Talk:PR Newswire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The content of ProfNet was merged into PR Newswire on 4 September 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inline citations analysis (February 2026)
This article was tagged in October 2017 with This article relies excessively on references to primary sources.
I have (briefly) examined some of the inline citations and have the following comments to add.
- Ref #1 is listed as "About PR Newswire" Variety, but the URL is for PRnewswire.mediaroom, not Variety. Furthermore the URL ref is broken too.
- Ref #2 is the New York Times, but is actually an obituary about the founder Herbert Muschel. (i.e. not about PR Newswire itself)
- Ref #3 is also the New York Times, but is WP:CORPTRIV simply reporting the $841m sale to Cision
- Ref #4 is "About PR Newswire", but this time it is properly credited to PR Newswire themselves. Not really acceptable.
- Ref #5 is by The Herald Statesmen, a perfectly acceptable source, but it is all about the Bank of Tangiers fiasco, and reporter David Steinberg, one of their own staff at that time. PR Newswire gets a fleeting mention only.
- Ref #6 & #7 are two more WP:CORPTRIV, both reporting another takeover (this time by Western Union)
- (see above)
- Ref #8 is again by The Herald Statesmen, but is simply more WP:CORPTRIV regarding David Steinberg
- Ref#9 & #10 are both huge PDFs that mention PR Newswire, but only in passing, AFAIK. In fact the second PDF is a colossal 824 pages long, but only mentions PR Newswire once, apparently as a source of information. Maybe that's not so surprising - it is what they do!
I confess I haven't rigorously examined every citation in detail, but I can already detect a certain trend; lots of smoke, but nothing of any substance.
I'm not sure I can add much more than the above. Hope it helps.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)