Talk:HOK (firm)

Proposed additions to the Innovation and sustainable design section

Hello! This is Katie, a communications contact at HOK. My financial conflict of interest has been disclosed on my user page. I'll include a reminder of my conflict of interest in future posts, too.

• What I think should be changed (include citations): I'm looking to add the following two paragraphs to the end of the Innovation and sustainable design section:

In 2022, the firm launched a regenerative design studio, which provides regenerative design strategies to all types of projects. The design solutions are based on ecosystem performance metrics related to water, air, carbon, soil, biodiversity, health and well-being.

HOK is also participating in the AIA 2030 Commitment, which challenges the design and construction sector to reach carbon neutrality for all new buildings, developments and major renovations by 2030. The firm is also participating in the MEP 2040 and SE 2050 Commitments to reduce and eliminate embodied carbon in mechanical, electrical and plumbing building systems as well as structural engineering designs by 2040 and 2050, respectively.

• Why it should be changed: We are looking to include updates on HOK's commitment to regenerative design and sustainable design.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Please see references cited above.

KatieatHOK (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Declined The references to these claims all originate in primary sources: the regenerative design studio claim referenced by HOK; the AIA claim referenced by AIA; the claims regarding SE 2050 referenced by SE2050.org. This is all a lot of self-referencing happening here. While the companies involved may act as sources for certain claims (who works there and for how long, to name a few examples) other claims about their projects or their participatory endeavors ought to be referenced by secondary sources in order to refute any appearance of promoting these endeavors. Regards,  Spintendo  15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, thanks for reviewing and for your response. This helps me understand what sources to use for any future edit requests. Would the following sources below be acceptable for the citations? The ARCHITECT Magazine source references HOK's participation in the AIA 2030, MEP 2040 and SE 2050 commitments. The YouTube video and Building Design + Construction video reference HOK's regenerative design studio.

Q+A: Anica Landreneau, HOK. ARCHITECT Magazine. Retrieved 04 January 2024.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. "How can buildings regenerate nature? | Summit 23." YouTube, uploaded by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 08 September 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARH9wcV-mM

How regenerative design is driving AEC industry innovation. Building Design + Construction. Retrieved 04 January 2024.

Thank you again! KatieatHOK (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KatieatHOK, we can't use youtube as a source, ever. Likewise any article (like the one you've put forward from Building Design + Construction) that is actually originally from a press release from HOK doesn't really work either. The rule of thumb I use is to try to go to an actual Industry Journal that has a proper editor and, hopefully, a proper journalist who has written the article. So, good sources would be Wallpaper Magazine which, I can see, actually has several good articles about HOK, such as this one, or Architectural Digest which, likewise, has this piece about HOK and the Zurich Airport project. Sorry that means so many fix ups! It bothers me seeing so many citation errors too, and I've fixed up what I can. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MatthewDalhousie! That's good to know and I will definitely keep in mind for future citations.

Would the other citation with ARCHITECT Magazine be OK to include as a reference to HOK's participation in the AIA 2030, MEP 2040 and SE 2050 Commitments for our Innovation and sustainable design section? I've added the potential new paragraph to add to that section, plus the citation below if it helps. The source is a Q+A between ARCHITECT magazine editor Andrea Timpano and our Director of Sustainable Design Anica Landreneau.

HOK is also participating in the AIA 2030 Commitment, which challenges the design and construction sector to reach carbon neutrality for all new buildings, developments and major renovations by 2030. The firm is also participating in the MEP 2040 and SE 2050 Commitments to reduce and eliminate embodied carbon in mechanical, electrical and plumbing building systems as well as structural engineering designs by 2040 and 2050, respectively.

Q+A: Anica Landreneau, HOK. ARCHITECT Magazine. Retrieved 04 January 2024.

Thank you again! KatieatHOK (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KatieatOK.

It's taken me a while to work out all the principles. Here's what I see, particularly from the Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY essay.

1. Any kind of self-published source, with rare exceptions, is out. So we can't use a person's personal web page as a source, nor a company's website as a source when writing about that company.

2. Likewise any source that is close to the company or source. Which is why those sites that just re-hash press releases are out.

3. HOWEVER, when it comes to interviews, if there is a quote, that can be regarded as a primary source. Particularly if the journal has an actual editor providing editorial review. The above essays says, "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."

I only know the building and architecture scene a little, and mostly from the Australian perspective, but given that Architect Magazine has three layers of editors (and it's always worth putting the editor in the citation, incidentally) and has been going in one form or another since 1913, then I feel okay in accepting it as a reliable source for industry news.

Keep it up. The article is slowly improving! To make it stronger, I think the citations, from reliable sources, is the number 1 priority. You'll notice that articles like this one actually have a footnote for every single completed project. A lot of work, I know, but I think that's where you need to get to.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really helpful! Thank you so much, @MatthewDalhousie. I'll keep the source info in mind for future requests. KatieatHOK (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to the Selected Projects listing

Hello! This is Katie again, a communications contact at HOK. My financial conflict of interest is disclosed on my user page. I will include a reminder of my conflict of interest in future posts.

• What I think should be changed: I would like to add the following projects to HOK's selected projects list:

• 2021: Stanford University School of Medicine Center for Academic Medicine, Palo Alto, California, United States

• 2022: St. Louis CITY SC CITYPARK Stadium, St. Louis, Missouri

• 2022: Boston Consulting Group Canadian Headquarters, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

• Why it should be changed:

These are major projects that HOK completed in 2021 and 2022 and reflect our latest designs.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Please see references cited above.

KatieatHOK (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KatieatHOK, Citations seem good, so happy to do this. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MatthewDalhousie, I appreciate it! KatieatHOK (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed additions to the Innovation and sustainable design section

Hello! This is Katie, a communications contact at HOK. My financial conflict of interest has been disclosed on my user page. I'll include a reminder of my conflict of interest in future posts, too.

• What I think should be changed: Adding the following paragraph to the end of the Innovation and sustainable design section:

HOK is participating in the AIA 2030 Commitment, which challenges the design and construction sector to reach carbon neutrality for all new buildings, developments and major renovations by 2030. The firm is also participating in the MEP 2040 and SE 2050 Commitments to reduce and eliminate embodied carbon in mechanical, electrical and plumbing building systems as well as structural engineering designs by 2040 and 2050, respectively.

• Why it should be changed: We are looking to include updates on HOK's commitment to sustainable design.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

KatieatHOK (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Need a reliable and published third-party source. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jeraxmoira I took a good look at the Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY article and it does recommend that, when it comes to interviews, if there is a quote, that can be regarded as both a primary source and a reliable source, the essays says, "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation." I think, in this case it should be acceptable. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The content KatieHOK has requested to add above is not a quote. HOK, like any other firm, can and will participate in AIA 2030, MEP 2040, SE 2050, etc., but it cannot be added just because leadership mentioned it in what looks like a sponsored interview. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Then that's the solution isn't. Find a relevant quote, and make sure that the quote is accurate.MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example: If the CEO of HOK says they are the number 1 firm in the world in an interview, you cannot add it to the article by quoting the same. There are multiple problems here:

• Primary sources are not always reliable sources
• There is a conflict of interest and the source is not independent of the subject.
• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:EXCEPTIONAL

To verify the above, you would require multiple high-quality sources.

Likewise, for KatieatHOK's claim, you would require a reliable secondary/tertiary source claiming the same. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's stay even-handed here. The editor is merely wanting to include some material about HOK (firm) and sustainable design. Very modest. I have seen no suggestion of anyone wanting to put in language about the firm being the best in the world or some other silliness, so there is no "exceptional" claim being made at all. The editor could follow the direction given in Wikipedia:USEPRIMARY and use a short quote from the figure in the interview, such as, "HOK believes that all projects should set targets for sustainability, including decarbonization, resiliency, regeneration, equity, human health, and well-being." Seems very reasonable. If you have evidence, of course, of the publication being in someway not a reliable source, you should share that obviously. But when I looked at it there seems to be three levels of editorial oversight. I would like to see you trying to help this editor here. Sincerely.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for listing company profiles or detailing every action of a business.

The 'Exceptional claims require exceptional sources' was used as an example to help you understand that we avoid using primary sources to support claims made by businesses. Even if the source is reliable, the claim lacks independence from the subject and there is no independent analysis or scrutiny on the interview, suggesting the possibility that the interview might be a paid article disguised as an interview.

WP:PRIMARYCARE: An article about a business - It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I always learn valuable lessons in discussions like this one, so I thank you for your time @Jeraxmoira. Particularly because it prompts me to read some of the hundreds of the explanatory essays our community holds. I had never read the full essay on PRIMARYUSE until now. While not a policy, it is very useful, especially that it points out:

1. "Primary" does not mean "bad". Just because something is from the mouth of a subject does not mean it's unreliable. To quote from the essay (and yes, it's only an essay) "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation."

2. An "organization's own website (or, I suppose, an interview, which, by definition is a primary source) is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. I don't think I have ever used an organisation's website as a primary source, but, the essay suggests that for some matters, it's the right way to go. Who knew?

3. That said, a website (or an interview, I would take it) is *not* an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions. So we couldn't go to a business' primary source to cite a claim that, for example, it was successful in some regard or other. And that's where you've correctly pulled out the principle, "It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions." Quite right too.

So, to improving the article about HOK and working with this patient editor, who really seems to be trying very hard to do things the right way, @KatieatHOK. Here we are guided, not by an essay, but a pillar of Wikipedia to seek consensus.

I am going to recommend that the editor can use the primary source to describe the products of the company (such as their use of sustainable materials) but *not* to allow any evaluation (like suggesting they are the best at it, or that they are the leaders).

I will also suggest that the editor augment their primary source, by adding a number of secondary sources that support this point, such as articles found in newspapers and industry journals of record, such as The Washington Post, Architectural Record, and Architect Magazine.

Does that sound like a reasonable way forward?

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Please stop adding irrelevant arguments. "Primary" does not mean "bad". Just because something is from the mouth of a subject does not mean it's unreliable. - I never mentioned that the source is unreliable.

2. "history, products, employees, finances, and facilities" - Does not mention sustainability or anything similar. (Irrelevant that you have mentioned this point)

KatieatHOK works for HOK and is being financially compensated, but that does not mean anyone can bend the rules just because they are being patient. The only way forward is what you mentioned in the last paragraph, which is also one of the basic policies of Wikipedia: supporting primary sources with secondary sources that verify the same information. But if you are going to interpret, analyze or synthesis something from multiple sources, it will not be accepted. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)