Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy/Archive 1

Article tags
Hello,

Here's a summary of the issues that I'm seeing:


 * One is the tone of the article, which is the likely reason why the neutrality is being disputed and a tag was added to the article. The article should have an encyclopedic tone - not a marketing tone. From Information sytle and tone, "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." See Walter Adams (economist) for a nice example of a MSU professor. I made some changes to the intro to hopefully get the ball rolling.✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed that several of the sources are blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources. They are looked on more favorably if they are journalist's blogs from the mainstream press. It's best not to use them as sources.✅--- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are comments in the intro, such as: His work has been considered influential and a milestone in the marketing field.[3] and the "gold standard".[4] That can seem to be a neutrality issue, because it seems to be puffing up the subject of the article, without any substantiation. For instance, in what context was he considered influential. In what was is his work the gold standard. Answers to these questions also help people to assess why the individual is notable.
 * I removed these because it's kind of nebulous and we didn't know why the sources had said this. Instead of "telling", the intro now is "showing" how influential he was. See what you think.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I started using a Template:Cite web and Template:Cite web template - it's helpful because it helps sort out the kind of information that should be there. Otherwise, things can get missed - like the title, author, website name, accessdate, etc. You can copy over the string of parameters - and then you just fill them in - and you'll also get lovely, formatted citations.✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would rely on solid sources from newspapers and books. If there's an obituary by a journalist (vs. one prepared by a family member), I usually start with that. This one looks like it might have been written by a family member because of the tone. Do you know if there are others written by a journalist? They have no "horse in the race", so they are generally very objective, have a formal tone, and get down to key issues about the person's life. Oxford is great, too. In progress


 * If you can get info from something besides his own books, that's better, too. I don't think you're far off, though. In progress

Work in progress. More to come.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated comments above. Done for now.- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Forgot to link this earlier. Sorry. Here is a permalink to a discussion on my talk page about the NPOV tag . J bh  Talk  00:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, great! I am going to keep going through and making comments as I see them... and then will regroup with that discussion. I'll be better informed and I'd like to have an objective pass.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is not much substance relating to the article there. Mostly it is a discussion, along with the above and below threads, with a new editor who was having problems with tone and promotionalism here and elsewhere. The article specifics boil down to "make it sound note like Britannica and less like a dust jacket bio. J bh  Talk  00:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll get there. I am making some edits - provided you with an example articles - and you have some comments above. I think the article just needs a little more work, and the tags can be lifted.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest removing the entire "Publications" section. His major books are important enough to mention in the text and those that are not are not really biographical. Also I think the section on the 4P's should be merged with the article 4P's and then briefly discussed in the body and linked to. J bh  Talk  01:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They are in there now, I'd leave them. They don't hurt anything and it gives readers a greater sense of what makes up the 40 or so books. I think it helps with notability.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. J bh  Talk  02:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did miss the point about merging the 4P detail - it's in this revision.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but it helps me to know what issues are crossed off now. Where they seem to me to be completed, I've added a done checkmark. It's a good cross-check to ensure you agree.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea. You have done fantastic work! J bh  Talk  18:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Three good sources
I found three good newspaper articles on HighBeam
 * Overview: Marketing Mix: Product, Price, Place, Promotion
 * Everyday Finance: Economics, Personal Money Management, and Entrepreneurship; January 1, 2008; 700+ words ...together successfully in order to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers. It was another marketing academic, E. Jerome McCarthy of Michigan State University, who refined the idea of the marketing mix by breaking it down into the four basic...


 * Manila Bulletin - The Price of Education
 * Manila Bulletin; February 15, 2004; 700+ words ...for quality education and affordability. Pricing concept. Pricing is tactical, as conceptualized by Professor E. Jerome McCarthy of Michigan State University, the author of the 4Ps of marketing. Unlike product and place, which are both strategic...


 * Mortgage Banking - Bringing Brands to Mortgages
 * Mortgage Banking; March 1, 1996; Healy, Thomas J.; 700+ words ...consider seriously the advantages and disadvantages of each of 6,500 items every time he went shopping," states E. Jerome McCarthy in his book Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. National branding of mortgages would help define a standard...

I think it's against copyright issues to paste the articles here for you to mine for info. But these could be good. I could email them to you.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * These are all done, the only applicable one is the Overview article. The Overview in particular and perhaps the other two could be sources for the Marketing Mix section about 4Ps.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Article points and questions - moved from User talk:CaroleHenson
I just wanted to thank-you for helping out with the McCarthy bio. It is so refreshing to encounter an editor who is actually interested in improving an article, rather than just deleting large slabs of text and earmarking the entire thing for deletion.

The bio was in danger of being deleted, and I thought that it would be such a shame for this to happen. There would hardly be a marketing student today who was unaware of McCarthy's contribution to the discipline. Most standard textbooks mention his work. I really wanted to save him from oblivion. I did my best - added 15 references, added the early career, added an academic box (which someone had said was needed), added the list of selected writings. But instead of improving it, the number of problematic quality tags actually increased!

A couple of things.

1. Date of death: I did not contribute this basic information. But I did find the obit. in the  Lansing Journal which contained more detail. However, I have already used this source for some of his early career. I am unable to use any given source more than once because it forces "cite errors". Try as I might, I have never been able to get this right (have read instructions, have studied how it is done in other articles etc). A lot of the same/ similar material appears in many of the sources - but I can only use each source once and once only. Like you, I suspect the obit was written by family, but I am unaware of any other obit - did search a few periodicals -  New York Times,  Marketing Magazine and the American Marketing Association website etc, but turned up zero. In any case, the basic facts are repeated in many of the other sources.
 * I added the cite tag that you use for multiple uses of the same source. I had already named the source, so it was fast and easy. See this edit-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Qualifications: I managed to find a list of graduates from Uni of Minnesota which lists McCarthy's PhD in 1958 and his MA in 1954. It was a scanned image from the 1940s and 50s; a very long document and did not respond to text recognition. It took me almost an entire day to go through it manually and locate McCarthy's name. The document had no page numbers, and only rarely included dates, so it would be impossible to reference page nos in the citation. I did not use this source because I felt that it may not be considered "reliable" due to the fact that other users would not be able to replicate the information easily. However, that source was useful in cross validating other existing sources with comparable information. Perhaps I made a mistake by omitting it.


 * I don't know, that's probably wise. It's a primary source, that while verifiable, is not easy to verify. People can guesstimate the timeframe between his BA and PhD. I think that's perfectly fine.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Blog: I made a conscious choice to include a blog because McCarthy is one of a rare breed of professors who influenced both practitioners and academics. I could not find any published source that made this point, although among marketers, it seems to be understood. Blogs are the preferred medium for practitioners' writing, so by including a blog, I considered that this would illustrate how far McCarthy's influence had spread. However, the blog is of little consequence- it's really just 'stacks on the mill' -and could be deleted with no real loss of value.


 * I don't know about this one. I've done some searching around in WP and their website. I think I would steer away from this one for a number of reasons, one of which is that I don't see an editorial department. If you want to bring it up to the WP:RSN, you could provide the content and the citation information and have them weigh-in.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

4. Explain why his work was influential: I believe that this would be a dangerous move. If I attempted to explain anything at all, it could be construed as 'original research' and would be rejected. I have relied on what various authors have said - and if they only say that his work was a landmark or a milestone, then I would be very reluctant to embellish on that.


 * The source should speak for itself on this. Anything else, your right is original research. If you cannnot say anything more than "His work has been considered influential and a milestone in the marketing field [3]" without giving the reasons provided by that source, I think it should be left out.


 * I did post something on the talk page about 3 articles on HighBeam and there's a lovely summary of how his concept remains viable over the decades. I can email that to you, if you have the email option setup in preferences. I don't see the "email this user option" on your talk page. And, I believe there are copyright violations of posting the info on a talk page. Why don't you think about whether it might be ok to email you... and if not, we'll circle back on alternatives.


 * For context: The final sentence is: "In spite of these additions and criticisms, the prevailing approach to the marketing mix remains the one based on the four Ps." The source info is: Overview: Marketing Mix: Product, Price, Place, Promotion: What It Means. Everyday Finance: Economics, Personal Money Management, and Entrepreneurship January 1, 2008. You may be able to see a bit of the article here.


 * I am convinced that whether this article used or not, there must be info out there that describes the importance of the concept. I liked this article because it shows varying viewpoints. If need be, I would work on writing and sourcing this. -- CaroleHenson (talk)

5. The 4 Ps: section was there when I started editing this bio. I agree that it doesn't really help, but I am reluctant to delete any previous contribution. I am working on the assumption that if someone put in there, they felt it was meaningful. Unless there are compelling reasons for its deletion (e.g. factually incorrect), I my policy has been to leave it.


 * What makes you think that it should go? I don't understand. I have tried to work on changing the heading name. Since his concept is commonly called the 4Ps, I thought maybe that should be the heading.


 * It would benefit from some polishing. Like there is someone specific that relates to "The concept of a marketing mix had been known from the late 1940s" - I forget his name at the moment and some copy-editing. Why would you want to get rid of this section? It's his seminal work, isn't it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

6. List of Publications: I had some reservations about this too. However, it does illustrate the point that his works have been widely translated and continue to be published in new editions until the present day.


 * I think that it's important to have his list of works. You could have a summary statement, though, for the translated version with the original book title, like "published in four languages" or "published in Chinese, Spanish, etc. and get rid of the "Translations/ Foreign Language Editions" section

7. Other sources: I have searched the Michigan State University site for any mention of McCarthy but turned up very little. It has not been easy researching his early career - but there is heaps of material on his influence.
 * Oh, good, that gets to the points I was trying to make in #4.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again, you have been a big help, and polite and encouraging with it. I have not seen too much of that in the 3 weeks that I have been on Wikipedia. You are a star!!!! I would like to give you a medal, but I don't know how.

BronHiggs (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's very much my pleasure, you just did!


 * I am going to have this moved to the article talk page. I just need to figure out what template I need to use.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like all of these are done or in the works, except I now understand the issue with the 4Ps was merging the detail into the marketing mix article. There's a comment above witht he revision where I removed that detail.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

More thanks
Hi Carole,

Thanks again for all your help.

Initially I had difficulty finding that article "Overview: Marketing Mix: Product, Price, Place, Promotion: What It Means" on Highbeam because it is a subscription service. I am recently retired and don't have a lot of money to spend on subscriptions. However, I did find it in Encyclopedia.com.

I am very aware of some of the criticisms of the 4 Ps - including many that are not mentioned in that article. I really didn't want to go there - I feel that any critique opens up another whole can of worms in terms of original research, source reliability, tone, article length etc. It's the very nature of academe that everything is open to critique.

It's first and foremost a biography of a man; not a debate about the merits his works. For the sake of notability, some mention of his work is necessary. He was never a Vice Chancellor or anything like that which would automatically establish his status as a notable. He was a humble professor, who made an important contribution to the discipline and wrote texts that were very popular and influenced several generations of marketing professionals.

I can't understand why it isn't enough to explain the concept, how it came about and how it influenced marketers. I think the article already does that. Am I missing something?

BronHiggs (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is a volunteer activity - so you don't have to do any more than you wish to do. I've been offering suggestions to help make it a better article and close down the article tags.


 * I'm a little confused by It's first and foremost a biography of a man; not a debate about the merits his works. The only reason he should be in Wikipedia is if he did notable work - its purpose is not to provide a place for people to post biographies. And, even though it's a biography, it still should be objective, otherwise, the information is cherrypicked and a definite neutrality issue. The article that explored McCarthy's concept seemed balanced to me. If the intention is to just have a positive spin, then I don't see the neutrality tag going away.


 * Side comment: Here's the way I look at writing articles here: When I choose something that I want to write about, I don't decide what will be in the article, I follow where information from reliable sources leads me.


 * I am also not understanding, I feel that any critique opens up another whole can of worms in terms of original research, source reliability, tone, article length etc. Why would it be original research to enter information from a source? Why is it a tone issue? It seems like this might be 4-5 sentences or so. So, I'm not understanding how this is an article length issue. I am guessing that there is much more to this story, because I sense frustration in the process.


 * Again, it's totally up to you how and if you want to proceed. I hope you hang-in-here with the article though, because on the whole it seems that it's a very positive story - and any established concept is questioned, right? Isn't that the only way that we continue to hone our understandings and evolve?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm happy to hang in there. You seem to know what you are doing, and you are so positive. I have only been on Wikipedia for about 3 weeks, but my experience has been far from positive. A great deal of material submitted has been challenged - in my view for entirely inappropriate reasons - while other content that is just plain wrong is allowed to stand. But there's not point in going into it all over again. I am keen to finalise a few tasks that I started before quitting Wikipedia indefinitely. When I was a student of marketing back in the 1970s, we used his book, so I was aware of his reputation. When I saw that his Bio might be deleted, I really wanted to do something about it. I am so grateful to you for helping out. I doubt that I could have completed it on my own. It's getting late here in Melbourne, so I'll be heading off to bed shortly. Regards Bronwyn Higgs BronHiggs (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds good. I will be really looking forward to your feedback and help tightening up some of the wording, etc. I studied marketing extensively as well, but it's been quite awhile, and I moved into another field so I'm rusty. I bet we'll make a good team.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Status
I've gone through the article, done some copy-editing for tone, reorganized the sections a little, and then began working on content. I inserted the 4Ps into his career chronologically and copy-edited the section pretty significantly, so it would be good if you could take a look at that and ensure that it's accurate.

I took down the neutrality tag because I believe it is now in a more formal, objective tone - but like I said earlier, there is some info to round out the view of his career. I don't think it will have the impact you might believe. We can talk about that later. In other words, it's a good faith removal.

My mental checklist is
 * Compare content to sources and edit as necessary to not attribute information to a source that has not been provided.
 * Determine if there are additional salient points that could be added to the article. For instance, we the "Planned Innovation Institute" section
 * Replace primary sources (biographical information from his books or an associated organization, his books, and information that has not gone through an editorial process, such as mainstream newspapers, books, etc. The lower we can get the ratio of primary sources to secondary sources lower, the better.
 * Introduce more information from secondary sources to round out his career, impacts that he has made, and any other significant facts.
 * Insert information from the three HighBeam articles and further reading that are salient points and not already stated.
 * See if those sources could be used to replace primary sources
 * completing any missing citation information
 * ensure that there are no issues with the sources
 * ensure content is paraphrased and not copied, unless it's quoted

Questions for you:
 * This quote comes from the Quelch/Cosz "Milestones" article regarding the continuing relevance of the 4Ps: " It also is a reminder of the extent to which marketing decisions are intertwined with sales, production, and other functional areas of the firm." I wasn't sure if it should be added - and if so, where. What do you think?
 * 4Ps - I know that you've looked at removing that section... and I see that the marketing mix article has a lovely table explaining the 4Ps. Would you be interested in paraphrasing each of the Ps into shorter sentences based upon this info:
 * "A product is any good, service, or mixture of goods and services that is being offered to consumers. Price is, of course, the amount of money that the company asks consumers to pay for its product. Place refers to the location where the product will be available to consumers, relative to its channel of distribution (the path the product follows between manufacturing and final purchase). Promotion, finally, is the term used to describe all the methods a company has of communicating with its customers." - taking into consideration that you wanted to remove the section entirely + it is covered in the marketing mix article, I put the links to the four variables in the article and removed the separate description of each of the Ps. If you disagree, though, please let me know.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's it for right now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think we're getting somewhere. I broke up this big section into two additional sections:
 * - which seems pretty straightforward. Please take a look at my comments and links to edits and see how this shakes out.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - There was quite a bit here, so I copied your original comment to and attempted to sort through that. It might be good to bring in some of the folks who have commented in the past about this section. But, it would be good to get your feedback to my comments first - and take it from there.


 * There is still a bit more work to do on the article, like I would like to continue to find replacement sources for items mentioned in McCarthy's book and find a secondary source - but I'm feeling that if we can work out your concerns, we're coming to a good, workable article. After you review my comments in the following two sections, it would be good to get a sense of how you feel about it.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on the revisions
I can't thank you enough for all that you have done to polish this article and add to it. I like the headings and that the detailed discussion of the 4 Ps has been heavily edited. I also like that you managed to include the McCarthys sponsorship of the arts - I had been too afraid to include this out of a fear that it would be challenged as "trivial", "irrelevant" , "editorialising" or "puffing up" the subject.

You really have done great work.

A couple of issues concern me:

1. Development of the 4 Ps


 * [second last paragraph; last sentence; ] Currently reads: "Another factor it can be used with some "extension and adjustment", rather than creating an entirely new model.[2]" I am not sure what you are trying to get at there - but it does not appear to be well expressed.
 * Yep, I was exhausted. Here's my edit. See what you think. Please feel free to edit this to be clearer.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * [second paragraph; second sentence] Currently: "using the 4Ps, to incentivize buyers to purchase product" I am not sure that I would use the term, 'incentivize'. It is not very marketing oriented and possibly overstates the 4Ps' intent. Marketers tend to talk about 'meeting customer needs' or 'satisfying demand' etc. It's not a big deal - but it is a word that I would generally avoid using in a marketing context.
 * The word from the source was "encourage". I'll put that in there.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will try and clean this up. ---inserted in lieu of signature BronHiggs (talk) [time unknown] 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try and clean this up. ---inserted in lieu of signature BronHiggs (talk) [time unknown] 4 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Education


 * [second paragraph; first and second sentences] Currently reads: "In the years after World War II, businesses found that marketing was a means to meet their objectives. Universities began to meet the business-world's needs for qualified staff by offering degrees in market research, marketing management, and other marketing-related fields.  I am not sure about the accuracy of these statements. Universities were offering marketing courses in the 1920s; and marketing research courses even earlier than that. In addition, marketing as formal practice was known from the late nineteenth century. Certainly, in the economic growth conditions of the post-war reconstruction period, the demand for marketing courses grew substantially. However, I don't think we can say such things as they are likely to be challenged on the grounds that of "editorialising". I think I have a few articles on file about the rise of university-based marketing in the context of economic growth conditions. I'll dig them out and see what they have to say and if it is OK, get back to you on this one.

3. Early Career and Education & Author


 * The early career section currently reads, "He was a professor of the College of Commerce at Notre Dame in the spring of 1959.." but the section on Education and author reads, "McCarthy was on the Notre Dame faculty for six years during the 1960s."  For consistency, should the first part state that he was a professor at Notre Dame for six years during the late 1950s and early 1960s? The Notre Dame press release makes it clear that he was there in 1959 - so I assume that he took up the position after he graduated in 1958. His graduation would probably have been in June or July, 1958 in line with the northern hemisphere semester system, so he could have taken up the post at Notre Dame any time after that.


 * My summary of the source information is:
 * McCarthy got his PhD in 1958
 * He taught at the College of Commerce at Notre Dame after that, and was a professor there in March 1959 when he learned that he was awarded the fellowship. (I don't see any reason to question this secondary source on this. It would seem the university would know if he's a professor or not.)
 * The fellowship started "next September" per the Scholarship organ of Notre Dame - I would have liked if they would have said something like "upcoming"
 * * the Scholarship also said that it was a one-year fellowship
 * From the obituary, he was a FF Fellow in 1959 and 1960 - which WP:Common sense would tell me meant that he was a fellow for one year beginning September 1959, but it's not my place to make that conclusion, the reader can do that on their own
 * Then, we hear that he taught at Notre Dame for six years in the 1960s
 * If you think edits are needed to clarify this course of events—that stays within the context of the source info (i.e., no extrapolation)—that would be grrrreeeaaat! (Tony the Tiger great!]-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

For me, the bottom line is that an article should not have internal contradictions. We have one source that clearly establishes that McCarthy was at Notre Dame in 1959 and another source that places him there for 6 years in the 1960s. I was always taught that primary sources (in this case the press release) should take precedence over secondary sources as they are assumed to be more accurate. We have no way of knowing where the secondary source obtained the information about McCarthy's position during the 1960s. There are many ways to get around this apparent anomaly - a simple way would be to avoid mentioning specific dates and just keeping the discussion very general. Another approach would be to assume that the secondary source was mistaken in some way - but I doubt that this would fly with other editors given that Wikipedia, apparently, prefers secondary sources. I am completely out of my depth here. I really don't have a clue how to reconcile this without giving rise to more challenges.

Apart from these minor quibbles, I am so very happy with all that you have done.

Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. Regards Bronwyn BronHiggs (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

 * I don't see how these are mutually exclusive statements. I am guessing that when someone said that he taught at Notre Dame for six years in the 60s, it was just easier than saying the three bullets here.
 * He taught at Notre Dame in 1959 - that is quite clear from the source. Why would a Notre Dame organ say in March 1959 that he was a professor when he wasn't? What possible reason would they have for doing that?
 * He was a fellow for one year spanning over 1959-1960. It appears that he started the fellowship in September 1959, based upon the obituary.
 * Then, he taught at Notre Dame for six years in the sixties... and even that wasn't consecutive years, because he had another fellowship.
 * I know my strengths and weaknesses, question my grammar, question that I don't always word things as tightly as I could on the initial pass, but my logic. That's a tougher sell.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)




 * It concerns the nature of fellowships. The fellow's home institution awards fellowships for the purpose of pursuing post-graduate studies, undertaking a post-graduate study/ research program or for an intensive educational program (that doesn't lead to a qualification). Fellowships often require the candidate to attend a host institution which can be another university or a business, but this is not always the case and some fellows may remain at their home institution. The fellow remains on the payroll of the home institution and remains a member of the Faculty, while the host institution provides 'in-kind' support such as an office, access to office equipment and admin support. Fellowships are normally awarded on merit, and are designed to encourage promising researchers or educators. A fairly standard condition of fellowships is that the fellow cannot be required to undertake other duties. For academics, this means that they are relieved of teaching duties for the duration of the fellowship. Sometimes fellowships are funded, either in whole or in part, by external agencies, in which case they are given fancy names like "Ford Fellowship". There are lots of different types of fellowships. For example, a fellowship awarded to a student who is not a Faculty member (e.g. a doctoral candidate), will normally be given a 'stipend' to defray the costs of tuition and contribute towards living expenses for the duration of their candidature.


 * The press release notes that McCarthy joined the Faculty at Notre Dame in 1956.--BronHiggs (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your point from above was: We have one source that clearly establishes that McCarthy was at Notre Dame in 1959 and another source that places him there for 6 years in the 1960s. I agree that this is what the sources say. I don't see an inconsistency here, the statement wasn't that he only worked at Notre Dame in the 1960s. 1960 was a watershed year, based on publishing the Basic Marketing book. From what I can tell, (since I've tried to find secondary sources, rather than use primary sources), published, reliable secondary sources don't get into what happened before 1960.


 * You added new information: The press release notes that McCarthy joined the Faculty at Notre Dame in 1956. This creates an inconsistency. The way to handle inconsistencies is to 1) state that there is an inconsistency and 2) provide the content and sources related to the inconsistency. For instance,
 * "McCarthy received his MA from Northwestern in 1954 and received his PhD in 1958. McCarthy's obituary states that he began his career as a sales representative for United States Gypsum Corporation, but left the position to pursue a PhD. However, a press release from Notre Dame states that he worked there in 1956 (i.e., during the window between when he received his MA and his PhD.)
 * I added that as a note in the article here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC) I am removing this until we can get the actual quote from the press release, this doesn't make sense. I added a note / question in the timeline below.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Alllrighttttyyyy then, somehow I got the impression that the press release info was found off-line, particularly as there was no url to it. It popped up instantly when I ran a google query ("Jerome McCarthy" "Notre Dame" 1956 OR 1958 OR 1959.) So, I have returned the note, with some modifications, and added info about working at Notre Dame in 1956. Side comment, since using this would be OR, it seems likely that he worked at Gypsum earlier - perhaps after getting his BS degree - got his MA in 1954, did his coursework for his PhD at UofMinn, moved/joined Notre Dame in 1956, and finished his dissertation while at Notre Dame. Which then allowed him to formally get his PhD in 1959. All our job is, as editors, is to report on the information we find from reliable sources, identify inconsistencies where we find them, and let the readers come to conclusions themselves.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a stab at a timeline, which includes the point about working at Notre Dame in 1956. I now see an inconsistency: between the obituary and the press release. These comments are in blue. And, there is your original assertion that the inconsistency was between his working at Notre Dame in 1959 and for six years in the 1960s. Comments about that are purple. This is done to help sort out where there are true inconsistencies.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding this timeline,, I see that instead of responding here, and after you said the article was good to do, you went and tagged the article. I have having a hard time understanding the motivation. You know that there is no more information that crosses this period of time.


 * We could remove the pre-1960 content from primary sources - press releases, etc. We cannot manufacture information. I am having a hard time understanding what you hope to accomplish. What would look like a "win" for you on this issue?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Transcript of Press Release
[Transcript] UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Department of Public Information James E Murphy, Director [hand-written] 59/148 For Release in AM’s Tuesday, March 17

Notre Dame, Ind. Mar. 16 –Professor E Jerome McCarthy of the University of Notre Dame’s College of Commerce has been awarded a Ford Foundation fellowship to attend a special one-year Institute of Basic Mathematics for Application to Business. The Institute, to be held at the Harvard Business School and the Massachusetts University of Technology beginning next September, is part of the Foundation’s program to strengthen business education and research. McCarthy is one of forty-two fellows chosen from among 182 college teachers to be nominated by their institutions.

The purpose of the Institute is to broaden the use of business research, and the teaching of the recent developments in mathematics, statistics and electronic computers. According to the Ford Foundation President, Thomas H. Carroll, “there has been a marked increase in the use of these techniques in such fields as consumer behavior, survey samples and market research, production management, capital investment, personnel administration and industrial experimentation.” The Institute said, “he will assist leading business educators in incorporating these techniques in their own work.”

McCarthy, who joined the Notre Dame Faculty in 1956, has been teaching courses which apply mathematics and statistics to business problems. He was educated at Northwestern University and the University of Minnesota which awarded him a doctorate last year. He recently attended a 3 week course on data processing conducted by the International Business Machines Corp. for faculty members in business schools. McCarthy is a member of the Economics Society and the American Marketing Association. -end-

BronHiggs (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I assumed that since there was no url provided, that you got it from a hard copy. See the update to the article and my comments on the talk page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there is a link to the PR and the article has been updated, collapsed this for brevity on this long talk page.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Revised Timeline
BronHiggs (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A couple of things: Rather than figuring out what the differences are - can you say what the differences are - and show the source?


 * The previous timeline made zero assumptions - it was based upon source content only.


 * This timeline does have some assumptions, like "After graduating, he probably took up the sales position at US Gypsum" all the way to "May have resigned from Notre Dame sometime in 1966; possibly took up position at Michigan State at this time".-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that the DYK won't process now, because this will be seen as a content dispute, which of course it is. I would like to square away, absolutely, anything that you think is inaccurate - based upon cited, reliable sources.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Very difficult to see how first timeline makes "zero assumptions". First the second row states that there is an inconsistency between the obit and the 1959 press release. And, this inconsistency is so important that it gets into the actual article as a footnote. The only way that an inconsistency can be inferred is if an assumption is made that he had not enrolled in a PhD prior to starting at Notre Dame. In my view, there is no inconsistency and my view is simply based on a different reading of the same evidence. Second, the table has McCarthy possibly working at Notre Dame between the years of 1960 and 1969 (10 years), but the cited, reliable source says that he only worked there for 6 years. So the only way that this can work is if it is assumed that he did not work at Notre Dame for a continuous period - but instead resigned and returned several times over. In my view, this seems highly implausible and unlikely. This gives rise to an internal inconsistency within the article.  I appreciate that you don't see it that way - but there is every possibility that other readers, including DYK will see it as an internal contradiction. We have been over this before and you have indicated your reluctance to change the content in this regard.  I have no intentions of changing the article because I realise that this is very upsetting for you. However, I feel that it is appropriate to post an alternative reading of the evidence on the Discussion Page. Users then have access to different interpretations of the same evidence and can make up their own mind. I have little interest in DYK or any other accolades, but I am interested in the accuracy of the content. BronHiggs (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I'll break this down - I've copied your response here


 * Very difficult to see how first timeline makes "zero assumptions". First the second row states that there is an inconsistency between the obit and the 1959 press release. And, this inconsistency is so important that it gets into the actual article as a footnote.
 * Yes, that's not an assumption, that's the proper way to handle an inconsistency - state what the two sources say and leave it to the reader to sort it out.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement that there is an inconsistency between two sources is predicated on the assumption that McCarthy was not working at US Gypsum when he enrolled in a PhD. As you know, the obit. says that he resigned from US Gypsum to pursue a PhD. A different source (the press release) says that he joined the Faculty at Notre Dame in 1956. We do not have access to any source that gives the data of enrolment in a PhD program, although we have documentary sources for a completion date (1958). It is, however, entirely plausible that the obit. was correct and that he  he was still employed at US Gypsum when he enrolled in the PhD program. You have decided to treat this as an inconsistency. The evidence does not support the view that there is an inconsistency. Most PhD programs take 3-5 years to complete. Given that he graduated in 1958, it would seem entirely plausible that he commenced this course of study sometime between 1953 and 1955 -well before he commenced working at Notre Dame. Now we also have evidence that he took out his Masters degree in 1954 and it is customary for candidates to have completed a Masters before embarking on a higher degree - so this narrows the window for enrolment in a PhD to 1954-55. In addition, for employment universities typically insist on Faculty having attained a doctoral qualification OR having made substantial progress towards completion.   Further, the obit. states that McCarthy started his career at U.S. Gypsum. Now, we know that he graduated with a B Sc in 1950 - so this suggests WP:Common sense that he worked at U.S. Gypsum from 1950 to about 1954 or 1955.


 * The only way that an inconsistency can be inferred is if an assumption is made that he had not enrolled in a PhD prior to starting at Notre Dame. In my view, there is no inconsistency and my view is simply based on a different reading of the same evidence.
 * I don't understand the point here. Are you saying that there is something added to the article that is an assumption? What is it?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See above


 * Second, the table has McCarthy possibly working at Notre Dame between the years of 1960 and 1969 (10 years), but the cited, reliable source says that he only worked there for 6 years.
 * This was a table, here, just for discussional purposes - there's nothing in the article about it. It just shows he could have worked any of those years to come up with the total of six years. I have zero idea what the years might have been and we cannot assume anything.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. The revised table is also there for discussion purposes.


 * So the only way that this can work is if it is assumed that he did not work at Notre Dame for a continuous period - but instead resigned and returned several times over. In my view, this seems highly implausible and unlikely.
 * This is original research, it's not our place to determine how the facts come together.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * This gives rise to an internal inconsistency within the article. I appreciate that you don't see it that way - but there is every possibility that other readers, including DYK will see it as an internal contradiction.
 * What is a contradiction, other than what is stated as a potential contradiction in the note in the article?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the early career section at the beginning of the article, the article states "He was a professor of the College of Commerce at Notre Dame[9][10] beginning in 1956" and later in the article, in the section, "Education and Author" the article states "McCarthy was on the Notre Dame faculty for six years during the 1960s,[20]" I have suggested on several occasions that some readers may see this as an internal contradiction.


 * We have been over this before and you have indicated your reluctance to change the content in this regard. I have no intentions of changing the article because I realise that this is very upsetting for you.
 * I have not idea what you're talking about. I tried to break this down - you didn't answer the questions - I added content based upon what is in the sources. If you drop from the conversation - how is that my unwillingness to change something.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you know very well what I am talking about. When I first raised this issue possible contradiction, you said that the two statements were not "mutually exclusive" and also added "I know my strengths and weaknesses, question my grammar, question that I don't always word things as tightly as I could on the initial pass, but my logic. That's a tougher sell." This was clearly putting words into my mouth - and signalled that you were taking the issue very personally. To be honest, I was appalled that you would accuse me of somehow undermining your logical thinking abilities, when nothing I wrote could reasonably be construed as indicating this was the case. At that time, I thought it best to back away and to refrain from questioning anything. My response to you was to ignore the implied insult and stick to the issues, by adding further information - a written explanation of the fellowship system plus two transcripts of press releases. You appeared to accept all that information, yet the article was not changed. So not only your comments, but also by your actions (or lack of action), indicated a genuine reluctance to make any changes in relation to this issue.
 * On November 5, you said: Personally, I think that this article is good to go. You have been enormously helpful and supportive. I am very relieved that the quality tags have been removed, and that we have saved McCarthy's piece from potential deletion. In my view, he is worthy of inclusion. Kind Regards BronHiggs (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have thanked you multiple times and thank-you yet again for all your help in saving McCarthy's article from deletion. At no stage, did I think that this would mean that the article cannot be improved or subject to further editing.
 * I have said and will say one more time: I would like to square away, absolutely, anything that you think is inaccurate - based upon cited, reliable sources. -- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for saying so, but this seems like a very hollow offer given the preceding comments.


 * However, I feel that it is appropriate to post an alternative reading of the evidence on the Discussion Page. Users then have access to different interpretations of the same evidence and can make up their own mind. I have little interest in DYK or any other accolades, but I am interested in the accuracy of the content. BronHiggs (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the different reading of the evidence?
 * The different reading of the evidence is in the table, in my responses to your comments here and elsewhere.
 * This is the only thing that I personally need a response to: I don't see what specific sentences you think need to be changed in the article. Can you please get very specific. The article says "x" - it should say "y" - and, here are my sources to back up "y".-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained many, many times where I believe the problems are, but as noted above, you seem to want to shut me down. That's fine. I am not going to go over it again and again and give you further opportunities to put words in my mouth and accuse me of undermining you in some kind of personal attack. I do not intend to get into any further debates on this issue. I have made my position clear. You have made your position clear. It cannot be reconciled in the short term. As I have indicated, I have no plans to amend the article (not even references with incorrect dates) - but I feel that I am entitled to put an alternative perspective on the discussion page. BronHiggs (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How am I shutting you down?


 * I know that the area of concern is the time before he got to Michigan State, and I know you have theories. But I truly have zero idea how you want the article to be reworded and what sources you have to back it up. So, I've pasted the content here. Please modify the content as you think it should be modified and show what sources you've got the information from.


 * As an FYI, I have a disability where I get sensory overload very easily. I do super well working one problem at a time, but there are so many words here and it is very hard for me to process - and I truly cannot process the "maybe" and "probably" statements - I literally go into a mental tailspin because I'm thinking of the facts from the sources. My mind circles and processing literally shuts down. That's why I have to break things down and why I need specifics. I just want to know what you want - just the specifics. Is that possible?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As a funny analogy, someone I know used to have a hard time getting things fixed when she returned them to the manufacturer. Then, she realized all she needed to say essentially was, through no fault of her own: "Iron not working. Fix or replace". And, then issues got resolved.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Another option is to submit a request for Editor assistance or Third opinion. I haven't read through these to see what might be most applicable, but that's another thought.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Retracting these comments - to explore the following option.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

After processing this, a lightbulb went on in my head. I think that the key issue is that you believe it is common sense to come to some conclusions about his career to help explain how his educational and professional careers flowed together, and I see making any conclusions as OR. We have both been trying to get the other to see our point of view, but we both think our opinions are correct.

I suggest that we get a 3rd party opinion. The information that I wish to share is the article, in its present form. I drafted the following write-up thinking that information that you wish to share is the revised timeline you prepared, please add whatever sections or diffs I may have failed to think of.

I'm going to post a summary at the bottom of this page, so it's easier to find.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Current text
McCarthy received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1950 from Northwestern University. He received his Master of Arts in 1954 and his PhD in 1958 from the University of Minnesota. His doctoral dissertation was An Analysis of the Use of Marketing Research in Product Development.
 * Education

McCarthy began his career as a sales representative for United States Gypsum Corporation.
 * Early career

He was a professor of the College of Commerce at Notre Dame beginning in 1956. He taught courses about how statistics and mathematics applied to business problems. McCarthy received his PhD from the University of Minnesota in 1958.

In the spring of 1959, while a professor of the College of Commerce, he was informed that he received a one-year Ford Foundation Fellowship at Harvard Business School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Beginning in September, he focused on mathematical applications for business, as part of the Foundation's program to "strengthen business education and research", and specifically to work on mathematical models for marketing.

Proposed text
--- Please add the revised text you propose here ---

Identifying reliable sources
There are some guidelines that you may want to check out:
 * Identifying and using primary sources, particularly the "Characteristics of a secondary source" section. You may want to read this a couple of times. I am serious. (Side note: I had a major paradigm shift in thinking about this myself, having spent many years on genealogy, which is largely based upon primary records, which is also why there can be so many errors in genealogical information.)
 * Identifying reliable sources

In the case of the press release for this article, I see no reason to question the press release. In the thousands of articles I have worked on, I think I added a press release once - and that was early on. The issues are: 1) if it's important, info from a press release will be reviewed and treated in a journalistic manner by mainstream press (find other sources, fact-check, editorial review for instance), and 2) press release are not necessarily neutral and objective. I know right now, this has stopped you in your tracks. No worries, there's a lot to assimilate. But, I thought I'd throw it out there to help illustrate the notion of what it is to find a reliable source.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Managerial approach
I should also have mentioned that the article, somewhere along the line, has lost the emphasis on the managerial approach. It's not just a question of how many Ps (or marketing decisions) need to be made and that McCarthy simplified all this. McCarthy's contribution was more profound. The success of McCarthy's texts, popularised the so-called "managerial approach". Borden, and others, did make use of checklists - and they have been described as constituting the so-called "functionalist school" - which was more of a systems approach. In contrast McCarthy focussed on the problems and decisions facing the marketer. I don't think we can say that McCarthy was first to develop the "managerial approach" in the same way that he was the first to propose the 4Ps because the concept was floating around but wasn't the dominant perspective at the time. The concept of the 4Ps was essentially managerial in its perspective, and the popularity of McCarthy's work meant that the functionalist approach lost its general appeal. These arguments about different perspectives are complex and require extensive citations and lengthy arguments - and should probably be hashed out in other articles such as 'Marketing' or 'History of Marketing' rather than embedded in a Bio. It was for this reason that I relegated Borden to an explanatory footnote and used the phrase 'wrapped up in a managerial approach' to describe McCarthy's contribution as well as mentioning that it was one of the aspects of the work that was attractive to marketers - both practitioners and academics.

Here follows a direct quote from an article by Shelby Hunt and Jerry Goolsby which captures the distinction between functionalist and managerial approaches (Shelby D. Hunt is a very eminent marketing theorist):

"The publication of McCarthy's Basic Marketing (1960) is widely cited as the "beginning of the end" for the functional approach. McCarthy Organized his text along managerial lines using the Four Ps of price, place, promotion, and product. The emphasis of the book was on the problems of the marketing manager, rather than looking at the characteristics of marketing systems and their functions. The 1960s represent a transitional period wherein books adopting the managerial approach existed side by side with those using the more traditional functional approach." Source: Shelby D. Hunt and Jerry Goolsby, "The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective," originally published in 1988 and reprinted in: Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue - Marketing Legends, Vol. 1, Naresh K. Malhotra,(ed), Bingley, UK, Emerald, 2011  [partially accessible via Google Books]

I don't know whether it's a big deal or not. I'm uncertain about how to integrate this - or even whether it is a good idea to attempt to do so, and I worry about the introduction of any new ideas giving rise to fresh challenges.

Regards BronHiggs (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Response
Here's a copy of your original comment, that I will respond to in bits, like how you might eat an elephant:

[1.] I should also have mentioned that the article, somewhere along the line, has lost the emphasis on the managerial approach. It's not just a question of how many Ps (or marketing decisions) need to be made and that McCarthy simplified all this.


 * That's fine, I absolutely don't remember deleting anything about managerial approach I remember adding something and agree it would be good to expand upon that.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

[2.] McCarthy's contribution was more profound. The success of McCarthy's texts, popularised the so-called "managerial approach". Borden, and others, did make use of checklists - and they have been described as constituting the so-called "functionalist school" - which was more of a systems approach. In contrast McCarthy focussed on the problems and decisions facing the marketer. I don't think we can say that McCarthy was first to develop the "managerial approach" in the same way that he was the first to propose the 4Ps because the concept was floating around but wasn't the dominant perspective at the time.


 * We need to go back to the source. I probably did not word this correctly - pulling from any of the existing sources or using a new one(s). Can you help with that?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

[3.] The concept of the 4Ps was essentially managerial in its perspective, and the popularity of McCarthy's work meant that the functionalist approach lost its general appeal. These arguments about different perspectives are complex and require extensive citations and lengthy arguments - and should probably be hashed out in other articles such as 'Marketing' or 'History of Marketing' rather than embedded in a Bio. It was for this reason that I relegated Borden to an explanatory footnote and used the phrase 'wrapped up in a managerial approach' to describe McCarthy's contribution as well as mentioning that it was one of the aspects of the work that was attractive to marketers - both practitioners and academics.


 * I need to digest this a bit more. The connection between the work that Borden was doing, and what McCarthy developed, is stated often in books about the 4Ps. I am trying to figure out how the Borden statement is inaccurate. Let's come back to this. I get lost sometimes by comments like These arguments about different perspectives are complex and require extensive citations and lengthy arguments - and should probably be hashed out in other articles such as 'Marketing' or 'History of Marketing' rather than embedded in a Bio.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

[4.] Here follows a direct quote from an article by Shelby Hunt and Jerry Goolsby which captures the distinction between functionalist and managerial approaches (Shelby D. Hunt is a very eminent marketing theorist):

"The publication of McCarthy's Basic Marketing (1960) is widely cited as the "beginning of the end" for the functional approach. McCarthy Organized his text along managerial lines using the Four Ps of price, place, promotion, and product. The emphasis of the book was on the problems of the marketing manager, rather than looking at the characteristics of marketing systems and their functions. The 1960s represent a transitional period wherein books adopting the managerial approach existed side by side with those using the more traditional functional approach." Source: Shelby D. Hunt and Jerry Goolsby, "The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective," originally published in 1988 and reprinted in: Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue - Marketing Legends, Vol. 1, Naresh K. Malhotra,(ed), Bingley, UK, Emerald, 2011  [partially accessible via Google Books]


 * Let's come back to this. It may be that this is a good quote to add alongside the info
 * ""The publication of McCarthy's Basic Marketing (1960) is widely cited as the "beginning of the end" for the functional approach. McCarthy Organized his text along managerial lines using the Four Ps of price, place, promotion, and product. The emphasis of the book was on the problems of the marketing manager, rather than looking at the characteristics of marketing systems and their functions. The 1960s represent a transitional period wherein books adopting the managerial approach existed side by side with those using the more traditional functional approach.""

- Shelby D. Hunt and Jerry Goolsby, "The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective,"


 * I need to digest this. It may be that we have someone else come in and take a look at how to seque the points you make here and what is in the section now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's a big deal or not. I'm uncertain about how to integrate this - or even whether it is a good idea to attempt to do so, and I worry about the introduction of any new ideas giving rise to fresh challenges.

Regards BronHiggs (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, there's a lot to consider here. I need to digest it a bit. But, I think we're close. We just need to work out how to address your concerns here, using secondary sources, and without attempting to "boil the ocean," which I am hearing you have a concern about as well. By the way, I am not sure of our cultural differences (I'm an American, and I think you said you're Australian), so I added links for fun to my off-beat Tony the Tiger and "boil the ocean" comments.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Company name
I'm running across E. Jerome McCarthy & Associates - I believe they were formed about 1978 as a for-profit organization. Just an FYI, in the event someone else finds more info about this.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have also seen mention of this, but was unable to track down any detail. I am also concerned that it might be a different person with the same name. In the absence of detail, it is impossible to tell. BronHiggs (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I agree, . I just thought it was interesting and wondered if it might be related to the consultancy work he was doing. There's not a thread, though, to tie it back to him at this time.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Publications
made the following comment in the section:
 * I would suggest removing the entire "Publications" section. His major books are important enough to mention in the text and those that are not are not really biographical....

I think you brought this up, too,. At the time, I said that it seemed best to keep it since it was already put together. I now think I understand where you all might have been coming from. There's so much information about his first book, that secondary sources don't seem to get into these other books. And, so his career section seems a bit lop-sided.

It now makes sense to me to do that. If you agree, would you like to tackle that BronHiggs?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear actually what is being suggested here. I think both you and Hunley are suggesting that the publications should be deleted. My feeling is that if this is what Hunley wants, then this is what should happen. I would be happy to delete the publications if that increases the chances that the Bio will remain as part of Wikipedia's Notable Persons.-- in lieu of a signature, 23:27, 4 November 2016 BronHiggs
 * I'm not entirely clear actually what is being suggested here. I think both you and Hunley are suggesting that the publications should be deleted. My feeling is that if this is what Hunley wants, then this is what should happen. I would be happy to delete the publications if that increases the chances that the Bio will remain as part of Wikipedia's Notable Persons.-- in lieu of a signature, 23:27, 4 November 2016 BronHiggs


 * , A couple of things: 1) The notability tag has been removed, you get to let out a sigh. Take a deep breath, it's coming together. 2) Per Jbh, His major books are important enough to mention in the text and those that are not are not really biographical and 3) Per CH, There's so much information about his first book, that secondary sources don't seem to get into these other books. And, so his career section seems a bit lop-sided.


 * Which boils down to mentioning the important books in the Career section. Does that make sense? Of his other books, what are noteworthy?


 * Let me take a stab at the teaching aids piece to get it rolling.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @BronHiggs With the state of the article and its sourcing there is no question of deletion so that should not be a worry as you consider what to do with the publications section. One thing to consider is which of his books may meet the the notability criteria for books and be eligible for their own stand alone article. Generally two independently published book reviews, say in an academic journal, fulfills the notability criteria. Those books could be kept in the publications section as either or wikilinked to stub articles.  J bh  Talk  06:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank-your for this suggestion. It's a lovely thought, but I couldn't bear to do another one. Perhaps there is someone else who would like to take up this challenge? BronHiggs (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since he co-authored two learning aids for Essentials of Marketing, both of which have at least 14 editions, that might be an important book.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Transcript of Press Release
Moved this comment up to the applicable thread - under Timeline.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Transcript of Extract Press Release from University of Minnesota
Transcript of Extract from University of Minnesota Press Release, June – September, 1954 [no date, circa June 15, 1954] UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA NEWS SERVICE ALUMNI INFORMATION

PUBLICITY DIRECTOR: Listed here you will find the names of persons who previously received degrees from your school who were awarded advanced degrees at commencement exercises at the University of Minnesota June 12, 1954. The degree indicated in parentheses is that received from your school with the date it was given. The degree typed out is the new degree from the University of Minnesota.

William T. Harris, Jr. Director, University News Service … [long list of names] Northwestern University---Cletis Stewart Dorsey (B.S, '41, M.D, '44) master of science in dermatology and syphilology; Elizabeth Thorne Grant (B,S. '51) master of arts; Edmund Jerome McCarthy (B,S, '50) master of arts.

BronHiggs (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I added info to the citation here.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to Go
Personally, I think that this article is good to go. You have been enormously helpful and supportive. I am very relieved that the quality tags have been removed, and that we have saved McCarthy's piece from potential deletion. In my view, he is worthy of inclusion.

Kind Regards BronHiggs (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's my general feeling, too. Grrrrreat! (Tony the Tiger again).-- CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Just as an FYI, I am going to pick away at primary sources a bit - and replace with secondary sources when I can.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks BronHiggs (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for 3rd party opinion
There is a difference of opinion about how to portray some of the information in the E. Jerome McCarthy article.


 * 1) Specifically, this concerns the information in the Education, Early career, and E. Jerome McCarthy sections and the first note.
 * 2) There are some discrepancies in the timeline of McCarthy's life, which is complicated by an overlap of his employment, university studies, fellowships, and teaching experience. BronHigg's timeline will provide more detail, but two of the statements that cause the biggest issues are:
 * 3) A source says that he left Gysum to get his PhD, when it's clear that he worked at Notre Dame before he officially received his PhD.
 * 4) One of the sources said that McCarthy taught at Notre Dame for six years in the 1960s. He clearly also taught there in the mid-1950s.

believes that the way to solve this is to state just the facts from the sources, and explain the discrepancies where they occur. Making any conclusions or conjecture, in her opinion, is OR. She feels that the current article content reflects the information from the sources.

My understanding is that believes that there should be some explanation for the reader to help them understand the discrepancies, using common sense. In his opinion the article is not correct, because it does not provide explanation, using common sense, where it could. Please see the table in revised timeline.

Would you help us sort out how to proceed?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)



Thank-you for doing this. I think it is an excellent idea. I am adding a clarification below. As you will note, I do not believe that both issues require explanation.

Addendum

In regards to the timeline for the the timing of his PhD, CaroleHenson believes there is an inconsistency in the sources/ evidence. BronHiggs believes that there is no inconsistency. One source (an obituary) clearly states that McCarthy resigned from US Gypsum to undertake a PhD. Unfortunately the source does not state the year when he enrolled in a PhD. A different source (a press release from Notre Dame) states that McCarthy joined the Faculty of Notre Dame in 1956. Several other sources state that McCarthy gained his PhD in 1958. In my view, these sources are not incompatible. Enrolling in a PhD is not the same as being awarded a PhD. Common sense suggests that it takes a considerable amount of time to undertake the research expected for a doctoral dissertation (normally 3-5 years). He is likely to have started this research well before he joined the Faculty in 1956. Indeed, the obituary is almost certainly correct and there is no valid reason to assume that it is incorrect or inconsistent with other evidence. Yet, the article contains a long footnote explaining the apparent inconsistency.

Second, the article discusses McCarthy's career at Notre Dame in two different parts of the article. In the opening sections, it states that he joined the Faculty of Notre Dame in 1956 (Notre Dame Press Release (i.e. primary source). In a later passage, the article claims that he worked at Notre Dame for 6 years in the 1960s (secondary source). Bronhiggs believes that this could be seen as an internal contradiction and may require some explanation. CaroleHenson does not believe that these two statements present any problem and do not require any explanation. BronHiggs (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't have a problem with the way the article is now. And, I don't have an issue with modifying the existing note and adding another note about when he worked at Notre Dame. My only issue is with speculation about the years that things happened.


 * Regarding his working at Notre Dame, can you draft proposed language for the note you'd like to see?
 * If you think that the existing note needs to be reworded, can you draft proposed language for the rewording?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: I think maybe you're both overthinking this a bit. WP:NOR does not forbid us to use common sense when looking at the sources. More to the point, articles should not reflect editors' angst at perceived inconsistencies in the sources. So what do we know, and what can we reasonably surmise? The 1959 press release says that McCarthy joined the faculty at Notre Dame in 1956, and that he got a doctorate at the University of Minnesota in 1958, so he must somehow have been doing the two things together – teaching at Notre Dame and working towards his PhD. His obituary says that he worked as a sales rep (not really a job for people with higher degrees) for US Gypsum before embarking on his PhD. He had two years between getting his Masters and going to Notre Dame during which me might have joined US Gypsum and then quit. The obit doesn't say how long he stuck it. Here I would ask: is there any need to mention US Gypsum at all? This isn't a resumé, and the sales rep job wasn't a significant event in his life. So then, the editor of a marketing textbook says that McCarthy was at Notre Dame for six years "during the 1960s". This was not a biography, just an introduction to a chapter. So should he have said "between 1956 and 1962"? Almost certainly. He was at Notre Dame for six years, and then moved on to Michigan State "during the 1960s". How to handle that in the article? Just say "after Notre Dame he went to Michigan State". That's as much detail as the article needs. Result: an informative article with no contradictions. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Lovely, I love simple solutions! I made the changes to the document and it does look better now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lovely, I love simple solutions! I made the changes to the document and it does look better now.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider the relevant issues. I am more than happy with the solution. BronHiggs (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. With regard to this, though, I would be inclined to remove "McCarthy was on the Notre Dame faculty again", and begin the sentence with "He had Ford Foundation Fellowship in 1963 and 1964", because none of your sources say he was employed there more than once. Also, "McCarthy received his PhD from the University of Minnesota in 1958" could be left out of the Career section, because it's already stated in the Education section. Scolaire (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the word "again" - although it does seem common sense - he worked there in the 1956 and then for six years in the 1960s. So, your suggesting we don't mention at all that he worked at Notre Dame after his 1960 book?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I made all the suggested changes. It made sense when I got back there and saw that there was nothing that said he left Notre Dame... and then we pick up that he went to Michigan after Notre Dame. It just took a bit to process. ✅-- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Great. Scolaire (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK - Managerial approach - defintion
The request was to put in a definition of the managerial approach. Does this hit the mark at all?


 * For instance, I see a definition of the is a management science for decision-making, such as these.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Exploration of the managerial approach and its history
Copied from Template:Did you know nominations/E. Jerome McCarthy and used "#" for formatting:
 * 1) Prior to 1960, the so-called functionalist school dominated the discipline. (Schools, in this context, primarily refers to how the discipline is taught- but as always there is some overlap between theory and practice)
 * 2) The managerial approach was known prior to 1960 but is not generally regarded as the dominant model.
 * 3) The functionalist approach, which really had been kicking around from the 1920s and 30s, was primarily concerned with the "functions" of marketing (hence the name functionalist school or approach).
 * 4) The functionalist school asked questions such as "Is sales a marketing responsibility?"  "Is advertising a marketing responsibility" "Who is responsible for distribution and logistics?" For example, a lot of theorising went into which distribution functions were marketing responsibilities and what functions were performed by third party channel intermediaries such as transportation companies, warehousing and wholesale/ retail operators.
 * 5) The publication of McCarthy's book presented an elegant and simple framework for managerial decision-making in the marketing area. The basic framework is the 4 Ps - four key decision areas, but also includes the customer who is the focus of of these decisions - accordingly, issues such as consumer research (understanding the customer) also form part of McC's approach.
 * 6) The book immediately grabbed the attention of both academics and practitioners - which at the time was unusual.
 * 7) Within a few years of the book's publication, the functionalist approach was as good as dead in the water and the managerial approach became the dominant school of thought.
 * 8) The 4 Ps is not without criticism, but at this time no-one has really come up with a better model - so it enjoys continuing currency and forms the backbone of most university programs in marketing as well as defining market department areas of responsibility.

I have previously supplied references in support of these observations. BronHiggs (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What can I do to help realize this text getting cited using a secondary source, perhaps slightly edited based upon source(s), and into the article?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The more that I think of it—once again being told I'm unresponsive in working on this article (as you did on the DYK page) after your . I am done after the last of the DYK issues are resolved.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about article from Template:Did you know nominations/E. Jerome McCarthy
I really don't know what to do about the McCarthy article? There seems to be a lot of "tweaking" which inadvertently results in the text getting further and further away from the original plan. I will outline some of the issues that I have detected:


 * 1. Lead Section:
 * "He [McCarthy] was the first to define the managerial approach in marketing and proposed the concept of the 4 Ps marketing mix in his 1960 book Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, which has been one of the top textbooks in university marketing courses since its publication.[1][2]"
 * Comment: The first claim that he was the first to define the managerial approach appears to be unsourced. Further this claim appears to be a highly debatable assertion. The managerial school was known prior to the 1950s and 60s, well before McCarthy published his book, but at the time the discipline was dominated by the so-called functional school. Most of the sources that I have consulted appear to credit McCarthy with putting the managerial school on the map and sounding the death knell for the functionalist school.


 * 2. Development of 4 Ps Concept: 2nd paragraph
 * "Another important factor was his definition of a "managerial approach".[10][11] The managerial approach evolved from the functional approach of the early twentieth century, which was viewed from an economic perspective. However, it did not consider the value of distribution.[12]
 * Comment: The claim that it [the managerial approach] is not supported by the source. The relevant passage in the source is, "Our appreciation of marketing's contributions is enhanced by the 'functional approach' which arose early in the twentieth century in reaction to mainstream economic's lack of attention to the value of the distribution function." (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZjQb3xZoVe0C&pg=PA19&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, p.19) My reading of this passage is that it was the economics discipline that had failed to offer insights for managing the distribution function. The passage does not appear to make any claims about failures on the part of either marketing management (i.e. the managerial approach) or the functional approach. Elsewhere in the same source, lengthy discussions of how both marketing management and the functional approach treated distribution can be found. This source cannot be used to support any claim that marketing management was deficient in its treatment of distribution.


 * 3. Educator and author: 2nd paragraph
 * "McCarthy coauthored two learning aids for Essentials of Marketing [30][31]and one about Computest, a computer testing system.[32]"
 * Comment/ question: Are we confident that it was only two learning aids? If so, is there a reliable source? If not, why specify a number? Could this be reframed to indicate that he coauthored a number [or several] learning aids. Are we confident that the second book was about Computest? Or, was it a test-bank designed by McCarthy designed to be used in conjunction with the software program, known as Computest? On a related issue, I wonder why the focus is on learning aids when it is clear that McCarthy also developed many teaching aids and did this at a time when relatively few teaching resources were published.


 * 4. Further reading: Item
 * " Alf H. Walle (January 2010). The Equitable Cultural Tourism Handbook. IAP. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-60752-359-8."
 * Comment: This appears to be a link to end of chapter discussion questions (without solutions). The chapter offers little insight into the development of marketing thought, and indeed does not even mention the managerial approach as a significant school of thought (and instead identifies four schools namely, the commodity school, the functional school,the institutional school and the regional school) See https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cd6Sjxu2lesC&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, p.12 but then elsewhere in the chapter,  detailed discussion of McCarthy and the managerial approach is presented without any real attempt to integrate it into the "schools" (pp 17-19). The discussion of the schools in what is essentially an introductory text is rather fragmented and lacking in any  overall conceptual framework. It has the potential to confuse readers rather than clarify and I would recommend that it be dropped. There are far better references to the evolution of the schools. A useful example would be: Shelby D. Hunt and Jerry Goolsby, "The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective," originally published in 1988 and reprinted in: Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue - Marketing Legends, Vol. 1, Naresh K. Malhotra,(ed), Bingley, UK, Emerald, 2011 [partially accessible via Google Books]

-- previously unsigned 15:36, 13 December 2016‎ User:BronHiggs


 * It seems we continue to have issues surface after your . Since you bring it up - we were recommended by Jbh not to put books in the article unless they had been subject to 2 independent reviews. See his comment in that he made 06:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC). So, I removed learning aids entirely. Similarly, further reading is not needed - it's just a "nice to have". I removed that, too. That takes care of your items #3 and #4.
 * It seems we continue to have issues surface after your . Since you bring it up - we were recommended by Jbh not to put books in the article unless they had been subject to 2 independent reviews. See his comment in that he made 06:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC). So, I removed learning aids entirely. Similarly, further reading is not needed - it's just a "nice to have". I removed that, too. That takes care of your items #3 and #4.


 * As I am sure you are aware, the material about learning aids was added on or around 5 November and I believe that it was added by yourself. (Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._Jerome_McCarthy&diff=prev&oldid=747924217). This edit appears to have been made approx one day after JB Hunley recommended moving the list of publications (or bibliography). I did not interpret his comments to imply that all references to books, including those in the body of the article, should be omitted. My only concern was whether it was appropriate to specify a number of learning aids (namely two) - when other evidence might suggest that he published more than two learning aids. BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Per your comment, I made this edit to the intro to remove "was the first to define the managerial approach in marketing and" in this edit. If you think the intro is inappropriate, then please revise it. That's your item #1.


 * * Noted, with thanks BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there was a third opinion covered in that ended November 27, 2016, the only edits have been for this set of edits made for the DYK.


 * The addition of the text stating that McCarthy was the first to propose the managerial approach was made on or around 13 December and I believe it was by Yoninah (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E._Jerome_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=754573853). This is well after the comment and also well after the  27 November  process. Obviously, it would not have been possible to raise concerns about this edit at that time - since it had not yet been included in the article. I believe that this was a well-meaning edit, designed to focus on notability. Unfortunately this edit represented a substantive change for which there was little or no reliable support. Although I believe that it is accurate to credit McC with the 4 Ps; I do not think that there is much support in the literature for crediting him with being the first to propose the managerial approach. Indeed, most of the evidence, including some of the other sources already cited in the article, appears to suggest the contrary - that managerial marketing was around in the 1920s and 1930s when McCarthy would have been little more than an infant.  BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * One of those is an edit I today to the definition of "managerial approach" per your comment here about someone not knowing what "It" would be. All I did was create a new paragraph, so the only thing "it" could refer to is "managerial approach".


 * :::: My interpretation of the source has not changed in this regard. I believe the cited source makes the point that it was economics that lacked a focus on distribution and that this oversight served as a trigger or stimulus for the emergence of the managerial approach. The relevant passage (which has previously been cited in full, but perhaps is worth repeating is, "Our appreciation of marketing's contributions is enhanced by the 'functional approach' which arose early in the twentieth century in reaction to mainstream economic's lack of attention to the value of the distribution function." (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZjQb3xZoVe0C&pg=PA19&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, p.19). In light of this passage, my view is that the article's claim that, "However, it [managerial approach] did not consider the value of distribution.[12]" (as per current article) cannot be supported by the source cited.  Clearly, we disagree on this interpretation. BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You now say that the entire definition doesn't work. If you think other edits need to be made to the definition, please make them. --


 * * For the same reasons as outlined in the preceding follow-up. BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/E. Jerome McCarthy that I think the DYK should be declined because of ongoing disputes. I do not foresee a need to communicate with each other any further.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In light of these concerns and the recent changes to the article, I fully support your initiative in withdrawing the article from the DYK nomination. For the time being, this is absolutely the right decision. Thank-you for being proactive in this matter. Kind regards, BH BronHiggs (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)