Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChartered Institute of Public Relations has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 13, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Questions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

President[edit]

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)[reply]

Suggestions for improvements for GA bid[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

URL Check[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

Review[edit]

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)[reply]
Yes. I will finish it soon. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Everything was addressed that the reviewer noted long ago, so I'm just going to close this. Wizardman 04:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Prose comments[edit]

Lead
Solved
  • "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a professional body for PR practitioners in the United Kingdom." Okay, I can see some use of incorrect wording that could eventually be considered promotional. A good wording might be: "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a public relations organization composed of professional practitioners in the United Kingdom."
  • "It was founded in 1948 as the Institute for Public Relations and gained chartered status in 2005. As of March 2012, it had 9,000 members." We can rearrange this sentences to form a single one and add additional information for consistency and clarity: "Originally founded as the Institute for Public Relations in 1948, the CIPR gained chartered status (a professional recognition in the United Kingdom) in 2005, and had 9,000 members by March 2012."
  • "CIPR advocates for ethics and professionalism in the field of public relations." This sentence is the only one I found on the lead that has COI.
  • "It is governed by a council and an executive board." Can we expand on this? Anything special about the council? or about the excevutive board?
Thanks!! To clarify, I don't have a COI with CIPR. Any suggestion on how to replace the "advocacy" sentence? This is something that will come up on the PRSA article as well. Corporate 01:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the best we can do is to drop it. It does not add any encyclopedic value to the article. I will continue the review soon :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is governed by the privy council, an executive board and a President that is elected each year." The Privy Council only governs in the sense that it approved the CIPR's chartered status. The CIPR has a Council (different to Privy Council - appointed by the Queen) comprising member representatives as well as the board and President. Paul W (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
Solved
  • Is there any information about who held the discussion? Where it was held? Who founded the CIPR? Any key personnel?
Unfortunately not. I did another search, but only turned up a couple non-reliable sources with the same vague description
  • I think you might want to expand a bit on the Code of Professional Conduct. Done
Added more contextual information, but couldn't find sources to find out if the original code itself differs greatly from the current
  • Is there any information about how it goe the chartered status in 2005? or the previous sentence says it all? :)  Done
Not much, but I added that it was bestowed by the privy council - I think that's what was missing.
  • "Journal of Communication Management" or you use " or you italicize. Both should not be used together.  Done
  • I found this, which talks a bit more about how the CIPR got its chartered status. This may also be useful here to add a bit about the 1998 act.
  • I found this too, which seesm to be very useful. As well as this one.
  • I found this document. You can talk a bit about how was the situation in the UK and Europe previous to the foundation of the CIPR with this.
 Done Some additions to History and Controversy using the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Services
Solved
  • "The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR)" You don't need to specify again the acronym. Also, you can just write CIPR.  Done
  • "publishes a code of ethics.." Is this the Code of Professional Conduct? Or is it a different code?  Done
According to the website, it's "code of conduct." They use lowercase as in "it is a code of conduct" but uppercase as "CIPR Code of Conduct." I used the non-branded (lowercase) reference.
  • How the Sword of Excellence is awarded? or why? Which are re requirements? I mean, can you expand a bit over it?  Done
  • "The organization also hosts industry events." It'll be amazing if you add examples.
Ok, I looked into it, but there doesn't appear to be a specific annual event like you would normally expect that stands out, so I just tweeked this the best way I could.
  • This may sevre some purpose on this section.
  • Check this. it may have some value, but I'm not sure. Same for this.
Thanks. I used the Observer to replace a primary source, but didn't want to use a PR agency blog as a WP:RS and the Isle news had some issues that made me pass on it. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you on the PR agency blog. I don't know how to differentiante them, so I leave it to you. I will provide more sources as I encounter them for you to evaluate :)
  • If you expand over what the "PR Journal, The Communicator and the IPR Newsletter" are, it'll be great. Although, this is optional.
Yah, I skipped expanding on this, because of the lack of secondary sources. I would be fine using primary sources to verify their existence, but don't think we would get an adequate description that way. CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. You can use primary sources to explain which are they. Just remove any weasel words. Example: "The Communicator is the most widely distributed public relations journal in the United Kingdom. It focuses on A and B, providing the most reliable source of information. Its first issue came in 2005". And then you can extract some useful info: "The Communicator focuses on A and B and its first issue came in 2005." — ΛΧΣ21 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh here we go. I should have looked closer at the source. I can't find sources, because none of them are still published. Though I incorporated some of your feedback into the PRSA article. Most of the publications mentioned weren't published for more than a few years and a look at CIPR's website doesn't draw anything out as far as publishing. So I shifted the tense to historical. I'll do a few more searches in case anything pops up. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also spotted a secondary source for a book series CIPR presumably still publishes. This should help. Seems natural to have some information on publishing, especially for a professional association. CorporateM (Talk) 04:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Advocacy
Solved
  • "In the aftermath of a Wikipedia editing scandal" Which was the subject of the scandal? When it happened? Also, what this has to do with advocacy? This issue about Wikipedia can be certainly expanded and put into the controversy section.  Done
  • "to avoid directly editing articles" This is a bit oo broad and vague. I am sure that the document specified any type of articles, or at least a more elaborated recommendation. Can you expand into it? :)  Done
  • First, The contents of the section seem not to have a direct relation with the heading. Lets evaluate:
 Done though I'm not sure controversy is best either. I'll see if I can think up a better word. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...advocated for the regulation of political lobbyists in partnership with the Public Relations Consultants Association" Why the CIPR advocated for this? How? What does "regulation of political lobbyists" means? Which is a regulation in this ascpect?
Controversy
Solved
  • "for lying" Lying is not an eciclopedic work unless used between quotes.
  • I consider that this section needs expansion. I don't see why we should include this complaint. Did it has any efect on the organization? How it was settled? in court? Those are the only controversies the company has had? if so, why not merge it into history? :)
Ok, I just took this out. I don't think it's a substantial part of their history and the whole thing just seems like nonsense. CIPR "expelled" her, but then later confirmed she had already left CIPR before they were expelled. How can you expel someone not currently a member? CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Updates[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

2017 updates[edit]

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)[reply]

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:

  1. Membership - the total number of members at the end of 2015 (10,337) was published in the CIPR's 2015 annual report
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Wikipedia - guidance was updated in July 2014, and CIPR was one of the organisation which committed to ethical engagement with the Wikipedia community - link
  4. 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).
  5. Services - CIPR launched an magazine, Influence, in 2016, shortlisted in the MemCom awards

Paul W (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 25 January 2018[edit]

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[edit]

 Implemented Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chartered_Institute_of_Public_Relations&oldid=1206628550"