Talk:FleishmanHillard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

Most of this comes from the sourcewatch GFDL article http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fleishman-Hillard - not all of the internal sourcewatch links are suitable for wikipedia articles - this is why i put the {{cleanup}} tag.

Feel free to remove the {{cleanup}} tag after working on this a bit (except if you are someone from FH vandalising the page, in which case you should expect the wikipedia community to be rather unhappy). Boud 01:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If FH were such a great PR company, you'd think they'd hire somebody to clean up this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.191.137 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article based on highly biased source[edit]

This article is lifted essentially verbatim from PR Watch (a cousin of Sourcewatch). PR Watch is an expressly biased publication whose self-described mission is "blowing the lid off today's multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry." Opinionated content written by a blatantly biased source should not be taken as fact, and as such has no place on Wikipedia. 206.16.32.135 18:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. Also, bare in mind NPOV isn't about biased sources, NPOV is about accurate / appropriately weighted content based on reliable sources. If the source can be considered reliable for its field, then its good, even if it has an agenda. For example Quackwatch.org has a specific agenda, but they are a reliable source. The issue becomes about weight (ie. coverage) in the article. - RoyBoy 23:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed statement[edit]

The article says that Fleishman news releases "were found" to be in violation of policy etc. By whom? in what context was the "finding" made? Without more, that sentence is literally meaningless. --Christofurio (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President, Chairman and CEO (Clarification needed)[edit]

John Graham started as president in 1974. He was succeeded by Senay in 2006 who's title is also chief executive officer. With this transition Graham got a new job as chairman. Now, this is highly confusing, and the following questions need to be sorted out and addressed in the article:

  1. Who have been presidents of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?
  2. Who have been CEOs of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?
  3. Who have been chairmen of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?

__meco (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storage[edit]

I am moving these "External Links" to the Talk page for storage, because they are really references that may be helpful. Corporate 20:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Conflict-of-interest tag[edit]

I have placed a COI template tag on this article, because as recently as 2013, someone from a Fleishman IP address extensively modified the article to conform to a "brand refresh"; and this was followed later by a single-purpose account tinkering with the article for about 40 minutes. We have a Bright Line Rule against this, don't we? - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the COI tag is warranted, based on the edits, but I'll leave it on for now. 68.91.225.187 is also a Fleishman IP address and also edited the article. However, the main issue with this article is how old most of the stuff, removed and retained, has tended to be, and how insubstantial. This article is actually the exception. I haven't looked lately, but the last time I perused articles on PR people and firms I noticed that self-editing was the rule, not the exception. Bright Line Rule indeed. If anything, Fleishman has been restrained. Coretheapple (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it off, on further consideration, but if anyone wants to put it on again I won't beef. There were two Fleishman IPs that engaged in brief edits a while back. That's pretty mild compared to the puffery often seen in articles on PR people and firms. The COI tag makes it seem as if this was some kind of autobiography, and that's just not fair. But as I said, I don't feel that strongly about it and am not going to make a fuss if someone puts it back on. Coretheapple (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You also realize that "conflict of interest" can exist within an editor who is diametrically opposed to the subject matter, too? There is a long history of anti-Fleishman editors at work on this article, so the COI tag should be considered for those edits, as well as for edits by "logged in" editors who appear to have a conflict of interest underscored by a single-purpose pattern of activity. The COI tag protects readers from the notion that a Wikipedia article has been authored by impartial, unpaid, and objective editors. I don't think we can say that about this article, even as it stands today. - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The COI tag ordinarily implies that pals of the subject, or the subject, wrote the article in a significant way. The language in the COI tag says as much. To slap it on for anti-Fleishman edits would be unfair to Fleishman. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume these are the edits in question, which are not really anything horrible. I apologize as it seems about 1 year ago I trimmed a massive amount of content and put tags all over it. I was annotating it as a sort of To Do list, but never circled back to improve the article. I brought Waggener Edstrom up to GA, if anyone is interested in improving this page and wants an example of decent PR agency article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CorporateM, could you please tell us if you received any financial compensation or professional benefits from your editing of Waggener Edstrom? Could you also tell us about the extent of your acquaintance with Kate at Waggener Edstrom? - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Kate is my daughter and Waggener Edstrom is a business partner that's referred millions in work my way. My first-born son and wife also work there and they buy me shirts that say "we love to take advantage of Wikipedia" on it. Every year they throw a parade in my honor with balloons, champagne and a double-chocolate German cake just like my mother use to make it. They also hire me prostitutes and take me out to lobster dinners in exchange for the edits I made to their page, but the real treat is the once-per-year private fireworks show. Just kidding, I don't know anyone who works there, though as a PR insider of sorts, I am vaguely familiar with their being known primarily for being Microsoft's agency. I emailed Kate from an anonymous "CorporateM" email to get permissions for the image. Your question presumes that I have any acquaintance with Kate, so I imagine you fill find a way to allege there is one, somehow. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the question itself is not an inappropriate one, but I really don't like the idea of one paid editor challenging another paid editor in the talk page of an article. It gets me to thinking, "wtf?" Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of an edit that I made[edit]

In [1] this edit, I removed material that was unsourced and which, it appears to me, is a very minor point as it relates to this company. Because Mr. 2001, oh I'm sorry, I forgot his latest sockpuppet name, "Checking the checkers" a longstanding banned editor claims that I should not have made the edit due to a conflict of interest, I am bringing the matter here for wider review. Here is the newly found link to the original source: [2].

In 2005, Fleishman-Hillard prepared a briefing for their clients about politics in the UK. As far as I can tell, it was completely uncontroversial. The briefing said that Brown's philosophy was based on 'equity' and that he would consolidate power around himself. Neither of those are remarkable observations. Including them or not including them seems to me to say nothing positive or negative in any way about the Labour party, which is the alleged source of a conflict of interest here.

That a major US PR firm made a briefing about UK politics for clients was only mentioned in the linked opinion column in passing. This does not strike me as a noteworthy thing to say about Fleishman-Hillard, as it is not - per the section heading - "notable work". If any argument can be made for including it, I'm happy to see it returned to the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with Jimmy Wales' ability to hold an opinion that is completely divorced from reality, please note that in response to my concern that there may be an appearance of a conflict of interest when Wales directly edits a Wikipedia article on content related to the Labour Party, he said: "There is not even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest here." Let me present the evidence why there is in fact a not-remote appearance of conflict of interest when Mr. Wales edits about the Labour Party:
  1. According to Wikipedia, Wales' current wife's career "began as a personal assistant for the Labour party under leader Neil Kinnock. From there, she moved to become an assistant (diary secretary) for Tony Blair."
  2. Jimmy Wales is personally close with Cherie Blair, wife of Labour's Tony Blair.
  3. Jimmy Wales hobnobbed for several days with Labour's Tony Blair on a private Caribbean island.
  4. Jimmy Wales is the co-chairman of The People's Operator. According to Wikipedia, in September 2013, the Labour Party announced a partnership with TPO. TPO's co-founder Andrew Rosenfeld (again, according to Wikipedia) is a major donor to the Labour Party, one of twelve wealthy donors named in the Cash for Honours scandal of 2006.
  5. In March 2012, Wales was named as an unpaid advisor to the UK government. Granted, the government was led by Conservatives at the time of the appointment, but nonetheless, Wikipedia editing activity about either the Labour or the Conservative parties could be seen as a potential conflict of interest, given this advisory role.
  6. Jimmy Wales cooperated closely in December 2013 with the Labour Campaign For Human Rights.
Wales now accuses me of being a "longstanding banned editor" committing "sockpuppetry", in an attempt to divert the investigation from his COI editing, onto me. Where is his evidence? Where is the "CheckUser" data? Wales should be relieved that I haven't yet brought this incident to the Administrator's Noticeboard. - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is it your position that my edit was somehow favorable to the Labour party? In order for there to be a conflict of interest, I must have done something with at least some appearance or argument of some kind that it was favorable (or detrimental) to the Labour party. If anyone else has a problem with the edit, as I have said, they are free to revert it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that your edit to the article was very neutral and boring. But, as you once said, "The main problem with even very neutral and boring factual edits is that they can give rise to an appearance of conflict of interest." If the edit was so simple and had no favorable (or detrimental) impact on the Labour Party, why was it so difficult for you to bring up your suggested edit on the article's Talk page, which is exactly what you advise others who have a potential conflict of interest to do? Since you do have a documented, multi-count conflict of interest with the Labour Party, there can only be three explanations for your decision to edit this article directly, when Labour Party content was at stake: (1) You have very recently abandoned your Bright Line Rule for conflicted editors; (2) your Bright Line Rule is too painful for editors to follow meticulously; or (3) you consider yourself above the reach of the Bright Line Rule. It would be nice to hear which one of these three applies, but you'll likely say "None of the above, troll! Trollz are trollingz!", and hope that this will be sufficient-enough hand-waving to make loyal Wikipedians go do more work for you and block 'n' ban the few sentient critics of your plainly obvious improprieties. - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in whatever the point is here, but that information is massively undue here. It might possibly belong in Premiership_of_Gordon_Brown but not here. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The overall slant of the article is so negative that I wonder if it warrants an NPOV flag. It just reads weird, but I don't know how to fix it without chopping it down to a stub. Maybe that's the solution. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged. Just far too much on controversies. I don't like the tone of this article. It is skeletal and uninformative. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writing articles about PR companies is tricky, since there are so few balanced sources and far more hit pieces or promotional ones. That tends to lead to a 'controversy' section written by anons and an 'awards' section written by the PR agency themselves. The NPOV tag seems sensible until someone finds the time to do some good research. SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article in its present state is a disgrace. I'm all in favor of negative stuff in articles on companies. I've been criticized for that. But this is an example of the other extreme. I don't like it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what's interesting is that for many types of companies, not just PR companies (although they are usually good examples of it) there may be very little news other than press releases or scandals. Some very famous companies (Apple, Facebook, Ford) have interesting founding stories, etc., which are well covered in biographies and human interest stories as well as the business press, etc. But lots of companies - most of them - don't necessarily have such interesting stories. Two guys started a PR company in St. Louis in 1946. It grew and grew and grew. It was eventually bought as a part of a general trend toward consolidation in the industry. There may be not much more to tell about it than that, other than the occassional PR announcement of a prize won, or the occasional scandal. (In this case, the Los Angeles one is the only one that seems remotely interesting to me - an actual scandal.) The bit about advising PepsiCo is neither a scandal nor a non-scandal. It's a boring and likely unimportant (to the history of the company) tidbit about a random campaign for one big client. Was it newsworthy then or now, other than what looks to me like a relatively minor mention in what appears to be a dead link.
I would remove that section, but I wouldn't want to waste Mr. 2001's time figuring out if Tony Blair ever drank Pepsi.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this wretched article, before it was shrunk to a stub, I can understand why corporations hire people to doll up their wiki articles. That does not justify such conduct, but it does explain it. I would rather have a succession of stubs on obscure or little-followed corporations than a bunch of sponsored advertorials. Right now, as a stub, I think it's fine. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the article so that it relays just the encyclopedic, NPOV facts about the company -- no puffery, no disparagement. You can joke all you want, Jimbo, about being so separated and distanced from Tony Blair, that there is no possible conflict of interest by your editorial involvement, but the fact remains, you're sleeping with his former diary secretary, one of the more important "behind the scenes" figures in his administration. Oh, and Earth to Jimbo... most of Wikipedia's articles about businesses are in as sorry shape as this FleishmanHillard article has been, or worse. Some of us are deeply involved in improving that state of affairs, while you jet around the world delivering your paid speeches about how great Wikipedia is. Joke all you want, Mr. Jokey McJokester. - Checking the checkers (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need some more information on previous names and current registered name; otherwise the information about the rebranding (not sure if that's the right term) is a bit odd (and possibly misleading). I believe it started off as "Fleishman, Hillard Associates" in 1946 but I'm not sure I have a reliable source for that exact statement. --Boson (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems really insubstantial, just a change in the logo. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article is about the firm not the logo, the article title is now "FleishmanHillard", and there is no mention of any other name. So if you read "the company rebranded its name to FleishmanHillard", you think "Huh? The company was renamed from "FleishmanHillard" to "FleishmanHillard". Or "FleishmanHillard" is merely the logo or brand, in which case we have an article about a company that does not even tell us the name of the company, official or otherwise. --Boson (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company name and article title[edit]

I suppose a move might be controversial, but does the formatting currently "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules for proper names"? The guidelines don't seem to approve of non-standard capitalization (with a few well-known exceptions, like "iPod"). Should the company name be changed back to "Fleishman-Hillard"? Or should that be "Fleishman–Hillard"?--Boson (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what they call themselves. I think we have to go along with it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Update to John Saunders[edit]

John Saunders was named the new president and CEO of FleishmanHillard in early November 2015. [1]

Would someone please consider making the update to the Infobox to reflect John Saunders as the president and CEO of FleishmanHillard?

Thank you! Rgoodman85 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thank you for professionally handling your edits. The reference on the page already suffices as it lists the new CEO. Kuru (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the help, Kuru! Rgoodman85 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/saunders-named-ceo-at-fleishmanhillard/article_9d46b56e-c1e7-5110-87c4-6e840c50474d.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FleishmanHillard. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FleishmanHillard&oldid=1200277419"