Talk:Wolfram Research

message: The page only has 3 references, and one of those is self published. 3 out of 5 external links lead to the company's own website, and I count at least 3 links in the text to the wolfram website. The presence of this page seems to be part of a carefully crafted promotional exercise. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links,, references, advertising? 

message: :Image:Wolframscreenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wolframscreenshot.jpg

message: The box to the right of the main page says 300+, but where does this information come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkirkby (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How many employees are there in Wolfram Research?

message: My searches for sources e.g.  on google and google news don't turn anything but press releases, wolfram's website or rehashes of press releases. WP:WEIGHT requires that we summarise subjects in proportion to the coverage they have received in independent coverage. There's nothing to indicate to me that this is an important award and certainly no way enough coverage to merit 80 % of the article being about it. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, moreover there is a lack of sourcing for any of the claims in this section of the article. Support removal Lyndaship (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How does a press release from independent sources (e.g., institution of award winner, any non-Wolfram affiliated source, etc.) not constitute independent coverage? WP:WEIGHT relates to the subject's coverage. There's actually very little coverage on the "subject" itself (two sentences, actually). The rest is simply those who have won the award, which isn't the subject of the section. I could see shortening the bios that are listed as some of them are rather lengthy. But to remove them all together seems excessive. Duplo surrogate (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A press release is never an independent source for anything - they are primary sources.  - quite right - it's absolutely nothing to do with Wolfram at all, so why is it in an encyclopedia article about them? If the award was notable, then it could be a standalone article, but it isn't. SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should the winners of a non-notable award be included in the article about the business that is known for creating the Wolfram suite of programs? At most the award can be mentioned in the article (if you can find a third-party source) but including all the winners is tantamount to WP:SPAM. I support deleting the list of winners and not mentioning the award at all. SWL36 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innovation Award 

message: I updated the number of employees to 800.
I need help sourcing the template.
ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The government data cited in the CNN article when Wolfram Research applied for a received a PPP loan shows Wolfram Research employs roughly 400 people, not the 800 claimed by Stephen Wolfram. If you are going to update this page, please try to avoid using Wolfram-published blog posts. Montesquieu1789 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with sources