Talk:Vinod Khosla/Archives/2017

KIOR

There is a big missing story about the near billion dollar collapse of a biotech company he controlled. "KiOR" I am reading mention of it here http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/12/20/five-for-five-in-2014/

Article Opening / Reason for Notoriety

• Initial Statement

I changed the opening of the biography to state why this person is famous and or notable, namely due to the Martins Beach issue. This appears to be the most prominent aspect of this biography, and certainly all the press coverage and general notoriety of this individual surrounds this issue.

This was revised by someone who didn't give a reason. Being the first person to restrict public access to a beach in California is without doubt the most notable thing this person has done, and has created the majority of coverage about this person in the press and makes him notable in an encylopedic sense. The changed seemed obvious to keep with wikipedia guidelines, and also seems to match with other individuals who were previously known in a small way for their wealth, but became famous after a scandal (e.g. the Donald Sterling wikipedia article).

If someone wants to undo the edit, please explain your reasoning here.

I disagree, the Martin's beach controversy is not as noteworthy as other accomplishments. I feel that this being in the beginning of the article is abusing WP policy. Socialmaven1 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Evolvedmicrobe (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)EvolvedMicrobe

• Dubmill Comments

I am not a supporter of this man but the introductory description of him is against the guidelines/policies for Wikipedia biography articles. While he appears to have become more well known because of this dispute over access to Martin's Beach, it is not correct to focus on the dispute in the opening sentence. On the other hand, the dispute does seem to be getting quite a bit of news coverage, so it should be mentioned in the lede section (in addition to the section further down the page), but not as the opening sentence. I have edited the page again in an effort to make it more balanced while taking account of the current prominence of the Martin's Beach access dispute. Dubmill (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Evolvedmicrobe comments

I don't see how the introductory description is against Wikipedia guidelines. However, not mentioning the Martin's beach issue immediately seems like a strong violation of the neutral point of view principle. Most articles open with a brief description of who someone is and why they are famous. (e.g. the Hitler article opens with: "was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party", it does not say he was a painter).

The old opening mentions the Java programming language and NFS file systems. But Java was released in 1995 over a decade after he left Sun microsystems, and he does not appear on the citation for the NFS file system either (also published after he left the company) (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/similar;jsessionid=EA7D670635D269C503A32BE4C93AA209?doi=10.1.1.14.473&type=ab

Trying to associate these things with him before the reason he is famous seems like a violation of neutral point of view. There are many rich venture capitalists, and this alone is arguably not a reason for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is only one person on earth who owns a private beach in California, the largest state in the United States which grants public beach access to all ~40 million residents and millions more visitors. He is the first and only individual to deny public access. This makes him unique and notable and I think this should be in the opening. Particularly since unlike the other items previously mentioned, he is directly responsible and involved in that issue. As far as I know he has never appeared on the cover of the NY Times (or in any other national publication of such prominence) about any other issue.

Sun microsystems already is no longer a company. In 50 years the lack of public beaches will certainly affect day to day lives in the entire state. I don't think this has recently received a lot of coverage, it is the only issue this person is really known for. Evolvedmicrobe (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fettlemap Comments

Evolvedmicrobe, you are obviously very passionate about this issue and have made it clear that you had no interest in this person until the beach access was blocked. It may surprize you that he was notable enough for an article to have been created 10 years before the beach issue was added last in October 2013. Over the previous decade, the article was assessed and was not marked for deletion. It is appropriate to add the beach controversy to the lede but not as the first sentence. As important as this one issue is to you, this person was notable before you discovered him. You mention Donald Sterling as an example and you can see that Dubmill edits are in keeping with how that article begins. You won't accept the title of activist but clearly with your passion about this issue, you need to let the edits by other cooler heads remain. You were at least able to remove the word "actively" from your first edit but your second edit does not come close to meeting the guidelines/policies for Wikipedia biography articles. Fettlemap (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• EvolvedMicrobe Comments

Fettlemap, thank you for responding on the talk page. Admittedly, I had not heard of this person prior to the beach access issue, but it is not an issue I am passionate about. I read several papers, and after seeing this issue covered multiple times in the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the New York Times, queried who this person was on wikipedia. I edited the article because I felt the opening was written by a public relations firm, as it mentioned several prestige projects that he was tangentially related to and contained vague talk about green energy contributions that was supported by dead or incorrect links. Simultaneously, it seemed to bury the one issue he has received extensive national and international press for in the bottom of the page. Admittedly, I did become slightly passionate about the page when my edit was undone without a response on the talk page, and was undone so quickly it seemed like it very well could have been a PR firm. This bothered me quite a bit, which is why I am still involved in this page.

In any event, I can see that my initial "correction" edits could be seen as not encyclopedic enough, and am happy to discuss with anyone what a better alternative is. I still contend, based on citations and references, that the beach issue is the center of his notoriety, but would gladly listen to data that says otherwise, and it sounds like there is no disagreement that it should be in the lede. I felt, and continue to feel, that the old description "venture capitalist and businessman" was both too redundant and vague to be useful, so replaced it with what I thought was the most prominent cause of his notoriety.

No argument though that he was slightly famous before this incident (I believe he is on the Forbes 400 list which I think automatically earns someone a page), and certainly don't think this should be the only thing discussed on this page. I think the Donald Sterling model is a good equivalent, very wealthy and otherwise famous/notable, but clearly famous for one issue. Donald Sterling has his NBA issue almost immediately after the lede... Anyway, I am more than happy to see edits which conform to wiki policy, are supported by current links, and are unbiased though.

Perhaps as a first step, I noticed the page for his company Khosla Ventures is flagged as perhaps not meeting notability guidelines at present. Do you believe it does? I think it might be nice to put something more concrete than "venture capitalist and businessman" in the opening, that describes about 25% of the people I know and I don't think it's very helpful. Evolvedmicrobe (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from somebody with a Morgan Stanley IP [MSIP] interspersed with comments by evolved microbe [EM].

[MSIP] Not at home so don't want to log in to my account, but you are indeed quite mistaken about Khosla's notoriety if you say that 25% of the people you know fit the same description -- unless you know a lot of billionaires who have been heavily involved with Silicon Valley and other innovation from Google to Oracle, Square, Jawbone, DoorDash, IndieGoGo, and others (http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio).

[EM] This remark is no longer relevant, it used to say he was a businessman, I changed it to note he was a billionaire, which as you say doesn't apply to many people

[MSIP] His VC firm is one of the best in existence, and like you said there are a lot of them out there. Tons of notable portfolio companies.

[EM] Do you have any citations? Would be nice to add them in, and as I said I have no objections to data. Right now the wiki article for Khosla Ventures is listed as not meeting notoriety guidelines. I had commented earlier that I couldn't find any national press on this person outside of the beach issue except in industry rags. If you know of some, would be good to add!

[MSIP] The beach issue has attracted a lot of attention, yes, but it's very important to portray it in a neutral fashion.

[EM] Please specify what is not neutral and why

[MSIP] It is far from clear that Khosla is doing anything uniquely or egregiously wrong here, which is clearly how you presented it (this is why you are described as an activist above).

[EM] According to the NY Times, "His opponents contend he is defying the State Constitution, state law and the mind-set of “the beach belongs to everyone” that is fundamental to many Californians." There has been an entire bill introduced into the California State Assembly to help address this issue, it is the subject of two lawsuits, and has received extensive press coverage. My goal is to reflect the NPOV in this article. In general, someones actions do not land them on the cover of the New York Times unless those actions are considered notable in some way

[MSIP] Rather, he purchased a unique piece of property that, by California courts' current understanding, is not covered by any laws that protect public beach access. The courts can and will argue that and decide and the state legislature may seek to amend the situation, but for the time being a lack of a neutral point of view here only serves to reinforce the court of public opinion -- people like you who are just learning who Khosla is for the first time.

[EM] Again please say what is not neutral and why, I changed the article to note that the lawsuit was pending

[MSIP] If they understand the man, his story as an immigrant, his contributions to innovation and technology, his continued commitment to cleantech despite huge losses in recent years, and his politics, they can make a truly informed decision about how they view his actions towards Martin's Beach. And also perhaps how they view all Democrats who regularly meet with President Obama while also acting fairly conservative and protective about their own rights.

[EM] You should be aware that you come off as deeply biased with these statement, though I think it is good for wikipedia that you merely seem strangely infatuated and not paid to edit this article

[MSIP] The combination of all that is why he is notable and interesting, not just the beach purchase. No doubt many will still disagree with his beach actions, but I would be disappointed in anyone that learns all the facts and still approaches the issue as black-and-white. I try to see both sides: he paid for something and owns it, and it's a shame for everyone that grew up accustomed to going to the beach but it is what it is. Too bad he does not feel compelled to leave at least some portion of the beach open. But this is very clearly not a doomsday scenario of all the state's beaches going down the drain, because not many are protected under a 160-year-old treaty like Martin's Beach is. In terms of setting a precedent of closing down public beaches Vinod Khosla is not notable. There is no precedent being set.

[EM] Okay, you seem to be privy to a lot of information that I am not. I think it would be great to add these types of wonderful things in while citing them. For many people, I think his "immigrant story" is that he moved to California, got rich there, and then thanked the state by closing a public beach. If there is more to this story, Wikipedia is the perfect place to give scholarly historic context to this individual in his biography. And I think the page could benefit from any reputable citations that describe his contributions to innovation and clean tech, meaningful changes in the political realm, etc. etc. As we both agree, the courts and state legislature are working the situation out. In regards to the precedent issue, as far as I know no one has used the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to take a private beach in California on the grounds that it supercedes the California Coastal Act, and this would be the first time in the state history that public access to this beach was closed (and it would remain so). It therefore fits both the legal and canonical definitions of "precedent" .

Hi there. While I do not agree with what he is doing with the beach issue - this is really a localized and minor note in an otherwise noteworthy career and does not belong in the lead of the article. I think the section on it makes sense and is appropriate. Goalloverhere (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.55.79 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Outside the narrow confines of the computer industry, this is what he's known for. Chisme (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Goalloverhere your statement is not backed up by citations, nor does it seem sensible to me. Please explain what is noteworthy and why. Billionaires tend to make investments and sit on charity boards, the agreed upon model seemed to be Donald Sterling who was also rich, but does feature his "local" NBA issue in the lede. I still have no idea why people are okay with Java being in there but not the beach issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolvedmicrobe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• prominence of Martin's Beach is richly deserved

I've been a software designer for more than 30 years in a wide range of industries, but the first I ever heard of Khosla was when his beach enclosure hit the news, and I'm confident that most readers outside a narrow circle of Silicon Valley venture capital players would report the same if they were asked. Hence it seems fair and reasonable that the beach controversy should figure prominently in the article, since it's demonstrably more notable than his other accomplishments. For proof we need look no further than the absurdly long list of citations following the Martin's Beach section of the article. By comparison the rest of the article has a discernible whiff of PR, and relatively few citations. The fact that Khosla lost the case on appeal this week only increases its importance. It could be argued that the Martin's Beach case is already notable enough to merit its own article, and that argument will only strengthen if Khosla takes it to the Supreme Court, as Surfrider attorney Joe Crotchet predicts in today's Guardian article Silicon Valley billionaire loses bid to prevent access to public beach. Victimofleisure (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Victimofleisure, having only just heard about Mr Khosla as a result of the August 2017 coverage (which I have added to the Martins Beach section of the article. A legal battle which has gone on since 2010 and is likely to reach the US Supreme Court is much more notable as a distinctive feature of an individual, than being an engineer or venture capitalist. A sentence should be added to the end of the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyuan (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vinod Khosla. 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/20160624195542/https://www.hackerrank.com/team to https://www.hackerrank.com/team

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)