Talk:Business Wire/Archives/2012

POV problems

Sounds like a big ad to me.

Several sentences in this short article seem to be a major violation of WP:NPOV. Emphasis mine on the following quotes:

• "With more than four decades of experience and leadership"
• "most trusted source for journalists"
• "the first news distribution service to make groundbreaking strides towards truly embracing the new global community"

Rather than just jerk the statements, I figured I should get a second opinion. They certainly sound like marketing, though, and I'll probably edit them if nobody else has a better idea soon. --Closeapple 10:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the PR business and prefer BW, but those sound like content-free marketing modifiers to me. I'd delete the phrases in quotes and go directly to the first in China (which is a fact, not an opinion). 206.170.148.247 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)emm

Although someone keeps adding it back, MarketWire is not a main competitor of Business Wire no more than several other services without the scope of services or market share are. Business Wire competes with PR Newswire in multiple markets and in multiple product categories. Combined, these services carry 95% of corporate news releases in the US. Many releases carried on other services have been rejected by the majors, such as items without proper attribution.

OK. I put it back once because it looked like it was being removed with bias (PR Newswire still has it listed), but it could be that someone biased towards MarketWire added it. --Closeapple 09:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't write the initial description and don't know who did, I made numerous edits to remove POV from the descriptions. I hope this makes it more accurate and provides further detail into the service and industry.

According to Factiva, in the last 3 months Business Wire distributed 56,413 press releases. PR Newswire distributed 56,969 and Market Wire distributed 20,236. In the scope of the industry, this makes BW, PRN, and MW the only main competitors. (NewMediAroused 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

improvements

I have merged the various parts dealing with company history, removing duplicates, and omitting some relatively minor items. I've also started reformulating the references per MOS. Additionally, I have removed the excess external links to the various company services, leaving the one to the main web site, which is quite sufficient per our external link policy. Please do not re-add this unnecessayr material without discussion here. DGG (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The two sections, History and Notable Events seem to overlap. So, why fold in the company's positive notable events in history and highlight the negative event in its own section? That sounds like a POV bias by the editor. Also removed article flags as edits on August 29 by others removed non-sourced material that bothered them. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becktold (talk • contribs) 14:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Please see why the tags where put in in "Various issues". The issues remain, and so do the tags. Thanks! --Cerejota 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to review in advance edits? I can update this article with information on it's roll in the disclosure and communications process between companies / organizations and journalists / investors / consumers. The information as presented is relevant to the PR, IR and journalism communities that regularly interact with commercial wire services however. Also, on sourcing, the guidelines don't make clear if referencing back to published press releases from the company is sufficient. Doesn't say its not good enough, but I don't want to make edits that the community don't find acceptable. Thanks.Becktold 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Becktold

Various issues

1. No claim for notability made as per WP:CORP in the lead or article body. I have no idea what this company is and the article doesn't tell why I should know about it.
2. Unsubstantiated claims are made that may constitute original research, in particular the "History" section
3. Accordingly sources need to be found or offending material removed
4. Weak wikilinking - no mention of competitors or market in an encyclopedic fashion

These things should be fixed.

I am also fixing the references to be in the correct format, right now they provide no information as to what the link is, which is misleading. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In fixing references, I found that reference #1 is a dead link, and no claim of retrieval date is made. I want to know why we shouldn't remove it. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags without discussion. Some other editor removed dead link saying other soruces cover the information. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Normally, we don't remove a citation to a good reference simply because the hyperlink is no longer valid (see WP:REF#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"), but in this case it was not a complete citation, just the link itself. Plus, the information in question is verified by the ref at the end of the next sentence. I have removed the dead one. -- Satori Son 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Thanks!--Cerejota 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Earthtimes

It appears that the online newspaper Earthtimes is somehow related to PR Newswire, although I'm not sure just exactly how. ADM (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)