# Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations

I whipped this article into shape a little, but there are several areas where I am unsure of the facts. Any interested editor may choose to improve where I left off:

One article says CIPR applied for chartered status in 1995, while another says they only had informal talks. One says the queen herself rejected their application, but I am unsure if they ever had an application per se to be rejected, or if it was merely a letter or spoken discussion.
In one source IPR claims to be the largest PR association "of its type." Some articles compare IPR's size to that of a general marketing association, which I think is a poor comparison since marketing is a much broader field. My question is, are they bigger or smaller than the PRCA?
User:Corporate Minion 15:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

a) I think it highly unlikely that the Queen would reject an application.
b) Better comparison might be with other national PR associations, eg PRSA in the US. Historically, PRCA members tended to be firms rather than individuals, but it has been targeting freelances and small consultancies in recent years. However, I am not sure that, even if you added up all the member firms' employees, etc, they would total more than the 9200 claimed by the CIPR. Paul W (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As per suggestion by User:Corporate Minion to my talk page, will delete section listing Presidents. Paul W (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

References: Look good but there's a few small mistakes. Check the italics, quotation marks etc. and make sure all refs use the same exact format.
Controversy: Personally I would incorporate the Controversy text into History, but its up to you.
History: Who was behind its founding and why? Was it a person or organization?  Just a need a sentence or two to explain.
JCM: When did they make these statements? Were they speaking directly about CIPR? or about the industry in general?
Services: Be careful about switching tenses, especially within a paragraph. Also I don't think its important or appropriate to say the web site has a 'members only' section.
-- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Fixing what I can now. I wasn't sure if the Controversy should be there at all. The source does give us all the POVs we need to follow NPOV by presenting different viewpoints, but it does not give us enough information to adequately cover the entire story or verify the facts of the case. For example, we don't have any information on what actions this person did (or presumably did) to attract such an accusation. Right now it makes CIPR look a little silly, but if we had more context, on what exactly happened, we might feel they are actually quite righteous in pursuing it. I wasn't sure on the best approach, since very little sourcing is available. Corporate 18:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes stories like that a very problematic because they are in progress and the press only reports the flashy sound bites. Often they will report X has filed a lawsuit against Y. But they never report the outcome ie the case was deemed frivolous and was dismissed etc.
One more point, the photo caption is too long, is uncited and mentions people who are non-notable. That's problematic. What we should have is some sentence (cited) about the meeting in the body of the article (who, what, when, where) and then a very brief caption in the photo. Something like:  "CIPR board meeting on Wikipedia, May 2012".-- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


### URL Check
I did a link check [1]  and these two may need to be checked and or adjusted:

Line: 146 http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1363-254X redirected to http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-communication-management-an-international-journal/oclc/807840227
Line: 165 http://www.thedrum.com/news/2012/01/20/cipr-announce-expulsion-irish-core-communications-md
Some of the links to this resource point to broken URI fragments (such as index.html#fragment). Broken fragments: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2012/01/20/cipr-announce-expulsion-irish-core-communications-md#rm0L5YcUXScqeQ21.99 (line 165)
-- — Keithbob • Talk •  14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I double-checked, but it looks like The Drum URL really does end that way. The link for the Journal of Communication Management is done automatically based on its DOI number. Is there a way to customize the link? Corporate 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. But if the go to the right page automatically, when clicked on then that is sufficient for GA I think. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  17:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I fixed the caption issue as well. I'm working on the PRSA article next, which will be a bit bigger, then maybe I'll try one or two more before working my way up to the Credit Suisse article. Corporate 20:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


### Review
Okay. I will do this review and provide a deep commentary about the writing style and techniques of the article.

Is this review going to be finished? Wizardman 17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I will finish it soon. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been over two weeks since the nominator responded, and three weeks since Wizardman asked the above question. It's time to finish this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Everything was addressed that the reviewer noted long ago, so I'm just going to close this. Wizardman 04:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope not positively, without checking the remaining sections. The "Controversy" section, in particular, is both vague and contains substandard prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding: having taken a look at all three sections that Hahc21 has not addressed below, I see prose problems with all of them, and places where I think coverage is not up to GA standards. I think the review needs to be reopened, so that Hahc21 can complete it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I will continue this. I apologize (again) for the mess this has created. It's not that I can't be bothered (which I understand, as I have been active on other parts of the pedia) but for other reasons. I will finished my scan and ask the nom to address them. — ΛΧΣ21 04:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


#### Prose comments
Lead

History

Services

Advocacy

Controversy


#### Final comments
Okay. I am now satisfied with the quality of the article. There are still some minor things to polish, but I will take care of them on the talk and directly with Corporate. This is the first time I review an article about this topic and I may overlook some things, but after searching for a while on the internet I consider that no major point is missing. As this has been opened for a long time now, I'm passing the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wohoo!! Thanks so much!  CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest CIPR annual report (ref: http://www.cipr.co.uk/sites/default/files/CIPRAnnualReport2012Final.pdf) says: "Total membership at the close of Q4 2012 stood at 10,095." I would update but have potential COI (do some training work for CIPR) - Paul W (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is now out of date, showing the old CEO (Alastair McCapra took over late 2013) and old President, now Steve Waddington. Paul W (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM, but still out of dat. McCapra is CEO, Waddington is President Paul W (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is out of date in a number of respects and would benefit from anyone willing to give it some time and look at verifiable sources to improve it.  As I am CEO of the Institute all I'll do for the moment is remove the logo displayed, which has not been the organisation's logo for at least five years, so is factually wrong and well out of date; and replace the name of the 2016 President with the name of the 2017 President.  Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I also have a COI on this article (I am a member of the CIPR Council and Board), and would suggest the following areas could be updated:

Membership - the total number of members at the end of 2015 (10,337) was published in the CIPR's 2015 annual report
Lobbying - perhaps the paragraphs about lobbying could be consolidated into a single section, and updated to include the UK Lobbying Register? link done Mccapra (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia - guidance was updated in July 2014, and CIPR was one of the organisation which committed to ethical engagement with the Wikipedia community - link
Organisation (with an 's' please?) - The Council structure was changed in 2014, with effect from 1 January 2015, with all members now elected, serving a two-year term; the changes reduced the Council to under 30 (no longer 50-strong). Regional groups cover all parts of the UK, and sectoral groups cover particular areas of PR practice or market sectors, including 'Public Affairs' (not Government Affairs).
Services - CIPR launched an magazine, Influence, in 2016, shortlisted in the MemCom awards
Paul W (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have made a few edits on this article to insert references, pulled together existing material on lobbying, and added an update on lobbing from 2015.  The section of this article on organisation has been factually wrong since 2014 and I propose to simply remove the entire section rather than replace it with updated material, as updated and correct info is perhaps not encyclopaedic in nature and cannot readily be sourced from references other than the CIPR's own website.  I'd welcome others' views on this please.  Mccapra (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Chartered Institute of Public Relations. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501014708/http://www.hatads.org.uk/collections/professional-bodies/61/Chartered-Institute-of-Public-Relations-CIPR to http://www.hatads.org.uk/collections/professional-bodies/61/Chartered-Institute-of-Public-Relations-CIPR
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112213030/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530001359/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-c4e-sub-cipr.pdf to http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-c4e-sub-cipr.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107044237/http://www.cipr.co.uk/ciprtv/108058/the-wikipedia-debate-will-two-communities-collaborate-or-collide- to http://www.cipr.co.uk/ciprtv/108058/the-wikipedia-debate-will-two-communities-collaborate-or-collide-
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) 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Please replace Jason MacKenzie with "Sarah Hall Chart.PR FCIPR" as president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.17.98 (talk) 06:44 01 February 2018


### Reply 01-FEB-2018
 Implemented  Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)