Talk:Nathan Myhrvold/Archives/2020

Disputed neutrality tag - is it doing any one any good?

The "neutrality" of this article has not been the subject of much debate on these talk pages, yet the tag remains with the instructions "please do not remove until resolved". There is some talk of "puffery" and name calling ("patent troll") but no challenge to accuracy or suggestion for more neutral language. It looks like someone with a grudge agains Myhrvold put up this tag - and now it stays there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the disputed neutrality (POV) tag. My thinking is that the tag is inappropriate for the "puffery" criticism. Furthermore, the "patent troll" issue pertains to his briefly mentioned Intellectual Ventures company -- but the web page for that company does not indicate any disputed neutrality. Quantling (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I's disagree. I have added a sentence with a link to the latest This American Life, which describes the troll issue nicely. He is a man of achievement, but problem is, much of this reads as if it's written by his PR company. I don't know the guy, but balance is necessary with public tech figures. Recommend adding a "controversy" section, and modifying the wording in other places. Richardhod (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think references to patent trolling belong on the Intellectual Ventures page, if anywhere. For instance, Nathan Myhrvold was also a pivotal figure at Microsoft, but discussing the various controversies surrounding Microsoft would be inappropriate on the Nathan Myhrvold page. Furthermore, if we try to maintain the patent troll issues on this page and the company page, then there are (at least) two places where this information is carried in Wikipedia; we'd have to keep both updated with future developments, check periodically that they are consistent with each other, etc. IMHO, it's a mess and it's unnecessary and it's inappropriate. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fair point, and I'd concur that the in-depth controversies can be left to the company page, although it is important to have mention of these things on this page, as they're central to the social makeup, business practices and ethics of the man, since Myhrvold is The man and founder behind this company, unlike his secondary status at MS as employee. Richardhod (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said. There are lots of technology VPs out there. I'm sure his contributions to Microsoft were fine but he was only there 13 years. At Intellectual Ventures, he is pioneering an entirely new type of business that only the most naive of us would say is beneficial to society. "Troll" is the proper terminology for it and the perfect description for him and his company. It needs to be at the top, it needs to be in these words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.43.89 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put a {{POV-statement}} tag after the first sentence of the lead in order to solicit a wider audience to this issue. It is not disputed that disparaging statements about him and his company Intellectual Ventures have appeared in the press. The question I raise here is whether this should be mentioned in (the first sentence of) the lead or should be relegated to a section on controversies. I'll go ahead and express the first opinion

• Not lead section: If it were the case that the man had done little else other than run the company and if it were the case that the press about the company were overwhelmingly negative then there might be a reason to mention this in the lead despite the usual worries about neutrality and balance. However, the man has done much more besides this company and it is not the case that the company is viewed only negatively. So, let's relegate this to a section on controversies. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Lead section: His role as VP, author, and advocate is (nearly) meaningless to the rest of the world. His accomplishments are barely worthy of an article. There are lots of technology VPs, lots of cookbook authors and bloggers, lots of talk show advocates, and they barely need to taken note of. This man has done one thing of significance to the greater world, and it is to become the largest patent troll in the world. He has the potential to negatively impact an entire sector in the economy with his doings.

I looked over that article and it seems fairly balanced. It is not an autobiographical puff piece and the neutrality tag suggests. The controversy about IV is covered in the article. I'm inclined to remove the tag unless anyone has specific objections.--agr (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In view of the lack of objections since the last review, I have removed the neutrality tag, as it is five years old and appears to be obsolete. Waytgibbs (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation into Japanese is in progress at here since November 30, 2018. If there is a problem with neutrality, please let me know at here. --LunaSys (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)