Talk:History of public relations/Archives/2014

contd

Hi, I don't know why you've removed content on Basil Clarke. The sections are also mixed up rather strangely. Also, although I understand you want to source things, it's a bit clunky to constantly say things like "Academic A says this, while Academic B says this". If its uncontroversial, then it should just be incorporated into the the flow of the text.

About the origins of PR, I don't think there is an argument per se. Turnbull traces the origins of PR techniques and methods to the 18th/19th century, while other sources discuss the history of the official profession beginning in 20th cent. Etang is really providing a UK history which has simply been neglected by other historians, its not that there is a genuine argument on the issue.Noodleki (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The information I trimmed on Basil Clarke was about his firm and experience in general and not about the history of public relations specifically. I think it would be good information for the Basil Clarke Wikipedia article. Some of what I trimmed was just repeated information.

I disagree. There are clearly opposing viewpoints, as there are on almost every aspect of the article. Turnball's paper is called "an alternative history" and he says "Most discussions of the history of public relations are US-centric and suggest that modern PR stems from 19th Century and early 20th Century US developments. Almost all of them are wrong – mislead by effective public relations and myth-makers starting with the self-styled ‘father of PR’ Edward Bernays." We both seem to agree that PR starting as a professional practice in the UK before or simultaneously in the US is a minority viewpoint in the sources, which even the sources themselves attest to. Wikipedia's NPOV policy would therefore suggest we focus on the mainstream view both in level of detail and prominence of placement in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Noodleki. I have carefully and thoughtfully vetted the Antecedents section to incorporate a more global viewpoint using the content you added, while reducing some content I felt was over-editorialized or attributed too much WP:WEIGHT to a minority viewpoint. If you have time to take a look and discuss anything you feel I butchered, I'm happy to keep collaborating on it so we can find the right balance together. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes

For my own sanity, keeping track of the sections I'm working on:

1. Ancient origins  Done
2. Antecedants  Done
3. Establishment as a profession  Done
4. Development
5. Wartime propaganda
6. Professional development  Done
7. Social and digital  Done

CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More To Dos

• Continue vetting for sources
• Corporate Public Relations: A new historical perspective
• Get more on German propaganda in WWI

CorporateM (Talk) 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Good article

I've ordered a copy of "Selling the War: Art and Propaganda in World War II", which should help me expand the WW II propaganda section, as well as point me in the right direction for other sources to round it out with propaganda from other countries besides Germany. After that we'll see if it's ready for a second GA review! Any feedback on anything else it needs is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Cutlip's 1994 History has been restored. He writes of Harry Bruno and Earl Newsom, among others, to illustrate the rise of the creativity in the field. Note that propaganda does not qualify as PR: propaganda has no regard for truth and defies rebuttal. On the other hand, PR efforts live in a context of free speech where disagreement is welcome, for it tends to harden up the real facts. For instance, regular web postings may be propaganda, but articles in WP are subject to review and criticism. Please do not confound propaganda with PR. The reference to Walter W. Page should note his inspiration from Vail, as the spirit of honest brokering of information has a background.Rgdboer (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check out Harry Bruno and Earl Newsom. Several of Cutlip's books are cited throughout the article as in-line citations. "The Unseen Power" is now under the References section twice - once as citation number 14 and once as a separate, loose reference. Reflecting on the sources, most in-depth histories on PR only provide a very short treatment to propaganda as a tangentially related practice and one that was very influential on public relations. I think it would be ideal if we could get both wars covered in about 3 paragraphs like the social media section. Any thoughts on how to best trim down? CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

So I've got nothing in terms of Harry and Earl. Both are identified as early pioneers and are certainly notable enough for their own articles, but this article shouldn't become a directory of every accomplished practitioner. The profiles I'm finding on the history of PR only briefly mentioned them, except for Cutlip's books, which cover each era with hundreds of pages and is much more detailed than we would want to be here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Contexts

There are essentially three contexts for public relations, the commercial, the political, and the ecclesiastical. The latter is by far the most important but little mentioned here. Indeed, the Protestant Reformation and the Propaganda Fide mark a standoff that provided the backdrop for communication industries to thrive on public thirst for knowledge. The political context involves governments’ duty to secure the consent of the governed, a task requiring demonstration of merit over and above a strong communicative line. The commercial context is the most transparent and dynamic since companies are formed and dissolved frequently, according to public taste.

The article may be improved by splitting it into History of political public relations and History of commercial public relations. The third context may be skirted as unencyclopedic, even if it sets a standard of tolerance. As it stands this article is a mishmash unworthy of GA consideration. The history of this topic requires development of the cultural contexts, which are relative to century and nation.Rgdboer (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of public relations/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this awesome article. However, first I'll work on this review first, then I'll do this article's review. Sit tight ;P Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, I've taken a good look at the old GA review and the peer review, and there doesn't seem to be any comments that I could check off like I did with this review. I guess I'll move straight on with the review. (I do my review with one "main" review with a table, then I do a separate in-depth prose and source review. :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 12:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It looks good after reading through the article. However, I will do a more in-depth review in the Prose Review section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead, layout, and MOS are all followed from a first glance.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Everything is referenced that is in the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In line citations follow guidelines, and sources are AOK.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Again, everything is referenced, therefore there is no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are all covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article doesn't veer off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It looks neutral from a first look.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars/sockpuppetry.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged, and rationales are provided.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant, and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is now on hold, awaiting changes. Article comments have been addressed. Pass. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Hey CorporateM, sorry about delaying the review. School really got me busy .-.

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or  Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Lead

Length is good and no grammar errors.

Ancient origins

• "Although the term "public relations" was not yet developed, academics like James E. Grunig and Scott Cutlip have identified early forms of public influence and communications management in ancient civilizations.

Change have to had.

 Done I just took it out. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Scott Cutlip said historic events have been defined as PR retrospectively, "a decision with which many may quarrel."

Same error, change have to had.

 Not done Still current (present tense) there actually. CorporateM (Talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Antecedents

• Change title from Antecededants to Antecedents. See Google search and Merriam-Webster

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Origins as a profession

• "In 1906 Lee helped facilitate some of the first positive media coverage the Pennsylvania Railroad had after inviting press to the scene of a railroad accident despite objections from executives."

Add comma after 1906.

 Done I did some copyediting too. 00:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "At the time, secrecy about corporate operations was common practice and for centuries before the progressive era the public didn't pry into business operations."

Add comma after era.

 Done Actually I just trimmed the second half of that sentence - it was very editorialized and unecessary. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1913 and 1914 the mining union was blaming the Ludlow Massacre, where on-strike miners and their families were killed by state militia, on the Rockefeller family and their coal mining operation, The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company."

Add comma after 1914.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "He wrote the first text-book on PR..."

text-book or textbook?

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wartime propaganda

• No prose mistakes/grammar/spelling mistakes.

It seems to me that the first sentence of this paragraph and the last sentence cannot both be true. I understand that treating church teachings on par with propaganda is both factually accurate and starkly controversial. Nevertheless, the first sentence overstates... A good test for this? Can one say that Napoleon did not use propaganda on a wide scale to run his Grand Army? Wartime propaganda definitely goes back much further than WWI. Who doesn't know the story of the Gordian Knot? Who doubts that this was a propaganda effort on Alexander's part?

Professional development

• "However, it failed to obtain complete recognition as a profession due in part due to a history of deceit."

Delete the second "due" after the word part.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Social and digital

• No prose mistakes/grammar/spelling mistakes.

Source Review

• Ref 56 is dead.

Used this to check.

• The link provided for citation 56 seems to work for me. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note that ref 55, 96, and 95, are all downloadable/accessable via pdf/webpage, even though Checklinks says they are "errored."