced content about iobi is in; whether something is an interesting footnote or not, if it's reliably verified (suggesting that it is more than a footnote) one needs a much better reason for exclusion. As for the "supporting" or "group is credited with", the solution is quite simple: if Intchar*'s source for that last quote is reliable, just use the quote, properly incorporated in the sentence--or some variety of "brought to the public", which strikes me as just about the same. One of you please implement it, and no hanky panky. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I know it sounds childish @Drmies:, but since I'm not allowed to edit the article and we were just arguing in circles, a clear and unambiguous decision from an impartial party is really needed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
My decision is quite clear and unambiguous, if I say so myself. But I don't understand why you're pinging me, Corp--you made the edit, it looks good to me. In fact, I spent ten minutes looking around to find someone to make the edit since it wasn't clear to me you'd done it already, and I do not think it's kosher for a closer to do that themselves, this being much more an RfC than an edit request. Are we good? Drmies (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You said "One of you please implement it", so I went ahead and made the corresponding changes and started another point of discussion below. I didn't mean the ping to imply that any further action was needed for this item. CorporateM (Talk) 03:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The original draft contained sourced, neutral information about layoffs and outsourcing led by Kheradpir and other efforts to reduce costs at Verizon. This kind of cost-savings strategy seems to be the main thing Kheradpir is known for (mostly in a good way; sources focus on the cost-savings not the jobs lost). I'd like to request the below sourced information be restored. @Intchar*: can you explain what the rationale was for removing it? CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is it supposed to go? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I would tack it on the last paragraph of the Verizon section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Crisco 1492:! I think you literally just knocked out all of my pending request edits, which is refreshing after spending so much time begging and pleading folks to look at just one. I made a couple tweaks and cleanup items like adding logos, paragraphing, fixing citation errors, etc. after various Request Edits.
This is the only article where there are still a couple items top-of-mind and I was wondering if I could hold your attention for just a few more minutes for a couple quick requests that should make the page ready for that GA review it's in the queue for and address all the COI edits made by the SPA:

This section can probably be removed entirely, being that it is exclusively made up of original research and primary sources.
I'd also like to suggest restoring the prior version of the Lead. The current version includes information that was already removed from the body of the article, because the sources do not actually support the article-text. For example this source on PingIt does not actually mention Kheradpir.
CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the primary sourced content. It's allowed for non-controversial things, and membership on this council or that isn't quite controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Fair enough, but the first sentence and the last two aren't sourced at all. The listed reason for being included in the CIO ranking "for early adoption of consumer IT both within the enterprise and for the external market" isn't actually supported by the source either. If you're willing to cleanup the unsourced stuff, I can put the primary sources in proper templates as non-controversial edits. Then just the Lead would remain. CorporateM (Talk) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Uncited content removed. What do you plan on doing with the cited content in the lead? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: As far as I can tell almost nothing in the Lead is actually sourced, but is just made to look that way. For example, the first two cites are the same source and it just says that he spoke with journalists about FIOS, not that he played a "major" role in it. Cite 4 doesn't even mention Kheradpir, though cite 3 seems usable. Cite 5 is a press release and I'm pretty sure none of those sources actually say he was one of the first to note the consumerization of IT, because in prior discussions about the body of the page, no sources were provided that actually supported this statement, rather than just quotes from him about it. I would just restore the prior Lead[1] as the current one is misleading. CorporateM (Talk) 02:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kai Tak (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Placed on hold as requested. Kai Tak 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
After understanding the situation of the edit warring, and the fact that this problem cannot be quickly solved, I have decided to fail the article. I do not want to do this. The reason I passed this article at first is because I actually thought that the edit warring was constructive editing; this should be attributed to my lack of experience. CorporateM, I apologize for wasting your time. This article should be renominated when the edit warring is solved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai Tak (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 

According to Wikipedia:External links regarding "official links" from the article-subject: "Normally, only one official link is included" with few exceptions. This article has three official links and two of them appear to be recently created, having only one blog post each from January of this year. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, but should we include his Twitter? It appears unusual for someone in his position to be so active on Twitter, as Network World pointed out. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Social media links are typically discouraged, but if Network World says his tweeting is significant, than I would think that would fall under the exceptions category.  CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm looks likehe hasn't updated his Twitter (@shaygank) since September so maybe not.... —МандичкаYO 😜 00:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We never include twitter links in bio articles. It's the very model of what should not be an EL. If the Network World reported it, a reference can be made in the article--without including the link itself.   DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, I suggest something like the below for the Lead. This re-incorporates his degrees, which are a standard biographical detail for the lede, and adds the budget-cutting at Verizon, which appears to be his primary claim to notability. It also puts something more reasonable and less promotional regarding including every press article where he is quoted commenting about something. 

Shaygan Kheradpir (born December 19, 1960) is a British-born American business and technology executive whose career has spanned telecommunications, financial services, and networking technology. He played a major role in delivering FiOS at Verizon,[1][2] the Pingit mobile money system and Transform program at Barclays,[3][4] and an Integrated Operating Plan (IOP) as chief executive officer of Juniper Networks.[5] At Verizon he reduced the company's IT budget from 6 to 4 percent of revenues through out-sourcing, aggressively negotiating with vendors and other tactics. Kheradpir is often quoted in the media on IT industry trends.[1][6][7][8][9] He holds a bachelors, masters and doctorate degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University.
CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The suggested changes do not improve the article.  First, it is significant that Kheradpir has been a technology leader in three different industries, so that part should stay.  Second, his primary claim to notability is innovation, not cost cutting and vendor negotiation; this is evident from a scan of the references.  The fact that he cut costs at Verizon is already more than adequately covered in the Verizon section.  Finally, his education is well captured in the section called “Early life and education,” immediately following the lede.  The current version is the better summary. Pauloperry (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting we remove the following sentences from the Lede as promotional synth:

Kheradpir was among those who noted the effects of the commoditization of information technology,[1][6] and the need to orient IT programs around the consumerization of technology, in which people, not businesses, drive technology development.[7][8][9]
The sources provided[2][3][4][5][6], while many in number, are just press articles where Kheradpir is quoted commenting on related topics. 
The only editors supporting this content have been socking SPAs. CorporateM (Talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:  Done §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


### Lead II
@FreeRangeFrog: If you have another minute, so far every time I propose an alternate lead, the proposal gets jumped by socking SPAs, who argue against any mention of reducing costs at Verizon. However, in-depth articles in WSJ and The Financial Times suggest it's one of the things he's best known for. Also, the body of the article says "According to InfoWorld, his team "contributed to the development of Verizon's FiOS fiber optic video initiative and related DVR", but the Lead exaggerates this statement by saying that Kheradpir personally "played a major role".
If you have a minute to give the proposed Lead below a lookover, I'd appreciate getting a response from an actual disinterested editor. After that I'd only have a few more small nick nacks and it should be GAN-ready presuming the article is stable.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: You want that without citations, as in per GA guidelines? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: I prefer Leads without citations, since the content is sourced in the body. I don't think it contains any exceptional or contentious BLP claims that would require in-line citations in the Lead, but I can find and add them if you prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM:  Done. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


### Misc
I'd like to request just a few more nick nack edits, then I think the article will be GAN-ready:

Juniper section: Kheradpir became CEO of Juniper Networks in January 2014.[4] At Juniper, he launched an Integrated Operating Plan (IOP) with four key elements: focusing on growth markets, restructuring the product portfolio and operations, reducing structural costs, and optimizing capital structure.[14] The plan (Primary source) that was aligned with the recommendations of activist investors to reduce expenses, buy back stock, and increase dividends,[15] and was welcomed by shareholders.[16](This is not a good source and does not appear to support the article-text)
Other activities section: In 2007, he was named to CIO magazine’s Hall of Fame.[21] (Per WP:ORGAWARDS)
Pinging @FreeRangeFrog: one more time. Sorry for being such a pest! I think this is all that's needed, presuming the article remains stable. CorporateM (Talk) 01:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:  Done as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Maybe a photograph if you're taking this to GA? Not sure how complicated it would be to get one. Maybe in Flickr from some event or something. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No luck on Flickr and Juniper turned me down; I wrote the article draft while he still worked there, but now that he's not there, their interest is pretty limited. However, GA does not strictly require images if they are not available. It may be too short for GA as well, depending on the reviewer's personal perspective on short GANs. However, even when I've had GANs rejected because the article is too short, I've still gotten a good review, which is more important than the designation. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.

No DABs, One dead external link.
bachelors, masters and doctorate degree in electrical engineering Link these degrees and rephrase as "doctorate degree" reads very oddly. Also link electrical engineering.
 Done Except for  electrical engineering, which is wikilinked in the infobox. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 12:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What does an integrated operating plan mean? Sounds like corporate buzzwords.
I believe it's a term specific to Juniper. This source called it a "restructuring and cost-cutting plan". Many other sources just refer to it as a plan.[7][8][9][10] I got the impression that it is not a general business term, but is just what Juniper called it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 12:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my ultimate question is it actually notable? It reads like an item from a resumé and we can't know how successful it is/was. Furthermore, no context is given even though it's often mentioned in the press. It reminds me of the obligatory mission statement given by every new military commander that I've ever had that's so full of buzz words and platitudes that it's practically meaningless. I mean what new CEO in his right mind would ever say that he wants to decrease shareholder value and increase costs?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, per the links above to reliable, secondary sources, the integrated operating plan was a big deal - perhaps the most significant thing to take place during his tenure at Juniper. However, I think it could use an additional sentence about the activist investors that the plan was in response to and it can be called a restructuring and cost-cutting plan to be less euphemistic. Stuff like this I'll put in a To Do list for a Request Edit. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there a link to Transform at Barclays or is this some sort of corporate or IT restructuring? And for Verizon One?
No Wikipedia link available. What I've found in the sources is "cost transformation project, Transform." and a bunch of amiguous references to a "transformation". The Barclays website isn't much help: "Transform has three overall goals: Turnaround, Return Acceptable Numbers, Sustain FORward Momentum." but it sounds like cost-cutting. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Then I think it can be deleted as not notable. What about Verizon One?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The transform thing was something the sockpuppets kept pushing using weak or primary sources, but I did find a decent source that mentions he supported it here. While it's a primary source Cornell University included a whole paragraph on his work at Barclays in his bio. I don't agree with the logic that something needs to be notable enough for its own page to be mentioned, but it probably does not warrant inclusion in the Lede, rather than a brief mention in the body. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Link Bell Atlantic on first use.
 Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Define and link IT on first use.
 Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
When did he join GTE?
 Done I found a primary source for it  David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
His team of approximately 7,000 staff often worked late hours, but getting a job at Verizon was still in high demand, due to the department's rapid pace of new product development. Awkward, not sure what you mean here.
 Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What's DVR?
 Done It's a bit awkward though since it's in a quote and DVR is a familiar acronym to many. I suggest we just leave it as "DVR" per the quoted material with a wikilink. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
a link would be fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
At Juniper, he launched an Integrated Operating Plan (IOP) that was aligned with the recommendations of activist investors to reduce expenses, buy back stock, and increase dividends. Why would the average reader care about this?
I disagree. This is an article about a business executive. His development of business plans and the success or failure of those plans is exactly what we should expect on the page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
My concern is really about sourcing and context. Plus his tenure was so short that it would be hard to assess its success or failure using publicly available sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
More details needed on his resignation if available. Has anything more recent been written about it?
There are a lot of sources on it[11][12][13]. There may be more information worth adding, but I think we need to be cautious about speculation and gossip, which is the bulk of it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Concur; we need to be very careful about reliable sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you get a photo?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't. There's nothing available on Flickr under the appropriate license and nothing on Commons either :-(  David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Can your client contribute a photo himself?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
See my disclosure here. I have no connection with Kheradpir. I asked Juniper if they could provide a photo, but the thing is, they don't really care about this page. It's just that I already did most of the work for it before he abruptly left and we figured we might as well share the content I had already developed. It also wouldn't be appropriate for me to reach out to Kheradpir himself. It does seem likely given the article's history that he hired an astroturfing firm, which I eventually took to SPI and obtained a block against, but I am not connected with them or the article's history of tendentious and promotional editing. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds reasonable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
BTW - especially appreciate your thorough GA review on this one though. Long history of tendetious editing from paid socks and I'm not sure we actually purged it all. Let me prep a Request Edit for some of the things we've discussed so far. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean a Request Edit?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See here. It's when an editor with a conflict of interest proposes an edit and asks someone else to make it. They "request an edit" in order to avoid the appearance of manipulating Wikipedia. In this case I would want to avoid the appearance of making the article appear unfairly disparaging to the article-subject, so there are certain edits I should not make myself to make sure a disinterested editor is making sure the article-subject is treated fairly. 
I see where you're coming from, but I think a lot of this just needs to be re-written without benefits language, as opposed to removed. If after reviewing the requested edits here, you still feel some of this needs to be deleted, I would ask that you go ahead and use your judgement.  David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to your proposed edits as they remove some of the puffery and look to be properly sourced. I'd go ahead and add them, being sure to put your cites outside the punctuation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made your suggested changes, albeit with a few tweaks. See if they work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Be consistent about using title case in the title of your references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sturmvogel 66. I was poking around for someone willing to do the Request Edit, but that is often a challenge. I didn't check what minor tweaks you made, but I'm sure they are fine.
I corrected the title-case in all the sources. In the process I noticed that we still have a lot of primary sources. In my experience, there is no consensus about whether to include board memberships using primary sources, though there is leniency against it. So I'll leave it up to your judgement on whether the Other Activities section (made up entirely of primary sources), is worth including. I also noticed the sentence "He attended high school at Aiglon College in Switzerland." is just cited to a broken link. Unfortunately there is rarely much information in quality sources about early life on marginally notable individuals.
FYI - I'm at the library currently looking at microfilm for another article, so I may not respond until tomorrow.   David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the high school info so I think that we're done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a much shorter Lede that is more appropriate for such a short article as follows:
"Shaygan Kheradpir is a business and technology executive. He is currently the CEO of Coriant. Kheradpir holds a bachelor's, master's and doctorate degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University. Before being appointed to his current position, he held executive positions at GTE, Verizon, Barclays, and Juniper, where he's contributed to various product development and cost-cutting initiatives."
The GA reviewer mentioned that the Integrated Operating Plan is written in a sort of fluffy, promotional manner, I believe because it mentions all these vague and ambiguous benefits in a list. The current text reads as follows:
"At Juniper, he launched an Integrated Operating Plan (IOP) that was aligned with the recommendations of activist investors to reduce expenses, buy back stock, and increase dividends.[15]"
I propose the following replacement, which is similar, but is more descriptive and specific:
"Kheradpir developed and executed a restructuring and cost-cutting plan, Juniper called its Integrated Operating Plan (IOP), in response to pressure from activist investors at Elliot Management. The plan included $160 million in cost cutting and returning $3 billion to shareholders over three years by buying shares and increasing dividends. It also consolidated many product and R&D groups. According to Network World, Elliot Management was pleased with the plan."
I suggest adding the following content to the very end of the Barclays section:
"Kheradpir also supported the bank's "Transform" restructuring and technology development plan in an effort to reduce costs.
I suggest replacing the following content
In early 2015, Kheradpir joined the Coriant management team. On 28th September, he was appointed CEO, taking over from Pat DiPietro, who became vice-chairman of the company.[18][19]
with the following (using the current references[14][15]):
Kheradpir briefly joined a private equity firm, Marlin Equity Partners, before being appointed as CEO and chairman of the board at Coriant, an optical networking vendor that Marlin Equity Partners created in 2013.
References

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the "promotional" banner at the top of the article. After skimming through the article, I agree with the banner as there is a lot of promotional text that is unencyclopedic in the article. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)


### Shaygan Kheradpir
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
There has been a "promotional" orange banner in the article since Aug 2024. When I skimmed through the article, I also found lots of promotional text. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)