Talk:Rajat Gupta

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Pshaw! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Another ... thought

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 The "out of date" is also a necessary but unfortunate part of the section.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)
thread_title:  Philanthropic activities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: +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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Friendsofrajat.com 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Mentors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Career highlights 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Too much elimination?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Section ordering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Affiliation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I read it again and the change looks good.  Thanks. --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good to be back 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Native name" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seemingly unrelated link, Template removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rajat Gupta. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ). [Done. Swliv (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified