Jump to content

Talk:Faith Popcorn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 93: Line 93:
:Not notable and promotional. If we we start adding every press release pick up, this turns into even more of an advertisement for her. I am against this. As an aside, she's really getting insipid. Most of her "predictions" have already happened. Nice to take credit for what you can read in the newspaper. And white color workers are being replaced by software, not robots.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:Not notable and promotional. If we we start adding every press release pick up, this turns into even more of an advertisement for her. I am against this. As an aside, she's really getting insipid. Most of her "predictions" have already happened. Nice to take credit for what you can read in the newspaper. And white color workers are being replaced by software, not robots.[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] Notability is the Wikipedia standard for deciding whether an article should be published. It is not relevant for edits under Wikipedia guidelines. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." [[WP: Notability]] Promotional, under the guidelines, refers to the tenor of the language - is it full of puffery? You don't argue this is the case here, nor is it. The standard for content within an article is "due weight" and adherence to content policies (principally, coverage by an independent, verifiable third-party source.) Popcorn's profession, for which her notability was established over 30 years, is as a futurist. This Wikipedia article has always kept up with her predictions - there's nothing different about this update than those of the past. This edit does not constitute "advertising" just because your opinion is it may personally benefit her. That's not the Wikipedia policy for advertising. Advertising means the language is written in a sales-like manner. See [[WP: SPAM]] By contrast, this edit is like an update about a novelist releasing a new novel, or a director releasing a new movie. What's relevant is if the edit is substantive enough to have merited reportage by an independent,verifiable third-party source.. This is an extended article by a major, reliable source which is obviously not just a reprint of a press release, as you allege without further analysis or proof. In fact, the tone of this article is clearly in the voice of the author, not a press release. CNBC is an independent, verifiable, third-party source and your inaccurate representation of their article as a press release pick up does not change that, As to your aside, the Talk section of Articles not a debating society as to anyone's opinion on the subject of the article. Your opinion on the subject has apparently biased you against the actual Wikipedia standards for evaluating an update. (And her 2017 predictions are not going to be as unusual as her predictions for 20 years from now, so your point is poorly argued, in any case.) Criticisms on Popcorn's predictions have also been published in this article as they appear. Given your stated bias against Popcorn's predictions, I'm sure if there was an extended article from this same source criticizing Popcorn's predictions, you'd argue for its inclusion. You'd argue it was not "promotional" - but that's just another misunderstanding of that standard, which is one of neutral POV, not analysis of the benefit or harm to the subject. [[WP: Promo]] Otherwise, Wikipedia would be nothing but criticism of individuals, projects,organizations. We're supposed to be judging if the edit is neutral in tone, and being reported by an independent, verifiable, third-party source; and if it's substantive. Whether the effect on the subject of the article is positive or negative does not weigh into this.[[User:BC1278|BC1278]] ([[User talk:BC1278|talk]]) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)BC1278
::[[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] Notability is the Wikipedia standard for deciding whether an article should be published. It is not relevant for edits under Wikipedia guidelines. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." [[WP: Notability]] Promotional, under the guidelines, refers to the tenor of the language - is it full of puffery? You don't argue this is the case here, nor is it. The standard for content within an article is "due weight" and adherence to content policies (principally, coverage by an independent, verifiable third-party source.) Popcorn's profession, for which her notability was established over 30 years, is as a futurist. This Wikipedia article has always kept up with her predictions - there's nothing different about this update than those of the past. This edit does not constitute "advertising" just because your opinion is it may personally benefit her. That's not the Wikipedia policy for advertising. Advertising means the language is written in a sales-like manner. See [[WP: SPAM]] By contrast, this edit is like an update about a novelist releasing a new novel, or a director releasing a new movie. What's relevant is if the edit is substantive enough to have merited reportage by an independent,verifiable third-party source.. This is an extended article by a major, reliable source which is obviously not just a reprint of a press release, as you allege without further analysis or proof. In fact, the tone of this article is clearly in the voice of the author, not a press release. CNBC is an independent, verifiable, third-party source and your inaccurate representation of their article as a press release pick up does not change that, As to your aside, the Talk section of Articles not a debating society as to anyone's opinion on the subject of the article. Your opinion on the subject has apparently biased you against the actual Wikipedia standards for evaluating an update. (And her 2017 predictions are not going to be as unusual as her predictions for 20 years from now, so your point is poorly argued, in any case.) Criticisms on Popcorn's predictions have also been published in this article as they appear. Given your stated bias against Popcorn's predictions, I'm sure if there was an extended article from this same source criticizing Popcorn's predictions, you'd argue for its inclusion. You'd argue it was not "promotional" - but that's just another misunderstanding of that standard, which is one of neutral POV, not analysis of the benefit or harm to the subject. [[WP: Promo]] Otherwise, Wikipedia would be nothing but criticism of individuals, projects,organizations. We're supposed to be judging if the edit is neutral in tone, and being reported by an independent, verifiable, third-party source; and if it's substantive. Whether the effect on the subject of the article is positive or negative does not weigh into this.[[User:BC1278|BC1278]] ([[User talk:BC1278|talk]]) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)BC1278
::A repeat of a Popcorn press release is not notable in my view. [[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:57, 12 January 2017


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request Review of Revision of Entry

The request below has been resolved by an editor who reviewed the suggested changes and made them. ThanksBC1278 (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]


Hi to any editors watching this page. For a while, I've been working on a new draft for this article that aims to bring the page better in line with guidelines, improve sourcing and bring the article up to date. In particular, seeking to use reliable sources to add information about the subject and make this an informative article for readers. To fully disclose, I am working for Faith Popcorn’s company as a consultant. Due to this WP:COI, I will steer clear of making any direct edits, preferring instead to propose draft material for others to review and move live if it looks good. I have endeavored to abide by all policies involving notability, neutrality WP:NPOV, reliable sourcing and no promotional/PR tone.

My draft can be found in my userspace, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox#Career So, why a new draft? There are a few reasons, the largest being that there is meager sourcing for the article, no sourcing at all for several sections, and when I checked one major source, the link was to a dead blog; there’s also no information about the subject’s history and no explanation about how the methodology she used to makes her predictions as a forecaster, which is mostly what makes her notable.

This was remedied with research. Instead of 5 sources (one of which is a dead link to a defunct personal blog), there are now 39 reliable sources and more than 60 citations, including full-length profiles of her from The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Newsweek Magazine, The Chicago Tribune, Biography Magazine and two full-length profiles of her from The New York Times. These are all cited in the draft.

In brief, here are the key issues with the current article as I see them:

  • Article is lacking in information about the subject’s early history, career and methodology.
  • Use of sources that do not meet WP:RS and lack of sources for some information
  • Article has not been updated for five years with most recent significant coverage from reliable sources.

Popcorn has written three best-selling books, plus a fourth book, so is in the press constantly. In addition, I was able to make the article current via recent articles from 2014-5. To do this draft, I read more than 80 sources so I could create a comprehensive article. There are hundreds of highly reliable sources, as per WP:NEWSORG, spanning four decades. Since the 1980s, she has been consistently quoted as an expert prognosticator about future trends, including by Newsweek,[1] Business Week,[2] The Wall Street Journal,[3] The New York Times,[4][5][6] The Financial Times,[7]USA Today, [8][9] The Los Angeles Times, Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). and many others. [10] [11][12] [13][14][15][16][17] [18]

There have been several fixes and additions over the years. I have left everything with a source in tact, including criticisms. When there was no source, I tried to find a source and succeeded in most cases, even with critical material. I have left almost all language from the current article in tact, as well, unless it was unsourced and I could not locate a source despite my extensive research. In some cases, I added slightly more detail after finding a reliable source. I have reviewed the Talk section to make sure I did not reverse any previous decisions (including Jimmy Wales weighing in on removing a "Criticism" section), such as including her birth name, and excluding the date of birth, which had (and has) conflicting sources that I still could not resolve.

At this point, though, not so much that individual "fixes" are needed to the article, but more that whole sections are missing and needed drafting.

I’ve established via reliable sourcing that her clients, as a futurist, include some of the largest and most iconic brands in the world. E.g. McDonald’s, Coca Cola, IBM, American Express, Bayer, etc. While not as famous as futurist Alvin Toffler, she’s still among the most famous in her field. I have avoided placing promotional touts in the article with which she’s been labeled by the press (e.g. called the “Nostradamus” of marketing by Fortune), but here I can say she’s beyond just being notable. She even coined two phrases in common usage (“Cashing out” and “Cocooning”), on of which is now in the Merriam Webster dictionary (“Cocooning”). The notability of the subject of the article, and consistent “significant coverage” by reliable sourced for forty years, suggests to me the article should be fleshed out more. I attempted to do this while maintaining WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the full proposed draft in userspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox#Career but I'd be just as happy to work through section by section, if that's what editors prefer. Please take a look and feel free to make any edits directly in the draft, although I'd suggest discussing any larger edits or concerns here. Comments and questions are welcome. Thanks! BC1278 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I didn't read the wall of text above, but the draft itself looked mostly fine. I trimmed a lot of the Career section that was promotional name-dropping, while keeping some of the name-dropping that had more substance. CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Cocooning

Cocooning doesn't seem to meet WP:NEO but the article is good enough to get coverage somewhere, Faith Popcorn seems like the best place. Vectro (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Mattnad (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can hold off a few days, I'm going to rewrite the article for Cocooning. It's a very weak article as it stands, with almost no sources, that doesn't reflect how prominent the concept became -- in fact, it's even in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.[19] There are many, many sources, in books, magazines and newspapers, that discuss and use the concept. I think it will meet the requirements for WP:NEO for a stand-alone article when I'm done. I did a similar article, as a volunteer, on the concept of Social Journalism and the Cocooning concept is a lot more prominent. It's a holiday weekend -- can you give me until about September 10, 2016 (or sooner) to write the new draft? I'm an experienced Wikipedia writer, but as discussed above, I have a conflict of interest WP:COI as a paid consultant to Faith Popcorn. So I'll only create a proposed new draft -- an independent editor(s) will need to evaluate it and decide whether it merits being published as a stand-alone article. Thanks BC1278 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Vectro As promised, I've written a new article for Cocooning. You can find it in draft space here: User:BC1278/cocooning I think you'll find this one is rich enough in depth and sources to warrant its own article, but since I have a WP: COI, you need to decide if it warrants being moved to the mainspace or give me permission to move it. Thanks, Ed. BC1278 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Still an unneeded fork. Both articles are nearly stub status.Mattnad (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, though I'm happy to keep working on it to expand it further. The policy cited here for proposed deletion is WP:NEO, which starts: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." The existing article wouldn't qualify, but I showed in the new proposed article at User:BC1278/cocooning that the term, invented in in 1981, became so common in usage that language experts included it in every dictionary I looked at: Merriam Webster, Oxford, American Heritage, Dictionary.com. The WP:NEO policy goes on: "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." In the new article, I cite to about a dozen reliable sources that are about or discuss "cocooning" at length. I could have cited to many hundreds of sources that use the word as a concept but don't discuss it at length. If you'd like me to add more sources, or expand on what the sources say, I can do so. I think the new article meets the WP: NOTABLE threshold -- the sources are from major periodicals and extend over 30 years. I tend to be terse in article. The concept has evolved and spread so that only some of the usage is specifically linked to Popcorn and so would not properly be part of the article about her.BC1278 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
I didn't propose that reason. While it's sort of OK, it's not really on point. See | Reasons for Merger #3 which states, "Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." The Faith Porpcorn article has been around for years and it's extremely short. Cocooning, even if trebled in size would still be very short. Since they relate strongly to each other, it make sense to merge. You can still have a redirect for Cocooning that brings it to a section in the Popcorn article. It's just better editorially speaking.Mattnad (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I tend to be very terse when summarizing sources, as I mentioned. All my articles are usually pretty short. Re: Faith Popcorn, I proposed a re-write of the article in June 2015, which an independent editor reviewed, trimmed and published. She is a futurist and does predictions every year - I could easily expand this article, if you'd like to review proposed additions. There is an abundance of material -- and many books to summarize. Please let me know if you'd be willing to take a look. As for User:BC1278/cocooning, I was really sparse, even though there dozens of sources. While cocooning does directly relate to Faith Popcorn, who invented the usage, it has taken on a life of its own (or it wouldn't be in so many dictionaries.) A lot of the new article content couldn't be included in Faith Popcorn because it isn't about her anymore. I will add a section on "cocooning" as applied to adopted children; as applied to teenagers' behavior; as applied to mobile phone usage. I will also elaborate the concept as explained in books by Popcorn and several others. There are several books with chapters on the subject. I will expand on articles in periodicals. There's a lot more material here from prestige secondary sources than I usually see in my articles, anyway. But before I spend another 7 or 8 hours on this, though, can you confirm I'm on the right track? I'm about 7 or 8 hours in to the rewrite, already. Thank you.BC1278 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
So I'd avoid cataloging too many of her predictions. Her most notable ones are enough for illustration. This should not be a marketing piece for Popcorn. Cocooning is a good example of notability - although less of a prediction than a good turn of phrase for a behavior that she picked up on. Others need too be relevant too. So genetically engineered pets to look like their owners is not one that deserves mention, except perhaps an example of how she's not always correct. So take a moderated approach on the detail - if a prediction gets only passing mention, then it's not notable. She does press releases every year, some papers pick them up, but if they don't stick, then they are probably not worth including. I still think Cocooning should get merged with the author article.Mattnad (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on further expanding the new draft for "cocooning" now at User:BC1278/cocooning and should have more ready today. But even as it is, I think that the policy cited by User: Mattnad for merger does not apply to the new draft (as opposed to what's live now). I believe the new draft is not a stub based on length or number of reliable sources; it is likely to keep getting expanded (reliable sources over a span of 30 years consistently keep discussing the topic); it does not make sense in the Faith Popcorn article because much of the material about the concept, as it has evolved, is not about her (if the usage was all about her, it wouldn't be in the dictionary) as will be even more evident in the next draft, when I add the concepts of adoption cocooning, teen cocooning and mobile cocooning. I think that the new draft at User:BC1278/cocooning (as opposed to what's there now) also doesn't fall under the deletion criteria for WP:NEO, as the new draft shows decades of consistent presence of discussions of cocooning in reliable sources - everything from being cited as a trend in a Time Magazine Year in Review, to its inclusion as a new word in every dictionary, to its usage as a fashion trend in the New York Times, to its expansion to digital cocooning more recently.BC1278 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

For other editors, in case it's not clear, BC1278 has to his/her credit shared a COI on this. So let's see what other editors have to say.Mattnad (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a deeper dive on this topic and found a wide variety of explorations of the cocooning concept from many different perspectives. It is my belief that editors will find this new draft acceptable as a stand-alone and will now see how the article can continue to expand over time given it is about a rather vibrant concept still evolving in sociology, technology, parenting as well as marketing. I can't make direct edits because of COI - but if there's a way to preserve my authorship of this version, I'd appreciate it, as it was about 3 days of work. e.g. Someone could give me permission on the Talk page of cocooning to update the existing article with the new draft. BC1278 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
I left some remarks on the draft's talk page. I am content for it to be published. Vectro (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and comments. All very valid. I will edit the draft space today and leave a note here when it's completed.20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278
OK. All requested changes made. We could wait to see if Mattnad has any comments before making live. It's been about 3 days since I posted the latest draft. Not sure how long is the proper waiting period.BC1278 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Based on review and approval granted by Vectro, (see Talk: Cocooning) I have made the proposed draft for Cocooning live. I believe this closes out the merger request. I'll wait a few more days before removing the tag from the Faith Popcorn story. BC1278 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

If we're all good, I'll close out this discussion today or tomorrow and mark the issue of the merger request as resolved. Please let me know if anyone would like to have further discussion.BC1278 (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

You've mistaken approval for edits to Cocoon as agreement to keep the articles separate. You are the only editor (paid at that to work on Ms. Popocorn's topics) who has argued against merger.Mattnad (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vectro, could you please weigh in? I think Vectro was clear that the new draft now qualified as a stand alone article. Here's what Vectro said about the new draft: "This looks like a good article and I am content for you to publish it as-is. However, I do have some thoughts which you may wish to consider, or I am happy to edit here or in article namespace..." Here is the location of the original discussion: User_talk:BC1278/cocooning. Then, after I made the suggested changes in the userspace: "Looks good to me, deploy at will." Vectro is the editor who originally proposed the merger, and then reviewed the new proposed draft for Cocooning.BC1278 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
I am satisfied that the new article meets WP:NEO, however I am open to dissenting opinions. Vectro (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: There are 17 trends she's written about in all. Cocooning is just the best known. Her work is significant for people who work in marketing. Jefferythomas (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faith Popcorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, but as disclosed above, I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant to Popcorn. I'd request that the following new material be included - it's in line with the article being kept up-to-date with Popcorn's predictions when they are reported on by major media.

Section: Predictions

Popcorn predicted five trends for 2017. First, she said the Silicon Valley's embrace of nootropics, alleged to be cognitive enhancers, would become mainstream. Second, she predicted robots would begin replacing more white collar workers. Third, she said the percentage of freelancers would continue too accelerate. Fourth, she predicted that more stress in the workplace would lead to a bleed over of emotional behavior at the office. Finally, she predicted that the boundary between work and no-work would collapse for many. [20]

Many thanks for considering this request. I'd be pleased to work on this further if you feel it needs to be modified.

Many thanks,

BC1278 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Not notable and promotional. If we we start adding every press release pick up, this turns into even more of an advertisement for her. I am against this. As an aside, she's really getting insipid. Most of her "predictions" have already happened. Nice to take credit for what you can read in the newspaper. And white color workers are being replaced by software, not robots.Mattnad (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad Notability is the Wikipedia standard for deciding whether an article should be published. It is not relevant for edits under Wikipedia guidelines. "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." WP: Notability Promotional, under the guidelines, refers to the tenor of the language - is it full of puffery? You don't argue this is the case here, nor is it. The standard for content within an article is "due weight" and adherence to content policies (principally, coverage by an independent, verifiable third-party source.) Popcorn's profession, for which her notability was established over 30 years, is as a futurist. This Wikipedia article has always kept up with her predictions - there's nothing different about this update than those of the past. This edit does not constitute "advertising" just because your opinion is it may personally benefit her. That's not the Wikipedia policy for advertising. Advertising means the language is written in a sales-like manner. See WP: SPAM By contrast, this edit is like an update about a novelist releasing a new novel, or a director releasing a new movie. What's relevant is if the edit is substantive enough to have merited reportage by an independent,verifiable third-party source.. This is an extended article by a major, reliable source which is obviously not just a reprint of a press release, as you allege without further analysis or proof. In fact, the tone of this article is clearly in the voice of the author, not a press release. CNBC is an independent, verifiable, third-party source and your inaccurate representation of their article as a press release pick up does not change that, As to your aside, the Talk section of Articles not a debating society as to anyone's opinion on the subject of the article. Your opinion on the subject has apparently biased you against the actual Wikipedia standards for evaluating an update. (And her 2017 predictions are not going to be as unusual as her predictions for 20 years from now, so your point is poorly argued, in any case.) Criticisms on Popcorn's predictions have also been published in this article as they appear. Given your stated bias against Popcorn's predictions, I'm sure if there was an extended article from this same source criticizing Popcorn's predictions, you'd argue for its inclusion. You'd argue it was not "promotional" - but that's just another misunderstanding of that standard, which is one of neutral POV, not analysis of the benefit or harm to the subject. WP: Promo Otherwise, Wikipedia would be nothing but criticism of individuals, projects,organizations. We're supposed to be judging if the edit is neutral in tone, and being reported by an independent, verifiable, third-party source; and if it's substantive. Whether the effect on the subject of the article is positive or negative does not weigh into this.BC1278 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
A repeat of a Popcorn press release is not notable in my view. Mattnad (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Putting Faith in Trends". Newsweek. 15 June 1987.
  2. ^ Hymowitz, Carol (14 April 2015). "Lafley Pivots From Builder to Demolition Man as He Shrinks P&G". Bloomberg Business Week. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
  3. ^ Vranica, Suzanne (7 January 2004). "Questions for Faith Popcorn". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
  4. ^ Reuters (22 April 2015). "McDonald's Recipe for Success May Need Focus on Consumers, Workers". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 May 2015. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ Finn, Robin (6 June 2001). "The Future's Paying Off Nicely for a Trend-Spotter". New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  6. ^ Slesin, Suzanne (3 October 1991). "Cocooning With the Chief Trend Bender". New York Times. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  7. ^ Broughton, Phillip Delves (1 January 2013). "Soothsayers for corporate hire". Financial Times. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  8. ^ Snider, Mike (18 February 2013). "Cocooning: It's back and thanks to tech, it's bigger". USA Today. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
  9. ^ "Her ideas on tomorrow pop up today". USA Today. 5 October 1987.
  10. ^ Cummer, Corby (3 February 2002). "Talking trendsetting with a trend-spotter". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
  11. ^ Engel, Meredith (5 February 2015). "Swedish company implanting workers with microchips". New York Daily News. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
  12. ^ Little, Kate (5 May 2015). "McDonald's has a big problem in uphill turnaround". CNBC. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
  13. ^ Picchi, Aimee (5 May 2015). "Why some aren't lovin' McDonald's "progressive" plan". CBS MoneyWatch. Retrieved 10 May 2015. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  14. ^ Kilday, Gregg (2 September 2014). "Future of Film: 4 Experts Predict How Moviegoing Will Change in 10 Years". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
  15. ^ Sax, David (24 July 2014). "These people know what you're going to want to eat before you do". Vox. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
  16. ^ Pavlika, Holly (2 May 2014). "The Embeddable Mom Of The Future". MediaPost. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
  17. ^ Wallis, David (8 January 2015). "Parents Will One Day Rely On Robot-Nannies, Says Futurist Faith Popcorn". New York Observer. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  18. ^ Feloni, Richard (12 March 2015). "A futurist lays out a wild vision for the future of work — here's what your career could look like in 2025". Business Insider. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  19. ^ "Cocooning". Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam Webster Dictionary.
  20. ^ Clifford, Catherine (21 December 2016). "Futurist predicts 5 trends that will change the way you work in 2017". CNBC. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faith_Popcorn&oldid=759669492"