Talk:Raj Rajaratnam, Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases

Inspiration; title?

For reference, this article was created and/or at least named with inspiration from "Insider Trading 2011: How Technology and Social Networks Have 'Friended' Access to Confidential Information" from a Wharton Business School publication (see Talk:Rajat Gupta#Controversy Update and other sections of that talk page for background).

I'll note that a number of the principals in this Wiki article -- RGupta, RRajaratnam included -- have ties to Wharton. More substantively, the title feels too broad for the specific nature of the article. From a quick scan, it's RGupta and RRajaratnam, basically, in the article. The title also seems to imply we may have "I-T-2012" et c. et c. (going back as well as forward?). For now I don't have an alternative to suggest but am open to suggestions. Swliv (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Swliv , what about the upcoming movie title as the header? I'm not sure if you are familiar with Too Big to Fail, but it's the story of the Lehman collapse and all that came from that ordeal, same way this starts with Rajaratnam. Just a thought. --Monstermike99 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I proposed just now over at Talk:Rajat Gupta#Too much elimination? and propose here Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases.

I'm trying to work with you, here, Mike, but it's a challenge. First, what movie are you referring to, as a potential title, TBTF or another? TBTF is not "upcoming". There was some talk about a Galleon et al. film I think, though as noted at Talk:Rajat Gupta#Friendsofrajat.com and Talk:Rajat Gupta#I hope we aren't deleting stuff it seems it's been both eliminated from the RGupta article and not included in this Insider Trading 2011 one. I don't remember a title to it. But I'm not looking for a pop-cultural reference (or a magazine article reference with possible conflict of interest (Wharton)) for a title. You wanted this separate article. I want a title that links it to its subjects. Clearly. Definitively. Not waftingly broad. Not tied to someone else's agenda. (I think I noticed this article is not linked to from the RRajaratnam article. Even that is left out.)

Do you get it? That you've barged into an article spouting "policy" and oughts da da da and .... Well, My2011 has given you more leeway than I. The subtle approach is not working on you. Maybe you want to WP:OWN to the article. I've never visited that policy page but it was cited to me in I believe an appropriately similar context. Now you "hey" want me to jump in and collaborate on making this one fit in?? When you laid no groundwork for it where you hauled it all over from? ... Maybe I'm going too far in the non-subtle direction now but, as I said in other words up top, you're not "building consensus". ... Now I don't like My2011's list. I've gotten increasingly direct about that over the course of the last several months, most recently in that "deleting stuff" link above. But that's not taking away from an article that's already working. There were 4000 hits to the Wiki article out of the WSJ article early in the month. No, that doesn't prove the article's good. But I am proud of what those 4000 found.

Hey! I hope you start to get it. Or you're just going to trash something good. Swliv (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That title sounds good to me, is it worth having Anil Kumar too? If you follow the edits, nothing was deleted at all, everything you guys created is represented here. As far as the Wharton tie in I was unaware, just did a search and that article I feel told a good story of the events and didn't seem one sided. Again, I repeat, nothing was deleted for the Insider Trading 2011, do a comparison and you will see. --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm neutral but good on Kumar. I'd want My2011 in full agreement, at least, before proceeding either way. I will make a note at Talk RGupta if it's not already dealt with there.

My annoyance the other day had to do with "Why move it all over here if you're not changing [ie improving] anything? Then you just dilute the info/connection to those who come to Wiki." The weak, overbroad Wharton-compromised tie of the title pushed me further over the edge. This article still -- even retitled -- just feels like an exile of the info from where it ought to be. Why have it over here? I know you have your strong feeling and I'm not threatening it (nor threatening to reverse my grudging acceptance of the article) but I'm continuing to express my strong ... questions, let's call them. ... On we go. Swliv (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, understandable and no offense taken. Again what I'm saying is this Rajaratnam, Gupta and Kumar fiasco, for lack of a better term, is a story in itself and very notable and historic, as you pointed out. The mentions about insider trading on Rajaratnam's entry is just a couple of paragraphs and he is in jail, while Gupta's trial just started and his section about insider trading was a mile long. Gupta's entry is not void of the charges at all so I don't feel it's doing him a favor, just as I don't think you are working for the SEC or a disgruntled ex-McKinsey employee for the minutia of the legal back and forth for the last 2 plus years. It should be a summary with more detail in the bigger story entry that we are creating. Like the expression goes, don't tell me about the labor, just show me the baby. I still think if Gupta gets convicted we should develop a page like SEC v. Rajaratnam. I'm going to work on making it in chronological order and then we can note what is still relevant with any new trial developments or needs updating. Good talk my friend. --Monstermike99 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in a +1 vote that we should have Kumar in title. Sorry, don't have time to read much more in the talk page except to reiterate, Mike, it's been hard personally for me to follow all the changes with the sheer frequency, depth/breath, and policy background of the changes going on. My[2011] (talk) | 02:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Proposed Titles

• Rajat Gupta/Anil Kumar/Raj Rajaratnam Insider Trading (my vote)
• Rajat Gupta/Anil Kumar/Galleon Group Insider Trading
• Rajat Gupta/Raj Rajaratnam Insider Trading
• Rajat Gupta/Galleon Group Insider Trading
• McKinsey/Galleon Insider Trading (least favorite, least descriptive)

others?

My[2011] (talk) | 18:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I vote Rajat Gupta/Anil Kumar/Raj Rajaratnam Insider Trading or McKinsey/Galleon Insider Trading being that maybe more people know the 2 firms then those three individuals, but with all the recent press I highly doubt it. Also, I have seen a bunch of either dormant Wiki handles or newly registered ones contributing to the Gupta page, it's very interesting (and suspect). Also with keeping Kumar in the title the relationship section now can even be somewhat of an intro or lead in or at least parts of it. --Monstermike99 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, My, for the options. I think we need "cases" at the end of any of them; and lower-case on "insider trading".

Since Galleon was shut down as a result of the prosecution, more or less, I like including that name. The McKinsey association is much weaker, so I don't like including that. AKumar I know less well but am glad to have him included.

I still think, at least until after conviction, that this material is better handled in the individuals' articles. Your "very notable and press covered" remains just laughable to me, Mike. RGupta gets in the paper. People want to see more. They go to his page. Lumping them together, these old case(s) and new case(s), like in this article? (... starting with your vast original title, way-y overstretching the reality.) All just does nothing for me. Your groping around above about now how to name this article just confirms it for me. There's no concept to this article. I don't know what was/is driving you but it's in the wrong direction, by me.

I'd go with Rajaratnam first, for chronology and for first-big-conviction:

• Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group/Anil Kumar/Rajat Gupta insider trading cases (my most recent refinement)

I think, despite my relapse into attack/mock mode above, we should try to find consensus amongst the three of us (and others if anyone else joins in) on any change. Could take a few rounds and some time but, in my opinion, it's worth it.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Great point Swliv since it started with Raj makes sense he is the lead in. --Monstermike99 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Swliv's one. But does Galleon Group need to be in there? Was there anyone at Galleon other than Raj implicated? Also, Swliv, I TOTALLY agree that all the stuff that's here should really be in the Rajat Gupta article... Still not sure why we made a new one. :-\ My[2011] (talk) | 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think of Galleon as Rajaratnam; it folded with his conviction, right? That's enough for me. Plus more readers will recognize the pair of R. and G. than will prob. recog. either individually. Trying to have something recognizably sensible about this article. Swliv (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Equating Galleon with Rajaratnam is disingenuous -- Galleon was over 100 people, right? Rajaratnam and some Galleon employees have been found or pleaded guilty to insider trading, not all -- some weren't charged, some never did anything. Maintaining the distinction is important, and as it is they're separate defendants in all the trials (I think?). Galleon folded a month or so after Rajaratnam's initial arrest, a year and a half before his eventual trial. My[2011] (talk) | 01:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And having just contributed that long-winded answer, I think there's consensus here. How is:

• Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases

My[2011] (talk) | 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving "Gupta's relationships" section back to Gupta article

Because it's VERY important to understand the connections between the men for Rajat Gupta's own insider trading case. I'm OK with leaving it here in this article as well.

PS: What about that section about "tapes are problematic for X/Y/Z reasons?" Should that be in Gupta's article too? Agree that it's equally a Rajaratnam thing, so I'm less sold on that point. My[2011] (talk) | 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the detail as such should be in the personal subject's entry, maybe more of a summary lead in, since we are developing the story on the new page. It reads like a prosecutions/defense attorneys examination. We already established the page arrangement also so I will revert back. --Monstermike99 (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly, Mike, and frankly I'm getting tired about trying to be helpful only to have blanket reversions. First, we did not "already establish the page arrangement", and even if we did it's always open to modification. Instead of just reverting, can you explain to me why you don't like this arrangement? Second, Gupta's relationships with Rajaratnam and Kumar are likely the most significant of his career, and deserve a longer section. For example, in the current legal case, there have been tens (if not hundreds) of media articles JUST THIS WEEK trying to examine and ascertain Gupta's relationship with Rajaratnam. To say that is not noteworthy is ludicrous. I don't disagree that it shouldn't ALSO be on this page, but you're far too trigger happy! Swliv?

PPS Part of my frustration also stems from the fact that I noticed entire former sections and paragraphs that are in NEITHER RGupta's page NOR this page, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Not blaming you, just frustrated.

My[2011] (talk) | 19:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My2011, I'm sorry, maybe Mike's a symptom (sorry; not trying to depersonalize) of the shift to the trial. I don't see more to contribute, except the bit above, now here. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the question is shouldn’t Gupta’s relationship with R/K be in his article? My[2011] (talk) | 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – see relevant section in Talk:Rajat GuptaMy[2011] (talk) | 01:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chiesi why?

Is the page about the union of each alleged trading (Raj and many others, Anil and Raj, Rajat and Raj) or the triumvirate Raj-Anil-Rajat? I thought the latter. If the former, we have to include Moffat, Goel, and a number of other people Raj was found guilty of having corrupted. If the latter, we should take out Chiesi and rework the intro. My[2011] (talk) | 01:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you make at the beginning of your comment. The phrase "union of each alleged trading" I'd particularly like explained. But, basically, it seems I'd say, "Both."

As to Chiesi, he was a co-defendant I think, so it's reasonable to include him even without headline treatment. On Moffat et al., I don't know them. Were they convicted? comes to mind. But it sounds like they should be included too. I'm not a big "excluder", obviously. I get suspicious, as I've demonstrated, of unexplained exclusionary editing.

I came to this Talk with intention to cast new aspersions on this article, having actually re-entered it (entered it, in this guise; re-entered it if one takes its previous life in Rajat Gupta into account) for the first time. One'll see I did some restructuring: I made a proto-conventional introduction (was there any before? it didn't seem like it); restructured the sub-headlining a bit to try to reflect the content a bit; took off one (out-of-date, I think) "dream" Category ("Insider Trading 2011"); re-cased another so it worked with existing Wiki ("Insider trading" not "- Trading"); adjusted the "defaultsort" whatever that is to the new title. Maybe a little more. And I certainly wondered what "Category:Media-related controversies in the United States" possibly meant relative to the article but left it for now. (That whole last category seems pretty flimsy to me, looking at what comprises it.) I document this litany because it, to me, signals further a remarkably unsophisticated mind doing big Wiki interventions citing "policy" fast-and-loosely. I've written (much) more on that already above and at Talk: Rajat Gupta.

On the general subject I will also note that a good deal of editing on these pages is going on via reversion, a Wiki technical term which means, basically, "unilateral veto", as, for example, here. (Too-big edit summaries in lieu of talk-page resolution of disputes is a characteristic.) Overall, it's not the best way to proceed. I'm not taking sides or prepared to mediate. But, as I said to My2011 at the cited-example edit, "I feel for" him/r. No, I've not always agreed with My2011. But s/he's in a tough struggle here. I can't say what the "new force", MonsterMike, is up to. It is to him/r, though, that I do attribute the "unsophisticated" setting-up of the present page. The process of growth seems to be slow.

If MM were really interested in the quality of Wiki as an encyclopedia, s/he would have (a) seen that the IT category was wrongly cased and hence "red" and basically worthless; and (b) have fixed it; and (c) have noticed that IBoesky and MStewart, discussed in these Talk pages before, were not in the existing category; I speculate. But I've allowed my skepticism to run over before; I could be on the wrong track. Maybe MM just hasn't learned those finer points; or doesn't care; we all have to learn; and caring, well, we can just hope for. If MM (I assume it was) wants an It2011 category, I leave that to him/r to reinstate. To me it seemed nonsensically over-specific so, yes, unilaterally, I elim'd it.

I see now that My2011 has gone to work on my revisions. S/he seems maybe to be pursuing his/r "union" idea with "parallel and related civil and criminal actions" in the intro. I'm far from the action. To me it over-specifies something that's not necessarily in any citation anywhere in the article that I can recall. And, for reference, a triple " ' " does seem to have the exact same result as self-referencing (by bracketing the name of the subject article), namely bold print. We've now had the change made from the former to the latter. Any positive effect? I don't know. And we are promised "this needs a lot of work — I’ll clean it up later". To be discussed here? Maybe, maybe not.

Cheers. Good luck, all. ... Swliv (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Swliv, I’m confused. I’m happy to help with the article — but what do you want me to do? There are 58 defendants in the Galleon case (I think?) — I’d rather this article just focused on those 3. Maybe we can include Chiesi, Moffat, and Goel — but then we would have to include Zvi Goffer and who knows who else. So what do you want to do? My[2011] (talk) | 02:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea of the numbers. I'd say the number alone, maybe with Chiesi and a few others if they are partic. important, would be maybe sufficient as a side-note to Rajanatram. Did all those co-defendants get convicted? I expand my earlier question. Basically, I leave it to you. Personally, I like learning, as I am basically doing here for the first time, that the "3" not only didn't work in a solitary vacuum (obviously, but one can lose that) but were pursued legally with their confederates. Any help? I'm not trying to confuse. I am just not that knowledgeable, am just pursuing the bits that I learn as far as I reasonably can. Your approach in general (lists to a degree aside, right?) has been I've felt complementary. I hope also I haven't been inadvertently or sloppily critical above.

I am myself still a little confused by but not too concerned by the distinction you tried to draw at the outset of this section, namely "union" v. "triumvirate". To some degree, as I reflect after a few days though without rereading my whole bit above, I think maybe you're getting to uncertainties maybe we both have about the real validity of this as a free standing article. Gupta as a current and for the time ultimate object of the line of legal pursuit seemed always a good repository, article-wise, for the accumulation we'd made. Obviously, we've encountered a hard-to-move object (or I have) on that last opinion; so for my part I'm just trying to accommodate that last reality as best I can. Again, any help? Hope so. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of format re: access dates of references

I've just had to edit recent footnotes to incorporate "accessdate"s. Since the footnotes were to older sources (yet were presented in the Edit summary as "Added developments") the fact that they were belatedly, in a time-line sense, being added to the account, the date-of-access seemed partic. important. I'd hope attention to that format policy or common practice would be continued.

On the substance of the edits to which these footnotes were affixed, I'd thought it to be (a) a defense effort to raise reasonable doubt re: Gupta that (b) maybe had fizzled but in any event (c) was already covered in the Gupta article wherein this article as it were gestated and thence in this article. I may be wrong on (c) but add it for reference. Swliv (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

History of a deletion edit re: a countersuit claim

First, I'll say I pursue this history because it goes into a region of Wiki editing I think may be a systemic weakness (though ferociously hard to address, from my humble vantage), namely, how a given piece of an article enters, evolves and (with good frequency, leaves) the article. Given the collaborative nature of Wiki articles, such a history, for me, often becomes (a) interesting and (b) difficult but worthwhile.

That said, I start in the recent past with this May 25 deletion. The line removed was: "Gupta's countersuit claims he is the first person ever charged by SEC in this type of proceeding who is not a broker-dealer or investment management employee." (I would add: "He was a broker-dealer board member" but that's tangential to the history here.) And the Edit summary/explanation of the removal was "Removed personal Gupta claim, no source could be found and his claim is unfounded".

To analyze just that one action a little, the jump from "no source" to "unfounded" seemed large to me. So I wondered who put the piece in and when.

On the way to finding the insertion, I found two interesting interim (October, 2011; not as recent but not foundational) edits of the piece, here and here, one after the other, from an IP address only, two of the total three ever so far from that IP address. One oddity: a "Cn" (citation needed) template was added, first, then removed in the two edits respectively. Another oddity: the second edit left a fragment as a link. Nothing definitively indicative of anything, to me, but curious.

A word on the process. One must (as best I've been able to figure) go to Revision history (in this case here), then "go back aways", see if the relevant piece is still in the article there, if so come partway back more recent, if not go further back; and progressively narrow it down until the actual insertion is found. I haven't found the insertion in this case yet, but it's how I stumbled on the "interesting interim".

Finally: I've located the apparent origin of the bit here, by one of the substantial editors of the article(s), editor My 2011, in March 2011. With that, I'm glad to leave this history/commentary here for My2011 or others to consider whether the deletion was warranted, find a source, et c.. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, so I’m clearly missing something — I didn’t even know that line had been taken away.

Here are some news sources that say similar stuff: http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2012/05/23/in-gupta-trial-what-is-insider-trading/ and http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/charges-against-rajat-gupta-test-dodd-frank/2011-03-19.

And here is the original complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51067046/Rajat-Gupta-s-Complaint-Against-the-S-E-C

With lines like this: "the order represents the first, and so far only, time the Commission has sought in a litigated insider trading case civil penalties against a non-regulated person such as Mr. Gupta administratively."

Can we put the line back? Something like “Gupta’s counterclaim noted he was the first person to be sued retroactively by Dodd-Frank”

My[2011] (talk) | 22:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely "we" (you) can put it back in, with a citation or two of course. I was of course warmed when I found that you were the wronged, in effect, party ... on this little scouting party I took out on the prowl. Eyes open. Use a reversion of the May 25, I'd say'd prob. be the easiest/most direct. 'D maybe be worth your while to follow the links on/understand the previous "scouting" section too. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange name

Could we possibly move this article to a shorter and easier name for user comfort, please? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)