Talk:Rob Enderle

message: I removed some "material" that was poorly sourced, being nice, and poorly written. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that there is a fair amount of low quality citations, blogs and such not wikipedia reliable, about such a person there should be plenty of high quatity citation so as not to use poor ones especially as this is a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with your assesment Off2riorob. --Tom (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi Kop, thanks for your contributions, I can't see that link yet, it for me shows 404 not found, but I will gladly discuss any cites you find, best. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here it is again. NY Times rattles IT industry with analyst ban Pay, no play  Sorry for not checking.  (I did the linking wrong.)  --kop (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one, it appears (tomorrow I will investigate more) to be a report in the aregister of a article in an IT magazine, for now to me it looks weak, other people may disagree with me, as yet I have litle time to analyse the content in the article, tomorrow I will have another looks, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI "Business Day" is a New York Times section.  Link --kop (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Humm.  This seems to be the original NY Times article.  See the Editor's note at the bottom. --kop (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Or maybe this.  I find the Register article more interesting, and relevant, because it points out that Mr Enderle was singled out by the NY Times.  The NY Times is certainly the primary source.  (I have also heard, and not verified, that there is a derth of Enderle quotes in the NY Times after the ban on MS related topics in comparison to before the ban.  It's unclear how to cite this or if a link to some sort of counter vs time graph counts as original research.  I'm not going to go there but I'm curious about Wikipedia policy.)  --kop (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the research, I have looked at the original statement from the NYT and mostly ignored the opinionated editorial type comments in the aregister article as it is a bit of an attack piece, a section header of Robbing Rob for example., looking at them, the paper said that if they knew how involved he was with microsoft they would not have asked him for an independent review on the release of such machine, that is all, this imo does not support the comment that was in the article previously that added 2 and 2 to create a comment that is simply not correct or rather not citeaable....Enderle's critics felt vindicated[23] in their opinion that Enderle is consistently biased in favor of Microsoft[24] when in 2006 The New York Times banned its reporters from quoting Enderle as an authoritative source on Microsoft related topics.[25] .. the new york times just said if they knew he was so connected to Microsoft they would not have asked him for an independent review on that one specific product. Adding the tag on that his critics felt vindicated in their opinion that he is biased towards microsoft due to this comment is imo WP:SYNTH the morphing of two comment to allude to a third position that is not in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly sourced/written criticism section

message: These are also uncited and I couldn't find them in a reliable independant citation so I have moved them here for search and cite and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation required 

message: Kinda surprised that the article doesn't mention at all that, while he is considered a tech expert by some, there's an equally large number of people that have very little regard for his opinion or his worth as a commentator (phrased as delicately as possible). Surely there are some reasonably reliable sources for some anti-Enderle opinions (and can be mentioned in a fairly neutral fashion; I think the guy's an idiot, but I'm not wanting his article to become an attack piece). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism? Really?