![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here is a list of the external links that were deleted by a well-meaning editor on the basis that they constituted a link farm which suggests that they were not relevant to the article, Marketing Research. You be the judge and decide for yourselves as to whether these links are irrelevant or not. I would argue that the first link (DMOZ) should be deleted, but the rest should remain. The well meaning editor retained the link to DMOZ and deleted the rest. Go figure!
that were deleted by a well-meaning editor
I'm glad to see we agree that the edit was made in good faith.
Looks like a simple application of EL, especially WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The 2010 version of this article contained the following sentence:
This sentence credits Nielsen with being a pioneer of marketing research as a statistical science in the 1920s and the source for this claim is the Nielsen website. Could it be an instance of Nielsen spruking up his role in the early history of marketing research?
The 2017 version of this article contains the following sentence:
This sentence contains no reference at all, but elevates Nielsen's role to one of creating an entire industry!
There is no question that Nielsen was instrumental in developing techniques for measuring radio audiences in the 1920s and 30s - but to give him full credit for establishing an entire industry requires a much greater burden of proof. Elsewhere on this talk page, evidence of marketing research being practised in the 1800s and even earlier have been provided. It is clear from the timeline provided above, that the development of marketing research as an industry should credit multiple players, not just a single person. The section on history in this article is so very biased, and fails to take into consideration the academic research that has been carried out in this area. BronHiggs ( talk) 02:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: You seem to have missed the entire point of my comments. Firstly the material about Nielsen is factually incorrect and this is a major problem in a history section. Secondly, the material which had a reference (albeit a primary source) seems to have fallen off in 7 years of editing changes and today makes a claim that is totally unsupported. Thirdly, the editing changes that have taken place over 7 years appear to have changed the original meaning and taken Nielsen's role as a major player in developing statistical methods in market research (which arguably has some merit) and elevated him to creating an entire industry - a claim that has no merit whatsoever. This comment was never about primary versus secondary sources; it was and is about the merit of the claim being made in the body of the article. BronHiggs ( talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here is a list of the external links that were deleted by a well-meaning editor on the basis that they constituted a link farm which suggests that they were not relevant to the article, Marketing Research. You be the judge and decide for yourselves as to whether these links are irrelevant or not. I would argue that the first link (DMOZ) should be deleted, but the rest should remain. The well meaning editor retained the link to DMOZ and deleted the rest. Go figure!
that were deleted by a well-meaning editor
I'm glad to see we agree that the edit was made in good faith.
Looks like a simple application of EL, especially WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The 2010 version of this article contained the following sentence:
This sentence credits Nielsen with being a pioneer of marketing research as a statistical science in the 1920s and the source for this claim is the Nielsen website. Could it be an instance of Nielsen spruking up his role in the early history of marketing research?
The 2017 version of this article contains the following sentence:
This sentence contains no reference at all, but elevates Nielsen's role to one of creating an entire industry!
There is no question that Nielsen was instrumental in developing techniques for measuring radio audiences in the 1920s and 30s - but to give him full credit for establishing an entire industry requires a much greater burden of proof. Elsewhere on this talk page, evidence of marketing research being practised in the 1800s and even earlier have been provided. It is clear from the timeline provided above, that the development of marketing research as an industry should credit multiple players, not just a single person. The section on history in this article is so very biased, and fails to take into consideration the academic research that has been carried out in this area. BronHiggs ( talk) 02:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: You seem to have missed the entire point of my comments. Firstly the material about Nielsen is factually incorrect and this is a major problem in a history section. Secondly, the material which had a reference (albeit a primary source) seems to have fallen off in 7 years of editing changes and today makes a claim that is totally unsupported. Thirdly, the editing changes that have taken place over 7 years appear to have changed the original meaning and taken Nielsen's role as a major player in developing statistical methods in market research (which arguably has some merit) and elevated him to creating an entire industry - a claim that has no merit whatsoever. This comment was never about primary versus secondary sources; it was and is about the merit of the claim being made in the body of the article. BronHiggs ( talk) 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)