Talk:Delphi method/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead section

This article needs a coherent Lead section. — Catherine\^talk 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus building or forecasting ?

are the two concepts related ? same name for two different things ? Flammifer 02:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

not the same thing at all. A single person can forecast stuff.--RichardVeryard 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical grounding

I think the opening reference to Hegel is pretentious and probably inaccurate. The Linstone and Turoff book (Chapter 2a, Chapter 2b) references Hegel among other philosophers, but identifies Locke, E A Singer and C. West Churchman as more significant figures. Has anyone got a source for a specifically Hegelian account of Delphi, or is this "original research". --RichardVeryard 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the dialectic process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is Hegelian, so he does deserve to be mentioned - if the process actually is that important in Delphi method, which I my opinion is a statement that should indeed be referenced to somewhere. -- Flambergius

But Hegel never used the triadic structure of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in reference to his own systems! 70.37.8.95 17:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Education Reform Section

I do not believe that the last section on Education Reform is relevant to the discussion on the Delphi method, and should be dropped. In fact, the use of the Delphi method is not even mentioned in the discussion of Education Reform, except to say that it is a "scam".

Here is the old diff in case anyone's interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delphi_method&diff=prev&oldid=68719030

I've removed the Education reform category, since it was now meaningless. --Argav ۞ 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Delphi effect

I see the talk page discussion, but even it seems to point towards Delphi effect being a redirect, and as that page says itself that the two terms are probably referring to the same thing, just named differently, merging would be quite appropriate. I'd do it, but I can barely understand what it all is. -Bbik^★ 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it here shortly. ImpIn | (t - c) 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

One of the citations in the article (to a paper by Green, Armstrong, and Graefe) was added by a single-purpose account, Agraefe, who has focused on promoting the work of Mr. Graefe; hence it's questionable whether the reference in question is truly necessary and relevant. I'm not an expert in the subject, but someone should look over it, and remove the tag and possibly the reference. Seleucus (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference is relevant, there is no question about it. The comparison to prediction markets is useful. Unless someone suggests a better reference comparing the two, we should keep this one. 70.36.142.34 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

The Deceptive Version

If anyone knows of a more reliable source than the north coast journal for the name that is proper to the activity described at [VLRC page], please replace the one I provided.

If anyone feels that this page is the wrong place to represent the manufacturing of consent as described on that VLRC page, please make a stub for a page that would be the right place. Dscotese (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)