Talk:Executive summary

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence in the current article, "Abstracts are extensively used in academic research where the concept of the executive summary would be meaningless." What exactly is the point here? The term 'executive summary' is not commonly used in academics, but I don't think that indicates the concept is meaningless in academic circles. Does this sentence really say anything that the preceding sentences haven't covered? ike9898 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of it is that, in academia, there is no point in summarizing the content as the value is in the details. The sentence could be adjusted, in its current form, it is somewhat misleading. I believe that he/she meant that the executive summary as no value in academia, not the abstract. Franciyv (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)franciyv[reply]

In my experience executive summaries are widely used in academia but not for conveying research findings. Instead they accompany applications for research funding, general administrative reports, etc. I don't have a good reference to hand so I won't put this in the article but I think the (unreferenced) claim might best be deleted or severely rewritten. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Summary[edit]

There is no difference between an Executive Summary and a Summary, one is merely a buzz-word for the other when used in business. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, as the article explains. andy (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains the difference between an "Executive Summary" and an abstract, not summaries per se. This page covers nothing more than a detailed explanation of the summary in nonfiction, as described on the summary page. FOARP (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must be overstatement[edit]

None of the sources say that an executive summary "Must be" short. Wikipedia is not a source of original resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 08:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple search would have found plenty of references for this obvious statement. andy (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I disagree with is simply the "must" word. the entire article is using non absolute language. "typically" "generally" and "Usually" all appear in the article. contrasting "Typically" and "Must" don't mean the same thing at all. and I can't find a source that says "it must be short" I found " I advise making it short" "Being short is good" but no where in my google search do I find a credible source saying " an executive summary MUST be short" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Executive summary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100614153932/http://www.fsb.muohio.edu/fsb/content/programs/howe-writing-initiative/student-resources/Writing%20an%20Executive%20Summary.doc to http://www.fsb.muohio.edu/fsb/content/programs/howe-writing-initiative/student-resources/Writing%20an%20Executive%20Summary.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]