Talk:5W Public Relations

New article

I am a VP at 5W and entered what I believe to ne a neutral entry on the firm, just as any other company that has some notable or historic fact might be listed here. I am not writing about clients or editing client sites, if any are even listed with Wiki.

I saw the Edelman PR had a listing, so I figured 5W would be able to do so too. I'd appreciate feedback. Juda S. Engelmayer 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

(response to User talk:Ytny#5w Public Relations)

I think the biggest distinction between Edelman and 5W isn't the size, but that Edelman has actually been a center of controversy, and has been a subject of mass media coverage beyond industry trades.

This isn't to say industry trades aren't worthy sources, but mainstream sources do give a better idea of why a corporation is significant enough for a Wikipedia article. From reading this article, I can't tell what makes 5W notable to people who aren't in the PR industry the same way someone might be interested in Edelman because of its involvement in fake blogs and payola for Wal-Mart (and Edelman article does need a lot of work, it looks like).

Looking at WP:CORP, I think the article needs more independent sources talking about the firm's significance. Ytny 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (Response to User talk:Judae1#5W Public Relations) I think I added some of what you needed. Please let me know. ThanksJuda S. Engelmayer 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

COI

If Judae1 really is Juda S. Engelmayer and the Vice President of Government and Corporate Issues Practice at 5W Public Relations he should refrain from editing 5W Public Relations as this is in violation of WP:COI. This article is basically spam for his firm. --Agha Nader 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:5W Logo.JPG

Image:5W Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rabbi impersonation controversy

As has been explained ad naseum to Mosmof, this is a 5 year old firm with many major occurences - From the largest, sexiest events at Sundance to launching Sean Combs' comeback. His obsession with 1 event is out of place with this firm's Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: Should you like to make changes to the wiki entry, keep it to 5 lines. Specific dates, rather than months, and the name of the founders blog are surely unrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your explanation makes much sense - if the firm has many "major occurences", then those should be documented (and are). But that doesn't mean incidents like the Agriprocessor sockpuppeting shouldn't be covered as well. To the contrary, because PR agencies' primary duty is to promote their clients and events, the Rabbi incident probably differentiates this agency from others, you know, the old "dog bites man" vs "man bites dog". The rabbi incident is pretty far from the norm, so it arguably requires more coverage, especially as it involved not only fraud but also a coverup of said fraud, and the incident was well covered by both the PR and Jewish press.

But really, I've actually worked on other sections of the article so that it

More to the point, you don't WP:OWN the article, and especially as there's evidence of your WP:COI. While you're more than welcome to suggest edits, you should not dictate exactly how an issue is covered, especially on that reflects poorly on yourself or your employer. I'll be more than happy to discuss the edits here and reach a compromise, but you need to stop blindly reverting properly sourced content. --Mosmof (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: The edits there simply remove a few names. You will be flagged and banned from further comment should you simply choose to add your own name there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: Zero reason a bloggers name would be posted in the history of a company. Wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am awake, thank you. But why no reason? The name of the blogger and his blog were reported by every media outlet that covered the incident, and the blogger himself is notable enough to have received non-trivial coverage from a WP:RS. Plus, there is no explanation on why you also insist on removing both the name of the rabbi who was impersonated ("who" is the first "W" of 5W after all), as well as the apparently debunked explanation by Engelmayer blaming a rogue intern. By the way, you keep threatening to have me banned, but looking at your edits as well as edits from your other accounts, you haven't followed through. Would you please go ahead and report me? Mosmof (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason is relevance. It simply is way too detailed. Unsure of how or why this seems to be so relevant to you. There is a reason. Its simply not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it too detailed? Identifying the involved parties and the victims is the very least of information you need to properly retell an event. Hence, the five Ws of communication! But really, you have a serious conflict of interest in this matter - you're really not ina position to judge what is and is not relevant. --Mosmof (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof identifying the editor by name of a blog is not at all relevant to this story. How could it be so ? Furthermore, he is clearly biased in identifying political clients rather than the scores of corporate brands such as Mcdonalds, Hard Rock Cafe and others.

How is it too detailed? Identifying the involved parties and the victims is the very least of information you need to properly retell an event. Hence, the five Ws of communication! But really, you have a serious conflict of interest in this matter - you're really not ina position to judge what is and is not relevant. --Mosmof (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: This is your quote on your page. Lets agree: I am a Wikiminimalist, as in, I believe a Wikipedia article is most effective when it is concise and sticks to only the most basic, fundamental information necessary to understand a subject. Wikipedia should be the starting point of research, not the research itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. You misunderstand my "Wikiminimalist" position, and I'm not going to bother to clarify it for you because my user page description is mostly for my own amusement and...
2. I don't WP:OWN articles and my personal views are irrelevant to specific edits. For example, an exhaustive client list doesn't help anyone understand a company appreciably more than a representative list or a quantitative overview could. On the other hand, a particularly odd incident like an exec imitating a client's critic, then lying about it should be described, and doing so without naming the principals would be insufficient.

And you should really stop using that sockpuppet - you've been blocked once already so you should know better. Mosmof (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

fact is that the "event" in question was in fact, minor, and never rose to any real level. The impersonating incident was never proven to be a Lie from what any newspaper says. The exec did not say it was him, nor did the CEO, and the Jewish papers suggested it but did not prove it. Mosmof is deducing on her/his own. Neither the exec himself or the blogger are any more notable than the blog itself. Blogs are not Wiki recommended for valif references and articles are usually backed up by notable media, not merely blogs and parochial media. Mosmof seems to need to check his/her opinions at the monitor before entering the realm here.

MaClainDiesHard (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Client sourcing and avoiding perceptions of laundry lists

A list of clients I removed has been restored with an edit summary saying it had been dismissed as a "laundry list". Half of the original list was redlinked (i.e. no article in Wikipedia) before I tagged as many internal articles as I could find. Considering that this is such a contentious article, it would be more helpful if clients were included based on major relationships and campaigns detailed via independently reported articles meeting WP:RS rather than the indignation of yet another anonymous IP. Flowanda | Talk 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I fed the beast by calling the client listing a "laundry list", but really, that's what it is. My own test for Wiki editing (which is to say, it's not policy but I find it useful) is how much a piece of information defines or differentiates the article subject from others like it.

To apply that test, let's look at what makes 5W notable:

• All non-specialty PR shops worth their salt represent several corporate clients, so that in itself isn't that useful. It is useful in countering the reputation of the firm as the one that represents Paris Hilton, Joe Francis, etc.
• You can make the point that the firm has important clients without listing them all. It's not the individual clients that are important - it's that the firm represents major corporations is what makes it notable. You can make that point with just a couple of examples (preferably with independent cites rather than from the firm itself).
• But back to the high-profile clients - despite apparently making up less than 10 percent of the firm's billing, the controversial/famous clients are the reason this firm gets press attention.

I've been repeatedly accused of being biased (bias for what, I have no idea), but I'd appreciate it if the single purpose accounts would actually engage in actual discussion, be forthcoming with affiliation (if any) with the firm, and provide less misleading and hostile edit summaries. Mosmof (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User Mosmof asks for discussion from single purpose accounts, I agree. Everyone should be out in the open and their issues and affiliations be made known. Wouldn't that apply for those engaging in the edit wars to begin with? Mosmof, as many of the userIDs on Wikipedia, is not by any means, a family name. Mosmof is entitles to remain aononymous, as can everyone else. Open for one, open for all - or not. That's the way wikipedia seems to operate - through anonymous users who don't want to be publicly accountable for edits and changes - when they are not neutral in nature. The same applies to my userid, and I admit that anonymity is desirable in wikipedia. It is easier to do what you want. PalinforVeep (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your point is, but you may have misunderstood Mosmof's request. They did not imply that anyone should disclose their identity. They simply observed that Wikipedia guidelines urge anyone affiliated with the subject of an article to disclose said affiliation if, and only if, they intend to edit that article. If you would like to remain truly and completely anonymous, the best option is to refrain from editing those articles in which you suffer from a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has lots of articles, over two and a half million, in fact, so if you're here to help us build an encyclopedia, finding other subjects is not a problem. But if you're only here to promote a certain entity or point of view, then your contributions will likely be unappreciated. — Satori Son 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the client list was not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directory. Flowanda is correct in stating that the article should present information on clients as has been detailed in coverage by reliable sources. Mosmof's analysis is also sound, and their request to "engage in actual discussion" should be heeded as well. — Satori Son 13:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits concerning controversy and living people

In response to recent discussion on this and my talk page, I suggest you take up this discussion at WP:BLPN as the edits deal with living people (no matter if they have any presence on Wikipedia or not). Wikipedia is pretty strict about sourcing per WP:BLP. WP:OTRS is another option. If anyone needs help posting to these boards, let me know and I can help, but continuing to argue about the same edits is not helpful to the stability or validity of this article. Flowanda | Talk 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the edit on Flowanda's talk page, I'm not trailing User:Judae1 (in fact, the Judae1 account hasn't been used to edit this article in months!). I happened to learn about suspicious editing on the Torossian article elsewhere, and found this and the Torossian articles to be in particularly bad shape from the COI editing, unverified claims against the subjects, and awkward attempts to fix them.

As for the specific BLP complaint, I don't think it's valid - the statements by Engelmayer were reported by respected sources, and I don't see any information about anyone that isn't properly sourced.

And for what it's worth, the sockpuppeting incident made the Jewish press and PR industry sheets, and drew a response from the Public Relations Society of America, so to say this incident never made it beyond Jewish press and blogs isn't entirely accurate, though I understand the point. --Mosmof (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protected

This page needs to be protected, as it seems to have a lot of questionable actiivty as well as questionable edits from non neutral users on all sides. I am not sure why some see the desperate need to track every instance of ths subject of this article and eradicate it from Wiki. Bizarre. Bizarre. MaClainDiesHard (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the scrubbing of details from the Agriprocessors section and the addition of plagiarized, unfomatted material are annoying, but I don't think it's worth protection - my guess is that it's just a work of a single editor who's using multiple accounts and IPs. But if you think the situation is beyond repair, the protection tag won't do anything - you actually have to request protection at WP:PROTECT, and admins will assess the article. --Mosmof (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected for three days by administrator Gb (talk · contribs · logs) based on this request. — Satori Son 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrubbing of information and wholesale copy-and-pasting of firm website

This is getting (more) annoying. If you're going to plagiarize http://www.5wpr.com/about5wpr/history.cfm, at least do it right - at least take the trouble to format it for Wiki. Better yet, don't do it at all - taking material wholesale from the firm website is against not only WP:COPYRIGHT, but also WP:RS/WP:V. Please stop.

As for the ongoing attempt to scrub names from the Agriprocessors section, please cite a policy-based rationale for removing names of the relevant parties in the incident. Otherwise, please leave it alone. --Mosmof (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy comes from your page - 7 lines is more than enough. The individual accused of the scandal isnt noteworthy nor is the fact that they are Iowa based. More than enough detail appears there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit insanity and getting help

Unless edit drama is the goal, please stop this cycle of editing the same content and blaming editors when it is again reverted. You have received suggestions and offers to get help, so please ask for help or use the following resources for assistance.

For the issue about naming names, there is WP:BLPN. For issues about editor intent, actions and prejudice, there is WP:COIN. For issues concerning the quality of sourcing, there is WP:RSN. For disagreements about specific edits that involve just one other editor, there is WP:3O. As for issues concerning undue weight or balance, I am unsure of the best place to get feedback from uninvolved editors, but I hope other editors will provide the best noticeboard. After that, there is the dispute resolution process that is explained at WP:DISPUTE. And since it's pretty clear 5W is still actively editing Wikipedia articles involving themselves and clients/special interests, I again suggest WP:OTRS as a resource for this particular article, while at the same time pointing to WP:OWN and WP:LUC, as other edits and articles need to stand on their own notability and verifiability.

Please note my observations about 5W editors isn't a warning, a condemnation or a revelation of under-the-radar contributions; I can only assume that such wide swath and obvious tracks are meant to be noticed. Flowanda | Talk 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who wish to ban anonymous users are absurd. Masking ? Lets all come clean about our names. Absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Emetman, I suggest you read, comprehend, and implement WP:CIVIL into your future responses quick, fast and in a hurry. The suggestions Flowanda made are perfectly valid and there's zero reason for your snide comment. The only absurdity I've witnessed on this page is the alarming amount of sockpuppetry, ownership issues, 3RR violations, COI, and the outright abuse that good, long standing editors have suffered in their valid attempts to defend the project. By the way Emetman, you might want to learn to sign your name after you leave messages on talk pages. Curiously, 207.237.137.37 has that same problem. Perhaps you both need to brush up on basic Wikipedia policies (i.e, formatting references properly, NPOV, signing talk pages, etc) before you comment on the absurdity of anything. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing client information

Wikipedia articles require a specific kind of sourcing to create and maintain stable, long-term encyclopedic articles. The link to the Washington Times article about product placement is closer to the kind of sourcing needed to add the client information currently under discussion. Was there some kind of trade or other kind of coverage of the Sundance party that specifically discussed 5W itself in a "behind the scene" way that would be useful to this article? Flowanda | Talk 04:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, no. When I went through the page last night, I did a Google search to find additional sources for the content provided and the best I could find were press releases via reuters.com, etc from the firm itself. I found very few independent sources to back up some of the content. I think the real source of contention regarding this dispute is a direct result of various users fudging information and attempting to make this article into a fluffy PR release. For example, why should Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, and Nick Cannon be mentioned in this article because they attended an event sponsored by this firm? Why is that notable at all? The MTV source (which I presume is suppose to refer to Nick Cannon hosting some events) fails to mention that Cannon "has hosted multiple 5W events". There is one mention of the firm in that source with Cannon saying "I DJed twice, actually, last night. I DJed at Marquis, and 50 Cent was next door, so our parties were connected. Then I DJed at [New York's] Club Butter. ... They have a spot out here that 5W PR put together, so I DJed there after-hours". In my opinion, that doesn't indicate that he has hosted various events and that blurb wasn't taken out of context. The most troubling part is the insistence that the controversy section be pruned with the rationale that the company mentioned is not notable and that the section has a whopping seven lines making it far too long. The company itself has its own article yet it is not notable? Seven lines of text is too long? Gimme a break. To remove the company's name that was accused of wrongdoing feels like a whitewash to me, same goes for cutting the section down. I get the feeling this is a futile attempt to reach a consensus due to the sheer volume of sockpuppets, block evading users, and POV pushing. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than removing all of Agro until this matter is resolved - I'd propose the following as a settlement - Remove excesss non relevant language (i.e. is sockpuppeting not the same as fradulent ? If it is than remove said extra)... The rest is excess and unnecessary ? i.e.. Is Iowa really relevant ? If this cannot be resolved, I'd propose complete removal from 5W page to Agro page.

In July 2008, the Failed Messiah blog accused 5WPR of sockpuppeting in the reader comment section of one of 5WPR's clients, Agriprocessors, a meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants.[12] The blog host traced the comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a company executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account.[13] The employee initially blamed an intern, and the firm later issued a statement saying a member of senior staff was ultimately responsible, “A senior staff member failed to be transparent in dealing with client matters." [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re; Sundance - I'd propose the following compromise. Any basic background research indiciates that the firm annually receives a ton of media for their Sundance events. More in fact than Agro received. Surely some mention is relevant. I'd propose the following below language, but am receptive to reviewing additional proposed edits.

The agency is known for having top notch celebrity relationships, including premier events annually at the Sundance film festivals, which has drawn Paris and Nicky Hilton, , Kim Kardashian, (who also attended Torossian’s LA birthday party in 2007), and Diddy. The Sundance events compete with more traditional venues on Main Street.

http://de.eonline.com/gossip/planetgossip/detail/index.jsp?uuid=885f0731-09db-43b8-96d1-9179be73b34b (Says Nick Cannon DJ’ing -2008 ) http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20062603,00.html (Josh Hartnett & Sienna Miller) http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/fEv3PvMETnc/Sundance+Film+Festival+07+Welcome+Sundance (says Nick Cannon hosting 2007) http://www.nypost.com/seven/01222008/gossip/pagesix/call_it_sundance_idiot_festival_238479.htm (NY Post – says “drew boldfaces until the sun came up”) http://www.people.com/people/package/redcarpet2007/article/0,,20006775_20009585,00.html http://www.bet.com/Lifestyle/Style/lifestylesundancephotos.htm?i=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Vis a vis #1 in professional services - Where is that not sourced ? the same rankings which have them as 7 in entertainment says they are 1 in professional services ? Why removed ?

Emetman seems to make sense, as these others are going after every site & client 5W works with ? Thats not bias ? 12.103.203.218 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)A friend of Mosmof

The #1 professional services statement was not referenced on the same page as the other listing, and I couldn't find the list on the website. Do you have a link to the correct page? Flowanda | Talk 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "top notch celebrity relationships" claim is not only WP:PEACOCK and the idea of "celebrity relationship" is vague and unverifiable. So the firm throws parties and gets famous people to host or attend, but hundreds of event planners in NYC or LA or Miami could probably say the same thing, right? Unless there's actual firm-client relationship, "celebrity relationship" isn't all that notable IMHO. --Mosmof (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds can say the same thing ? No, 5w is the only PR firm to host events of this source, especially at Sundance. I challemge you to find another PR firm and will leave will enough alone at that point.

http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/pr_firm_rankings/profsvcs.htm PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CLEAR ENOUGH ? CAN WE AGREE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

3 issues: 1 - So at this point, if professional services is clear, that can be added, correct ? http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/pr_firm_rankings/profsvcs.htm 2 - Sundance. Find another PR firm or 2 at Sundance and if not, that goes in. 3 - Agro compromise ? You folks seem to be ignoring that one ? (207.237.137.37 (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

And how can it be peacock if in the body it says the firm is #7 in entertainment in the US ? None of those other firms do celebrity events of their own. That is very relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks who keep arguing, lets come to consensus and call it a day. Do we agree on professional services ? Sundance ? What do you suggest ? Why would Iowa be relevant ? Kosher ? The blogs name ? The Executives name ? Bottom line, the firm is accused of fradulent posting and then issued a statement. Thats what transpired. Say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The O'Dwyers link is behind a paywall, it actually isn't clear to me, and I imagine, most readers. While I don't doubt that it's correct, is there anywhere else we can verify this? Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was suggesting the #7 claim was WP:PEACOCK. Please read my comment again.
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - if the claim to notoriety is that 5W is the only firm throwing star-studded parties at Sundance, then find a reliable source backing that claim. Again, what defines "top notch relationship"? I recommend limiting claims to something more definable and verifiable, like actual client relationships.
3. I don't understand the complaint against the Agriprocessor section. "Iowa" may not be essential, but "kosher" is a defining characteristic of the company. Englemayer should be named, since he was a key player in the incident, with his initial "intern used my computer during a party" story. Mosmof (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:207.237.137.37 & Emetman, SIGN YOUR TALK PAGE COMMENTS PLEASE. Also, it would highly beneficial if both you read and implemented WP:TALKPAGE. Anyway, to get anything constructive accomplished, I think the article needs to be broken down into sections and discussed. As it stands now, different users are trying to push different sections and nothing is being addressed properly and that is not how a dispute gets solved. I think the first section that should be addressed is the "History" section. I think at least three of us can agree that the mention of Sundance, Nick Cannon, et al isn't going to work. The sources being presented to back this information up are, in a word, unacceptable. The fact that this firm threw some parties at Sundance can certainly be mentioned if it were well sourced, but so far, no one here who is lobbying to get it put in has yet to come up with a reliable source that explicitly states 5W hosted these events. Further, a website with a picture and a caption (like this and this) is NOT a source in any way, shape or form. The poor sources presented and the rationale behind them is a clear example of WP:SYNTH. When it comes to verifiability, we shouldn't have to infer what the sources mean. The sources provided should say outright what is stated in the article. If no real sources can state the firm organized and hosted several events at Sundance, the content should stay out and we can move on to the next section. Thoughts? Pinkadelica (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1st issue, cut & dry - They are #1 in professional services. Agreed ? Cut & Dry ? http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/pr_firm_rankings/profsvcs.htm (207.237.137.37 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Er, I wasn't asking you to prove it (as I said, I didn't doubt that you were correct, just preferred a non-password protected site for the sake of verifiability. But no matter, I found a free link: http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rankings/profsvcs.htm --Mosmof (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree item should go issue by issue - Sundance: Is the NY Post & People Not reliable sources ? In response to Mosmof, top notch celeb relationships would mean people like Paris Hilton, Diddy and others - Certainly A listers continually showing up to 5W hosted events. Yes, thats notworthy. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01222008/gossip/pagesix/call_it_sundance_idiot_festival_238479.htm (NY Post – says “drew boldfaces until the sun came up”)

http://www.people.com/people/package/redcarpet2007/article/0,,20006775_20009585,00.html

(207.237.137.37 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I realize I wasn't clear in my last comment - My question about "top notch" was mostly rhetorical - it's a WP:PEACOCK term, as there's no metric for a notch-iness of a firm's relationship with celebrities, so "top notch client relationship" ends up being a boast that doesn't give any concrete information. While the citations mention events, they say nothing about A-listers continually showing up (see the aforementioned WP:SYNTH). The sources are reliable enough (even the Page Six link), but only to the extent that they say who showed up to a particular 5W party. They don't tell us anything about their relationship with 5W. You'll need a source explicitly stating, "5W parties always attract A-list celebrities." or something to that effect. --Mosmof (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2 other issues:

1 - Removal of the richest man in Ukraine. Why was information regarding Rinat Akhemtov removed ? The same way a press release resulted in the largest Ukranian paper writing a story is the same way the blog you mention resulted in a story in Jewish media. Its one and the same. A blog isnt reliable either, so if you remove Akhmetov, I remove failed messiah. 2 - Agro. Shorten it and make it more relevant. Everytime I removed Iowa, you put it back. Why ? How's this: In July 2008, a blog accused 5WPR of sockpuppeting in the reader comment section of one of 5WPR's clients, Agriprocessors, a meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants. Comment: Does sockpuppit not imply falsehood ? 1 or the other is sufficient

Proposed remainder: [12] The blog host traced the comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a company executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account.[13] The employee initially blamed an intern, and the firm later issued a statement saying a member of senior staff was ultimately responsible, “A senior staff member failed to be transparent in dealing with client matters."

(207.237.137.37 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)) OK ?

1. Is there a WP:RS that doesn't require registration? I couldn't find a site that specifically talked about Akhmetov's relationship with 5W after a quick Google search.
2. I still don't understand the insistence on suppressing names. Engelmayer was on the record with his initial denial, so it's not like he was seeking anonymity. --Mosmof (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree (for once) with Pinkadelica:

Issue by issue. There are proposals above. Lets iron them out and stop warring. (Emetman (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Protected from editing for two days

See a complaint about this article at the 3RR noticeboard. Please try to reach consensus on some of the disputed topics during the two days of protection. Now that the activities here have come to the attention of administrators, we will be looking forward to calm and settled editing in the future with good rationales provided on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirerly and thanks for the help. I propose everything be settled here and we all stick to it. I certainly will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Staying focused on edits

I would like to suggest staying focused on the edits and not the editors. Continuing to comment of editors' behavior or motivations or who they are just adds another layer of distraction and static to the discussions. Wikipedia has clear policies and standards concerning the content under discussion, and the edits will stand on their own, no matter who adds them. Flowanda | Talk 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, there's no edits. Do we all agree to add Professional services and simply leave all else ? Reasonable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "leave all else"? Please respond to my comments above. --Mosmof (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

2 comments (assuming we agree on professional services):

1 - Kiev Post. Largest newspaper in Ukraine. Thats specific to 5W. large enough.

2 - Engelmayer is not a person of note. This isnt a full encyclopedia. He's not of note. At all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of continuity and readability, please respond under my comments above. --Mosmof (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of checkuser investigation results

As a result of the report filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, numerous accounts that have edited this article recently have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Such disruptive editing resulted in the article being temporarily protected from editing, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate current consensus. Editors in good standing should now carefully check recent edits to insure this article complies with the polices of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have tagged the article as requiring attention, and said tag should be removed after the article has been evaluated and, if necessary, corrected. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had a fairly serious go following this request to change this into an article about 5W rather than hype about its growth. Over to someone else I think (but I will still watch this for POV socks). --BozMo talk 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Independent Iowa article

I've not come across this publication before, so I'm placing the link here for discussion as a WP:RS: http://iowaindependent.com/2595/misconduct-by-agriprocessors-pr-firm-has-rabbi-considering-legal-options . It's part of the Center for Independent Media. Flowanda | Talk 17:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, here's a NY Times article that covers the broader Agriprocessors ethics issue, but devotes a paragraph to the online impersonation (about halfway down the page): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/23kosher.html?pagewanted=2

While it doesn't go into detail about the incident, it should sufficiently squash the "story isn't big enough because it was only covered by the Jewish/PR media" argument. Mosmof (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Both articles identify Engelmayer by name, which should satisfy the notability debate over identifying him in the article. Flowanda | Talk 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on techniques

It seems that what makes 5W notable is its techniques. I think we can add a section on activities, reputation and examples using the sources already included in this and the Ronn Torossian articles, and it would provide context to the Controversy section. Although there's been discussion about drawing distinctions between 5W and its CEO, the articles and clients sometimes don't. Flowanda | Talk 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Client examples

I don't disagree with the removal of current edits, but I'd like to see a concise description of the People magazine product placement added to the article if there are other similarly sourced notable examples. The info was sourced to a Washington Times article specifically about PR techniques and provided details about 5W and quotes from Torossian. Flowanda | Talk 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I (who took them out) am more than happy for you to put something back in, in some form, without the hype. I agree they make some notability level but the overall balance of the article was out of kilter presumably because people had mainly fished for positive press. --BozMo talk 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the info doesn't fit, and there were enough searches made over past few days to determine there are probably no examples/sources for now. If the article link isn't a good fit for the external links section for now, I'd like to add it here for future reference. Flowanda | Talk 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unclear, entirerly as to why there are 12 lines on Agro ? There is more on 1 scandal than the entire firm ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is, like most Wikipedia articles, a work in process, and there was much cleaning up to be done. One of the suggestions above was to integrate the Agriprocessors section into a more general "techniques" section, which seems like a reasonable idea. Mosmof (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So falsehoods are ok in the meantime ? 5W isnt a member of PRSA ? and why is Iowa relevant ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed 5W was a member, since a 5W exec sits on the board. I've removed the bit, since it was unsupported by the cited source, but I restored the other edits the IP editor removed. Mosmof (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks: A work in progress cant involve bullying ? Surely if you believe its an insider at 5W, which has 100 employees and millions of dollars at their disposal, 3 or 4 of you online cant bully them and surely wont win. Be reasonable, dont take advantage and call it a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk)

We are going to wait 24 hours for all of the debates above to be incorporated. Celebrities, Mom & baby, the richest European. If you wont add much or some of that, trust us all of Agro will be removed. This is absurd. Govern yourself accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This account 207.237.137.37 has been blocked as an obvious sock. I will revert their edits. --BozMo talk 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does a sock not tell the truth ? Are his comments inaccurate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This account, 12.103.203.218, also blocked for block evasion. Their edits to the article have been reverted, but a neutral review of those edits is requested. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

5W_Public_Relations#Agriprocessor_controversy

It strikes me as odd, looking back at this history and the company itself, there have been several, if not many controversial matters with this firm. The processing company was but one, and a relatively small one in the scheme. it was about blogging and sockpuppetry? So what. Lots of companies have done this, others advertise that they are paid to do it everyday. The point is, shouldn't there be a controversy section that contains tidbits of all of them, like representing both Tadic in Serbia and Kossovo for its independence? Perhaps the other one about a magazine editor complaining in his public forum about this company for sending unwanted emails? Please someone tell me why this one has its own section and all others were taken out? They used to be there and this on was a big to do for a while in Jewish papers. One passing mention in the Times. Than the company issues an apology that was accepted and it doesn't make the cut here either. Someone - other than 5W's people, please look this over and edit. I cannot as this site is limited to edits for only certain users.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.87.6 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems adequate, focus and a few - I agree that the one is overblown

Someone please explain why Agro has so many details ? names of bloggers ? Does this now remain so relevant ? 12.103.203.218 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gawker is a gossip blog. Not permitted as a source on wikipedia. Further violates blp regarding a living person. Furthermore the quote is used out of context that quote wasn't even used to discuss that incident. And not a reliable source for wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

The company has been involved in several controversial tactics that generated media attention and peer criticism. In 2006 5W was retained by an organization that is advocating for independence for the province of Kosovo from Serbia, while a year earlier, 5W was retained by a group representing Serbian President Boris Tadić, to help establish an image as a friendly democracy.

On November 5, 2007, following a controversial article written on the use of spam in the public relations field by Wired Magazine’s editor Chris Anderson, the NY Times followed up and referred to 5W as a “leading” public relations firm alongside Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick.

In July 2008, the blog Failed Messiah discovered 5WPR sockpuppeting in the reader comment, and also impersonating critics of a 5WPR's client, Agriprocessors, a kosher meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants. Comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a senior vice president and executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account. . Over Labor Day Weekend 2008, 5W issued an apology for the incident.

Hmm. If this is supposed to be proposed text for the article, no way. Read WP:Peacock, we don't do puff pieces. --BozMo talk 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No one wants a puff piece. My question is why is one controversy weighted over another and how is that decided? Also, why is so much credence lent to the one? It is as small a part of the company's issues as these others. Yet, the others, particularly the Tadic issue, seems like it can have greater consequences as per newsworthiness and even effecting world issues - if only to a small degree. Instead of merely brushing it off, can this issue be discussed? TLVEWR (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Try it now?TLVEWR (talk)

The organization's work for Angel Food is very high profile and relevant. Has been added. Furthermore, Agroprocessors shortened and updated. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).

Controversy Section

If the only thing this firm has done is the blogging matter, it seems it the place doesn't rise to the merits of an article at all. I am uncertain, reading the back and forth and the history here, why this one issues makes or breaks the piece here for some people. The meat company, according to many news accounts, has many problems that go way beyond this small incident. There was no lawsuit, no real harm done and just a lot of chat on blogs, which are not reliable Wiki sources anyway. The company makes an apology and that does not get covered. They make a deal with two foreign leaders to convey messages that appeal to a world body and that doesn't make Wikipedian heads heads spin? Gee, it's certainly and odd thing this article and the controversy on the article. Maybe that needs its own article here. TLVEWR (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

COI Tag

what is the rule on tags and when are they removed? It seems that this piece is quite skewed and weights on controversy. If that is the Conflict of Interest, a person or group on Wikipedia choosing to only talk about conflict, that may indeed be a conflict of someone's interest, yet if anyone is saying this the designer of the article making sure the article looks as it does, I disagree. The tag should be removed. 87.70.85.111 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When will this change?62.50.199.254 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this Talk page shows that many editors have come here desiring to present the company in a positive light. There have been numerous edit wars and some sockpuppetry that led to an WP:RFCU and blocking of accounts. The time to remove the COI tag is when the article has returned to calm and settled editing and appears reasonably neutral. (i.e. not going out of its way to either promote or disparage the company; just giving the facts as recorded by the published sources). If you believe the article gives too large a share of space to a specific controversy, perhaps you could add some new well-sourced material. That would help reduce the percentage devoted to controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That it what appears above. Sourced material on other issues, including the kosher company, but equally weighted and not overly played. The suggestion above - which I am reprinting below - does just that.Handle in the Wind (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

The company has been involved in several controversial tactics that generated media attention and peer criticism. In 2006 5W was retained by an organization that is advocating for independence for the province of Kosovo from Serbia, while a year earlier, 5W was retained by a group representing Serbian President Boris Tadić, to help establish an image as a friendly democracy.

On November 5, 2007, following a controversial article written on the use of spam in the public relations field by Wired Magazine’s editor Chris Anderson in which 5W played a role, the NY Times followed up, further talking about the issues between PR firms and the media, also using 5W as a reference.

In July 2008, the blog Failed Messiah discovered 5WPR sockpuppeting in the reader comment, and also impersonating critics of a 5WPR's client, Agriprocessors, a kosher meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants. Comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a senior vice president and executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account. . Over Labor Day Weekend 2008, 5W issued an apology for the incident.

Angel Food Ministries major national issue. Relevant and added. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).

Controvery Section

Prior to adding an entire section on one issue. Please use this space to explain why one is weighted over another. We should not be edit warring and should be looking at this rationally. The controversy that was weighted so heavily is not worthy of its own section. It was an incident; the apology wasn't mentioned, while is should be, and the other matters they got involved in are worthy, if not even more. Serbia and Kosova? That is a world matter. Handle in the Wind (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree that this section should be improved and put in better balance but I am not going to tolerate a series of SPA new socks approaching this by coming in and reverting to a version originally written by a banned sock farm. Being an editor who uses lots of socks does not make your edits wrong but it does mean you do not get a place at the table for serious discussion. Socks get reverted and banned on sight and serious contributers to WP have to discuss what to do with the section. --BozMo talk 10:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why a firm with so much positive work has been defined by Wiki only for controvery ? NY Times and Biz Week featured the firm - Why not much more on the positive they have done ? User:unsignd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably it should have more positive coverage and in time the community will get around to it. In the meantime the problem is that one or several individuals apparently connected to 5W have been repeatedly editing and reverting using sock accounts. That issue is very serious and makes it much harder to allow the article to develop in a balanced fashion. It is also incredibly counter-productive: for now the clear priority is keeping socks off the article: rule flouters must have no influence as a point of principle. The actual content of the article will get sorted later, no doubt. --BozMo talk 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Several editors have tried to find information specifically related to 5W (not just its clients) published in reliable sources that could be used in the article, but came up empty-handed at the time. Please review earlier discussions on this page that detail the research and the kind of information/sourcing the article needs and add any new or missed resources that can be used to expand the article.

But just continuing to harp on the same subject using the same arguments that have been settled and the same techniques that violate the same Wikipedia policies will also continue to have no effect other than adding "disruptive" to the list of abusive editing practices associated with 5W and its clients. A better strategy would be to respect Wikipedia -- and its large community of volunteer editors -- by following the agreed-upon rules other editors do or working through established dispute resolution procedures to solve your complaints. Here's a good starting place for further reading: WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. Flowanda | Talk 20:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems we've encountered editing this article, in addition to the relative scarcity of independent reliable sources that cast the firm in positive light (though the industry sheets rankings do speak for themselves, no?), is that much of the coverage on the firm talks about Ronn Torossian, and trying to separate the material about the company and the CEO. I guess some of it can go in both articles, but much of the firm's notoriety seems to come from the CEO than its actual work. Mosmof (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarcity of sources ? the same jewish papers who spoke for 2 weeks of this "scandal" profiled 5W ad naseum over the years for work for the Israeli govt, politicians and others. INC Magazine publishes the most prestigious list of private companies in the US every year and the firm was on the list 2 years in a row. Stop with these blatant lies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk)

The Inc. and Businessweek articles are listed.

Flinging unfounded accusations of discrimination is another ineffective distraction.

Either post requested sources that meet WP:RS to help expand this article or take up your issues at one of the formal dispute resolution procedures listed at WP:DISPUTE. Flowanda | Talk 06:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sad (but not surprising) that the 5w sockfarm is still actively trying to remove this same section. Since two other long standing and trusted editors amended the article, I trust that the section is well written and free of bias. In addition, several administrators have read over the article and have also kept the section. That should indicate that it passes Wikipedia's NPOV standard and doesn't fall into the "puffery" category. These futile attempts to discuss content on the talk page isn't going to work as everyone involved is quite aware that the IPs and "new" users have an agenda. Most legit editors don't make a habit of working with POV warriors. It's going to fall on deaf ears, but I suggest the "new" users find another hobby. Aside from wasting time, the end result is always the same. Socks get banned, article stays the reverted to the NPOV version, wash, rinse and repeat. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple question - May I ask why the only item on the firm described is this extensive blog issue ? Nothing on any of their clients or work they do ? Will this ever be amended ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is noone focused on the fact that this firm is defined by a small scandal, which no one even claims cost them a penny ? It got attention for 2 weeks in jewish world - How about clients whose brands they changed forever but isnt mentioned @ all ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. It's not healthy for a single incident that casts negative light on the subject to dominate the article, and that's precisely what we're talking about.

The article does, though, talk about its standing in the PR industry, and mentions its unique clientele - we could probably flesh it out a little more. Expanding on Torossian and his provocateur image wouldn't be a bad thing either.

But we will not be talking about "clients whose brands they changed forever". For one thing, "forever" is a very long time in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (not to mention that nothing ever stays the same, so all brands are constantly changing FOREVER!). And describing the firm's work as "changing a brand forever" would be a vague and meaningless peacock word. How were these brands changed? What was 5W's involvement in the change? Can you cite sources that are reliable (i.e. not blogs) and independent (i.e. not press releases issued by 5W)? Mosmof (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: ? You who describe controversy endlessly cite a blog and the bloggers name but a blog isnt relevant ? Does Inc magazine and their financials or continued growth count ? More than an isolated blog incident ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating an incident involving a blog with using blogs as reference. Also, Inc and O'Dwyers rankings are already mentioned in the articles, but if you can direct us to more up-to-date or specific citations, I'm all ears. Mosmof (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But if a blog isnt a reliable source, how is an individual bloggers name relevant ? He's not a major name ? He runs an organization - Why is he there ?

Mosmof nearly 2 months ago you said the following: "This is, like most Wikipedia articles, a work in process, and there was much cleaning up to be done. One of the suggestions above was to integrate the Agriprocessors section into a more general "techniques" section, which seems like a reasonable idea. " SO now it is reasonable that you act to clean this up. When will it begin >? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you ever going to answer my questions? --Mosmof (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering this controversy was reported by several mainstream media outlets, including the New York Times, yeah, it's safe to say that the blog's name, the blog owners name (who, by the way, is notable enough to have his own Wiki article), and the company involved should be mentioned. The article is not going to be "cleaned up" because there's nothing to clean up. The current information is presented in a neutral manner and is well sourced. There's no steadfast rule that says blogs can't be mentioned in the context of Wikipedia, we just don't use them as sources. In this case, the blog itself wasn't used as a reference because there was no need to, the incident was widely reported elsewhere. I find it highly ironic that 5w is using the same tactics of sockpuppetry here to remove a well documented incident of sockpuppetry at a blog. I'll venture a guess and say those ethic training sessions didn't quite kick in yet. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

??? the NY Times mentioned the bloggers name ? Where ? Nothing to clean up ? 12 lines for an obscrube blog ? Is it not depressing to be past your prime ?

If the above editor has already been confirmed and blocked on several occasions for being an IP sock on this article, as his block log reads, why are we wasting time talking to him? Edits by socks of banned users should be reverted on sight. Dayewalker (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One phrase springs to mind: Beating a dead horse. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to humor our friend lacking in Google skills, here's an NYT article about Agriprocessors: http://nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/23kosher.html?pagewanted=print . You know, you'd think a PR flack would have a better idea of generating favorable coverage, considering that's what those people get paid to do. --Mosmof (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof: Is there relevance here for this article ? These people make millions to do this - yet you clearly cant read google for Inc numbers. Do numbers lie too ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been thoroughly discussed repeatedly; rather than continuing to raise the exact same issue here, please continue to work through the dispute process you've started. Flowanda | Talk 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

COI tag removal -- October 2008

I suggest removing the COI tag. Most of the POV edits have been dealt with, and the article is on enough watch lists to keep it clean. Flowanda | Talk 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some edits

Some edits to the 5WPR page are in order. Adam Handelsman is no longer with the firm. In fact, most of the firm is no longer with the firm -- they're down to 40 people now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.134.50 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems updtes were done with documentation of 2009 numbers via industry trade magazines. Firm is 75 ppl or so and growing again it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs Updating

Much of the info on 5WPR is now out of date. One partner left the firm. Employees are down about 70 percent and billings down about 80 percent since the firm's peak a few years ago. There has even been talk that the firm has filed for bankruptcy protection. This place is a shell of what is was just a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.134.50 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is factually inaccurate and a blatant lie. Did all not see the recent rankings reports ? This is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

To both of you, we need links to reliable sources. — Satori Son 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof continues to push his agenda on this page. Why is a name of a blog or some obscure Rabbi relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 10:42, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

There's no agenda. Or editors out to get you. Or get your clients. And there's no vast conspiracy. Not even a minor one. What is going on is a bunch of mostly unrelated editors paying attention and thinking you need to, too. Along with the unending horde of 5wpr flaks who stop by here when not elsewhere on Wikipedia unethically shoving your clients' agendas.

What you really don't like is the ongoing and consistent proof of your inability to manipulate information and violate Wikipedia policy without getting caught, even if only on these two articles. Flowanda | Talk 07:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah no agenda or editors focused here, but its the same people with the same edits time after time, huh ? Sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into it and you're right: There are some single purpose accounts pushing an agenda. See evidence here and here. — Satori Son 17:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the contribution histories of the many editors involved in editing and defending this and Ronn Torossain's article and note how many of their other edits are about 5wpr clients. Many, many, many more SPA/IPs can be found in the edit histories of articles related to their clients. The O'Dwyer's link in this article provides a quick list; just pick a few and check. Flowanda | Talk 22:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I’m very much aware that employees, principals, and proxies of 5W have been abusing the system here on a pretty massive scale for over three years. At least this one article is locked down for now. — Satori Son 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is rank advertising

I realize, spin is your profession, and the people who think they own this article and that I "slandered" it by tagging as advertising. It remains the case that this article is full of non-neutral and promotional text:

Beginning inside a Manhattan-based travel agency with three clients and two employees, the company grew to roughly 90 employees and a second office...

The company's roster of clients has been described as unusual, eclectic, and cross-cultural...

The Horatio Alger story told by the opening paragraphs does little to prepare you for the parade of convicts and foreign governments you learn about from the actual meat of the article. This is still full of rose-colored spin. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through the extensive edit history and talk page discussions to see the number of editors who have contributed to this article (including me, and I have no COI) and the very lively (to say the least) discussions about edits. For the most part, I think the article statements are supported by WP:RS, but I'm sure it could use editing. No one "owns" this article, so please have at it! Flowanda | Talk 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are all taken from actual and real news media articles. The firm is 1 of the largest in the US and not one which you can attack without debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it promotional if said by the NY Times ??? Read the edit history and talk page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, this was a sneaky little edit, wasn't it? --Mosmof (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad-Naseum

This article has been addressed and discussed ad naseum as per this page. Dont make radical changes pre discussions. Billybruns (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ad nauseam actually. – ukexpat (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion On All Issues

Every single issue you have tried to introduce has repeatedly been defeated. Before starting edit warring review the page and the edits with changes you are proposing in such a radical fashion. Billybruns (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore it seems you are quite biased from reading sourced materials - You say 5WPR lost size in 2010 because of supposed negative media meanwhile your sources are from 2008 (and could the economy be relevant?). Discuss all changes here. Billybruns (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what you are talking about. This article is entirely a puff piece for a PR firm, written almost entirely by a sock puppet whose sole activity has been the editing of this and other articles associated with 5WPR. I see that you, too, have undertaken editing of only articles associated with 5WPR, so I am not surprised by your comments here.

The objective of the Wikipedia is not to produce panegyrics to advertising agencies. PR firms that have been repeatedly criticized for using tactics considered ignoble should be described as such in the Wikipedia. Your attempts to censor criticism that has appeared in many reliable sources will fail. --Ravpapa (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review the history of this talk page. There has been repeated discussion about every issue which you raise, repeated with countless debates. If you'd like to amend, you'd need to discuss them not simply add statements as you wish. There's dozens of people debating issues here for years wasnt 1 person was it. If you have legitimate sources or issues present them. Emetemet13 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Emetemet13 (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism & Untruths

Lets review your edits further: -- "5WPR has supported a number of controversial clients, including Aish HaTorah, an orthodox organization that supports Jewish settlement in the Arab section of Jerusalem, and Agriprocessors, a Kosher meatpacking" Nowhere is there a source, nor is it accurate to find anywhere aish hatorah in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Seperately why would this be in lead of 1 of Americas biggest PR firms isnt clear. -- Clarion Fund has been discussed earlier on this page. Shouldnt be admitted as stated. -- 1 source from an Israeli paper for a minor issue isnt relevant but this too has been discussed ad naseum. 65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Every single issue above has been discussed and debated on this page. Why is it now being introduced without multiple users discussing ? This isnt new content so why would issues from years ago now be introduced which have been discussed and resolved multiple times. Emetemet13 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Would further add as Torossian is a living person seemingly different rules apply. Pls while discussing present multiple sources for any proposed edits. Emetemet13 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. While I find a number of factual inaccuracies in your comments, I respect your intention to discuss improvements to the article constructively. I am calling for an RFC. Let's see what other editors have to say - editors whose interest in Wikipedia extend beyond articles about 5WPR and its clients. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New Round Of Socks

As per the SPI here [1], another round of socks of an indef blocked user has been editing this article. I've extended good faith here, but now that's it's confirmed, I'm rolling the article back to include the sourced negative material they deleted. If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to discuss it here on the talk page, and hopefully we can find a way to handle this article according to policy. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Major revisions to this article

I have undertaken a complete rewrite of this article, which has until now been essentially a promotional press release written by a group of editors whose sole mission in Wikipedia has been to edit articles about this PR firm and its clients. In fact, this particular PR firm would be completely non-notable, except for the fact that it has been involved in one major scandal and a number of minor scandals.

Three of the editors involved in cultivating this article have been banned as sockpuppets. But new users keep popping up.

You can see the original promotional version of the article here, and the new developing version here. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir your opinions here seem to be strong lets allow others to weigh in before you continue down this path. Citing gossip blogs and 1 of sources regarding the CEO are of concern for BLP. Furthermore you are discussing quaint Israel political issues no more relevant than how many colas Coke sells. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir the more time spent here the more disturbing. You are writing very strong opinions with very weak sourcing yet removing major issues. Lets wait for some others before acting and lets collectively add balance. Moved controvery to be part of the government issue. --108.21.128.55 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP 108.21.128.55 is now blocked for block evasion. So everyone else is free to carry on improving the article.

However, let's not make the mistake of swinging it from a wildly promotional whitewash-COI piece, back to an attack piece (or even a criticism piece) against the company. It's not our job to punish sockpuppeteering PR firms - even ones that seem connected with edits aimed as much at vindictive score-settling as COI whitewashing - by "proving" that they can't prevent negative things being written about them in their own articles.

So in fact let's try to make it a shining example of neutrality. Discussion of negative aspects in the lead should be kept to an absolute minimum. Positive mention of the firm should be included if it's covered in reliable sources. Negative material that's attributed to less than stellar sources should be left out entirely. Negative material that's well sourced should be included but not given undue weight.

If we can achieve complete neutrality in that way, we will be a lot closer to having a stable version of the article that non-COI editors can be happy with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what sort of comment you're seeking. In terms of copyediting, all the inline citations should go after punctuation - ie. "This is a sentence.[1]", not "This is a sentence[1]." You should also avoid stringed punctuation marks such as a period before and after a quotation mark (.".) - the punctuation should appear either inside or outside of the quoted text (depending on the English dialect used in the article) but not both.

Other than that, I support Demiurge1000's advice. Avoid the pendulum effect at all costs and strive for real neutrality. Take care not to overcompensate on the prior version. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The firm is quite noteable but your focus on the Israel clients and what they do would mean we should write how many hamburgers Mcdonalds sells or watches their watch companies sell what is the relevance. Gawker isnt recognized as a source by Wikipedia and why is WWD the largest fashion industry magazine not referenced but a meat company is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

IP, if you have a problem with certain edits, I'd suggest you bring them here to the talk page and explain what you're talking about first. As Wikipedia editors, we should all strive for a neutral article. However, after all the edit warring and socking that's gone on here, when you walk in and readd 5K of puffery [2] without explanation, it will more than likely be reverted unless it's debated here on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That sentence a: comes from gawker a gossip blog and not an approved wikipedia source b: isn't even about the situation he names so shouldn't be there anyway completely inaccurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.72.4 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gawker cheapens this article.. the public deserves better then a link to a site that discusses rumors heard in the hallway.. reliable sources "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. " Gawker reference is clearly poorly sourced and Contentious. TheNYCdan (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will replace it with another. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Monty845 has given some feedback on TheNYCdan's talk page about the reliability of Gawker as a source; it's a borderline case. Since it's now replaced with a more reliable source, it's not such an issue. However, we could also consider having the new source and also keeping the Gawker reference as well. (With Gawker coming second due to its status.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Not borderline as the information is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" its contention is documented. TheNYCdan (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, my meaning was that Gawker itself is a borderline case as regards being a reliable source or not. I would agree that if this material were sourced only to Gawker (as it was previously) then it should not be included. However, it's now sourced to another source as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of clients

A new user, NYCdan, has rewritten the Clients section as a list, contending that other PR agency articles use this format. He is right. Change accepted. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The list format is cleaner and easier to read anyways. - SudoGhost (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Client list and 5wpr as reliable source

I am deleting the client list from the article. It is based on the 5WPR website, which, it turns out, is not a reliable source. Ben Brafman, for example, listed as a client, severed his relationship with 5WPR in 2005. According to the New York Times, "One day after Mr. Torossian was quoted criticizing the publicist Lizzie Grubman on Page 6 of The New York Post, the defense attorney Benjamin Brafman, a high-profile client of 5W, severed his professional ties with the agency. Or, as Page 6 put it, "PUSHY PR MAN BOOTED." (see NYT article). Also, McDonalds denied it is a client, and Anheuser-Busch is questionable. "They are not currently representing us," says a McDonald's spokeswoman. Anheuser-Busch declined to comment." [3].

As there is no consensus on the Clients section as I wrote it, we will live for the time being without a Clients section. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be what the sources say, as Ravpapa indicated. If the subject's website is shown to be an invalid source, the section should be removed unless reliable secondary sourcing can be found. I'm not sure what the point of putting former clients on this page is in any case, it certainly doesn't sound like some of those professional relationships ended very well. Dayewalker (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The ability for a company to sign a highly visible client to its rosters demonstrates its reputation in the market. A one man show would not end up representing many of those listed in client list. For many companies, it is a badge of honor, to say they once worked with or represented a highly visible client. As we cant verify this PR company's or any PR companys current client list.. it is only logical that we use the term.. HAS which infers past or current. If you would like to use a better term.. im open to suggestions.. theNYCdan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Nowhere does the article suggest that 5WPR is a one-man show. And clearly listing a high-profile client is a badge of honor. The issue is whether one can display a badge of honor after it has been revoked by court martial. Brafman, according to the NYT, ended his relationship with 5W in a huff, and certainly would object to having his name listed as one of 5W's clients, past or present. I would not be surprised if others in this list felt the same.

Under the circumstances, the appropriate thing to do is to delete the list, and, if some editor is interested (perhaps NYCdan himself), rebuild it based on reliable sources. A reliable source, in my opinion, could be a recent press release issued in the name of the client and published in a newspaper or on the client's website, or a newspaper article that identified 5W or Torossian as the client spokesperson.

I will await additional opinions before redeleting the section. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"..Would object to having his name listed as one of 5W's clients, past or present. " doesnt change the fact that he WAS a past client..keeping the 5wpr source valid .Id argue that as long as we indicate the list is a list that 5w HAS represented.. the section remains accurate. A divorce doesnt change the fact that you were married.. regardless of how ugly the divorce. TheNYCdan (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Really we need material to have independent sources, so "keeping the 5wpr source valid" is not an option. Any client listed in the article without a reliable secondary source, should be deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

NYCdan, you really should read the talk page. There is agreement among three senior editors that the client list is not based on a reliable source. Other than 5WPR's word for it, we have no evidence that the organizations or people on this list really are clients of 5WPR, and 5WPR has already been proven unreliable in this area. Yet you insist not only on reintroducing the list, but actually adding to it. This goes beyond chutzpah. I am blowing it away for the last time. Don't try any more foilesh-shtik. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are press releases that went out to the public.. backed by a listing on the corp material.. Unless a court order exists or direct published denial of NEVER.. (not " is not currently") have being represented by.. then the list is accurate to the best information available.. and falls within the definition of wikipedias credible source we list. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered " If you question a client.. please provide reasonable documentation that the client has never been represented by 5w.. and ill remove that individual listing. I would argue that your criteria would have you removing the client page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogilvy_%26_Mather and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldcom_PR_Groupas i dont see any supporting sources for their client listings other then what is reference on their respective websites.... TheNYCdan (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe those other client lists should also be removed. That has no bearing on whether on not they should be removed here--see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You don't get to reverse the burden of proof by saying we have to question them individually. In any event, you're asking editors here to prove a negative--how could we ever document something that didn't happen? And I feel like we've talked before... Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked other editors to chime in.. i feel there is a negative aura here.. as opposed to saying it cant work.. attempt to figure out how it can... its easy to destroy.. harder to create.. You have yet to prove or show any substantial evidence that any ONE of the clients listed were NEVER clients.. now i on the other hand have shown http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firms_database/prfirm_detail.htm?prid={AA5072DD-12B8-4214-A272-FB41BD9128FD} a public press release and corporate material on 5wpr.com so i would say the burden of proof falls on you to have removed it in the first place...and i would add.. if you do locate some credible source that would deem the source unreliable.. then remove that listing.. and no..i do not believe we have chatted.. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNYCdan (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way burden works on Wikipedia--see WP:BURDEN, which says the burden for verification and/or supporting arguments always falls on the person who wants to include something, not those who want to exclude it. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well google is all our friend.. wont take much time to locate "credible" source..just a matter of time.. this credible for you?.. or do i need to click next page on google? http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firms_database/prfirm_detail.htm?prid={AA5072DD-12B8-4214-A272-FB41BD9128FD} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNYCdan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alas, I am afraid that will not do. O'Dwyer is simply reproducing a press release prepared by 5WPR. I doubt very much that O'Dwyer bothered to verify that the companies on the list are indeed clients.

You are right in pointing to similar lists in other articles and questioning their veracity. However, in this case, we have special cause for doubting the reliability of 5WPR's list: it has been shown to be inaccurate. There is nothing on the webpage to suggest that the client list there is anything but 5WPR's current clients, something that is patently false. If they have lied about who their customers are, why should we believe them when they say who their customers were?

However, I agree that it shouldn't take much time to find credible sources for this information. After all, the flack's job is to get his client's name in the paper, with the tagline "spokesman for yifnif, Ronn Torossian, said, " and so on. Find one of those for each client, and you have your list. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The list has been re-added with a bunch of new sources that all appear to be their own press releases. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable. If the press release has been published, even in a source that would not generally be considered reliable, it should be accepted as reliable evidence that the firm is indeed a client of 5WPR. It is quite a different thing from mentioning a company on a website.

What is more worrisome is that NYCdan could edit the page. I thought it was protected. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only the article that was listed in the title of the RFPP request, got protected - so this one still isn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we need page protection? Things seem calm at the moment. There are several of us monitoring, so we can re-appy if need be. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Prior discussions?

I had a look at the recent version that was reverted and the talk page, and I have to say I don't see the extensive and repeated discussions about that material that some claim have already taken place here. Where are they? I'd like to see a list of the sources that were being used in that version so that we can see what is salvageable and what isn't. I agree that it was too critical, but I don't think we should exclude discussions of this firm in reliable sources on the basis that they are critical alone. If a company is more known for controversy than anything else, then that is what sources reflect. A more methodical discussion of the sources will help sort this out.Griswaldo (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has gone through a number of dramatic rewrites, so I don't know which version you are referring to. But I am guessing that you mean the "Criticisms" section of this version. That section listed three controversies in which 5WPR was involved. The main one, the Agriprocessors scandal, has remained. The other two controversies - 5W's peripheral involvement in a hate movie produced by one of its clients, and opposition to hiring 5W to promote a Jewish identity program because Girls gone Wild was in its porfolio - were less important and somewhat circumstantial, and, after consultation with others, I decided to remove them myself.

If you think they are significant and well founded, we can discuss restoring them. My own feeling is that they are unnecessary. We have already written too much about this middling PR firm. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources in this article

The more I investigate this article, the more astonished I become. The contention that 5WPR was "Boutique agency of the Year 2005" was sourced to a link to the Holmes report. The link was dead. A listing on the site of Boutique agencies for the year 2005 did not include 5WPR.

Previously, I deleted one reference showing that El Al is a client. The reference did not mention El Al. Fortunately, El Al had a second reference which did mention El Al, so I left the text.

It seems that we will now have to go through every one of the references on this page and check it out. Or perhaps some of the new editors popping up can find the correct link. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It'll be my pleasure to review links.. already found one to replace to 2005 reference. On topic, excuse my ignorance here, but why does my addition of the 2011 ranking of this company as #5 in a specific category, that references the same source as the other ranking sites keep getting removed? seems to me that the latest rankings would be pertinent on that section.TheNYCdan (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to check for dead links as we have automated tools that can do it quickly. Thanks for offering, though. SudoGhost is the person who removed your link to http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rankings/beauty.htm but I'm not sure why. The edit summary said "Removed WP:SELFPUB", but you are right, it is the same type of link cited earlier in the page. SudoGhost will have to check it out and provide more details. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd clarify, there's nothing wrong with your link, the problem was me. I removed that link by mistake. I'm not sure how it happened, but I mistakenly reverted the wrong edit (possibly 'too-many-tabs-open' syndrome). I've restored the edit, and I'll pay more attention that what I'm doing next time, sorry. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning a removed deadlink

A source was removed because the page was no longer available, but I was able to find the link archived [4], but I wanted to make sure that archive.org links were appropriate before adding it to the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely--using archive.org links is preferable to losing the reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure before I added them. I've re-added a couple of links that were 'dead' with their archived counterparts. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nudnik, but it is not enough to restore the dead links. We have to read them, to make sure they support what the article says. The link proving the El Al is a customer never mentioned El Al. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which link you're talk about, but I've checked both links that I've restored, and they've verified what was written in the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Agency Report Card

Would suggest a user utilize this up to date material http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/1930/5W-Public-Relations.aspx 199.19.186.9 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Before someone does that, I'd like to see the issue of whether or not The Holmes Report is a reliable source raised on WP:RSN. The seem very borderline to me, given that there stated purpose is "The Holmes Group is dedicated to proving and improving the value of public relations, by providing insight, knowledge and recognition to public relations professionals." That makes me worry that they may not be impartial enough. My first intuition would be that we could only use them as an attributed opinion, but not as a source of facts. However, others (especially someone with more knowledge of the field) may disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should accept it. We are, after all, dealing with an industry which is 100% vapor. Holmes is a kind of PR firm for PR firms, but everyone in this industry is tainted to a greater or still greater extent. Nothing in this industry is reliable in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word.

As long as we don't exceed the boundaries of good taste. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable website: Holmesreport.com , Holmes Report , Holmesreport , HolmesReport , etc. etc. etc.

http.//holmesreport.com , *.http.//holmesreport.com . On and on, but none of these links, current, future or wayback meet WP:RS or WP:EL. Flowanda | Talk 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why? There's discussion in the section above, and we're still looking for answers. If you have a specific argument why these are RS or EL, please give details. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)