Talk:FleishmanHillard

message: 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  tag.
:Feel free to remove the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: I've removed the NPOV template, please use  or better yet  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)
thread_title: Article based on highly biased source

message: 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)
thread_title: Unattributed statement

message: 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:
# Who have been presidents of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?
# Who have been CEOs of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?
# Who have been chairmen of the company, and which years did their transitions take place?
__meco (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  President, Chairman and CEO (Clarification needed) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Storage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict-of-interest tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, that's what they call themselves. I think we have to go along with it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company name and article title 

message: John Saunders was named the new president and CEO of FleishmanHillard in early November 2015. http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/saunders-named-ceo-at-fleishmanhillard/article_9d46b56e-c1e7-5110-87c4-6e840c50474d.html
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks so much for the help, Kuru! Rgoodman85 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CEO Update to John Saunders 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FleishmanHillard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130731030704/http://www.holmesreport.com:80/agencyreport-info/2022/FleishmanHillard.aspx to http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/2022/FleishmanHillard.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified