Jump to content

Talk:Edelman (firm)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jtreem (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 14 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBusiness Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

My name is Jeffrey Treem and I work as an Analyst at Edelman on the company's Change and Employee Engagement Group. I started the entry on Edelman. I wanted to reveal my bias in order to respect the neutral point-of-view of Wikipedia. I understand that generally, Wikipedia frowns on individuals promoting their own organization, but I hope my one sentence entry demonstrates that my goal is to inform and not to market.

Please feel free to expand on this entry. My plan is to let the community expand the entry, and I will only weigh in again on this discussion page in order to correct inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtreem (talk • contribs)

I found this on a disambig page and forked it between the surname definition and the company. I moved over the relevant talkpage message from the disambig page. I added the stub and expansion tags, as well as the NPOV one. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted addition that was promotional and non-relevant to entry. Jtreem 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make an effort to fix what I saw were numerous errors of spelling, grammar, dead red links, style, etc. I removed all obvious spam, non-notable persons and trivia. There are real problems with editing an article with a POV. That's my effort. Anyone else? Bearian 15:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up, Possible References

This article is quite a mess. It needs to be redone as an encyclopedia article, not a publicity brochure. Any Edelman people watching this page should please feel free to comment here on the talk page. We welcome your participation. Please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline to help avoid any possible problems. Thank you!

Somebody who has a lot of time may want to pick through this list to see if there is something in here we can use. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in general this article is an NPOV nightmare - I'm going to tackle it some and see what I can do to clean up. JoeSmack Talk 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There. I've cleaned house. I removed all the O'Dwyer's links because they require subscription access, and most of the PR watch links were either broken or linked back to O'Dwyers after a sentence or two summary. There was also a whole ton of self-published unverifiable information presented as fact that linked back to Edelman's website or a blog of an employee, and so I removed almost all of that stuff. Please, please PLEASE anyone who makes major contributions, read the reliable sources guideline! No original research! Make your source verifiable! And as for all articles, use this discussion page to ask any kind of questions relating to the article and editing it you'd like! JoeSmack Talk 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, Thanks a lot for cleaning up this entry, it was a MESS. A couple of quick things I wanted to ask about. 1) Is it generally policy to not link to articles that require subscription access? I feel this is rather limiting (I ask this not in reference to the O'Dwyer's stuff, but other relevant publications like PR Week or Ad Age or such) 2) Would things like the types of business Edelman does be relevant? It seems that there is a lot of Encyclopedic-type information that is lacking here.

As stated earlier, I will not edit the actual content of the article, just continue to participate on this page.

Thanks again for all your help cleaning this up.Jtreem 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi! 1) Well, if someone cannot see the article to verify the information (either because of subscription or the link is dead), it isn't a verifiable source. If you'd like to be sure, head over to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and ask there, they'd be able to give you a for-sure-answer. Also read reliable source guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - it doesn't just focus on verifiability but on neutrality and original research. 2) To discern notability of information for Edelman, you might want to check out the guidelines for notability at Wikipedia:Notability, and more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Their discussion pages are again a valuable resource for specific inquiries if you still have doubts. Hope this helps; I'd love to see this article grow to be great! JoeSmack Talk 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just a heads up, the entry says controvery instead of controversy.Jtreem 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edelman_(firm)&oldid=130775669"