Talk:Statista

Notability

167 pages link to this one, whereas 990 mention it (mostly as source reference) —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Statista is a deeply unreliable source, a casual glance at its research shows obvious, basic, flaws - for example rating the US as the #1 most prepared country for a pandemic. It's just a for-profit seller of market analytics, and has no incentive to be honest or transparent. Any reference relying on it should be considered suspect. [some random who cannot into wikipedia, but dislikes poor sources] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.250.102 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a strong interest in business and economics, and research is genetically coded in my blood. The only thing I dislike more than a paywall, is a business that purports to be a number-cruncher with friendly, easy to digest market trends that are prepared by the throwing of darts.

My background editing here is mostly screaming at my monitor. But,

Question: would I do best working in the sandbox? Should I just do or die and let someone else mop after me?

The happiest of New Years with the blessings we deserve and need progressing through some of the weirder times we have had to face. BBMcD (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

BASED IN NEW YORK CITY

According to it's website, Statista is registered as a corporation in the WTC Manhattan to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Importance of retaining content on Statista’s linguistic accessibility

I would like to discuss the recent removal of my addition regarding access to French and Spanish content on Statista. The stated reason was the lack of direct sources.

My information is based on existing Wikipedia articles about Anglicization, online linguistic diversity, and the evolution of digital content accessibility, which provide contextual framing for the change described.

It is important to note that this decision has significant consequences: Statista has existed since 2007, and many non-English-speaking users relied on its content on a daily basis. The removal of the French and Spanish versions effectively reduces access to information for a substantial portion of the site’s audience. Additionally, French-language Statista pages remain highly ranked on search engines, yet now redirect to a page stating that the platform is English-only.

In this context, it is both appropriate and relevant to document these facts on Wikipedia. Removing this content risks invisibilizing a change whose effects may be perceived as a form of pressure or subtle linguistic impact for a large community of users. Even if this development aligns with the company’s current strategy, Wikipedia’s mission is to present factual, neutral, and verifiable information, including decisions that affect linguistic accessibility.

I therefore suggest reconsidering the content while maintaining a neutral and factual tone and providing the contextual references available. ~2025-34505-39 (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)