Talk:Don Tapscott

message: There's a lot of questionable statements in this article. In particular, this one stands out as both verifiable and highly unlikely: 
:Tapscott was the first to use the term Paradigm shift with respect to business, and also popularized the terms the Digital Economy, Dis/Reintermediation, the Net Generation, the Digital Divide, the Extended Enterprise, the Business Web and Digital Capital.
I'd love to see a citation for this. I find it incredibly unlikely this guy was the first to use the term "paradigm shift" (which was coined by Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s) to apply to business. Would love to see a citation supporting both this and the idea that he was the one who came up with the idea of the "digital divide". --Fastfission 21:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a note: applications of the term "paradigm shift" to economics and business were done as early as 1970, as far as I can tell. For example, the application of Kuhn's work to economics was written about in Edgar S. Dunn, Jr., "Economics and a New Social Science Threshold" Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 36, No. 4. (Apr., 1970), pp. 353-364. An explicit application of it to the business realm can be found in Everett M. Rogers, "New Product Adoption and Diffusion" The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No. 4. (Mar., 1976), pp. 290-301. Now I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr. Tapscott's first publications date from the mid-1980s, and his paradigm shift book was not written until 1992. I'm not sure when Mr. Tapscott is supposed to have coined the term "digital divide" but the earliest reference to it I've found so far is Gary Andrew Poole, "A New Gulf in American Education, the Digital Divide", New York Times (January 29, 1996), p. D3. --Fastfission 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I have reverted this article to the version of May 7th, It would seem that someone from  has made some questionable edits to this article.  I think this version is much more unbiased.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: I had previously uploaded the BW promo shot of Mr. Tapscott but recently found it deleted with a note on my talk page, the image was later deleted. I've since re-uploaded the image with a comment as to how I had e-mailed Mr. Tapscott's company asking whether or not they had promotional shots for wikipedia, they replied with the one I have since uploaded (and reuploaded). I'm not sure how to go about validating this claim, though. Please let me know what I can do to make sure that I'm properly respecting Wikipedia policy in this instance. Thanks for your time -Jdechambeau 07:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Tapscott's Image 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: User:206.248.191.99 reverted User:Mangostar's placement of a new photo with the rationale "see talk page for past discussion"; however, I don't see any relevant discussion on the subject of which photo to use here.  Unless somebody can clarify, I'm reverting to Mangostar's picture, which I agree is better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This article is largely sourced with the author's own materials (generally staff pages are largely sourced from said staff) and local publications.  A large amount of google hits unless to notable publications isn't indicative of notability.  I personally have more google hits than Mr. Tapscott due to work for my job, trade associations and coincident but am hardly a notable public person.  Reboot (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK Reboot (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 1947 - per Wikinomics --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: http://moxieinsight.com/about/ "Don is Chairman of Moxie Insight and directs several of Insight’s research and education programs, was the founder and chairman of the international think tank New Paradigm before its 2007 acquisition by Moxie Software." --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Chairman at Moxie Insight

message: In case they can help with content verification, expansion, or finding other references: --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: External links moved to talk

message: I don't think it is any stretch to assume that most of the recent, major changes to this article are being done as part of Tapscott's own marketing. Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID.
A general rule of thumb to avoid WP:NOT and WP:NPOV problems is to work from independent, reliable sources.
Anything unsourced or poorly sourced should be considered for removal per the restrictions on biographical information. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article being treated as a part of his marketing

message: The insertion of material about Alex Tapscott's legal difficulties in business (example) has no place in an article about Don Tapscott.  I have raised this subjection at the BLP Noticeboard, here. Steve Smith (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was trying to tie it in with the previous paragraph, but the sources I was finding were all poor. The Bloomberg ref used for that paragraph looks questionable as well, mostly promotional. Does anyone have access to the full Bloomberg ref to summarize it and see if it's worth retaining? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a quality-of-referencing issue—it's a this-material-has-nothing-to-do-with-Don-Tapscott issue.  It is, viewed charitably, completely irrelevant.  Viewed less charitably, it is an attempt to smear him with guilt-by-association. Steve Smith (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comments on the previous paragraph or the Bloomberg ref? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong views on the preceding paragraph.  The source looks good, though; Bloomberg News is, to my knowledge, a reliable news source, and the fact that it's behind a paywall suggests that it's a legitimate news article (putting promotional content behind a paywall sort of defeats the purpose).  What's your basis for thinking that it's promotional? Steve Smith (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a copy. It's a simple announcement, and looks like a warmed-over press release from Tapscott. It also doesn't verify the info. I'm removing it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Tapscott