Talk:History of public relations/Archives/2013

Sources

There is a strong case for merging the history of public relations with the public relations page. I think there will be a lot of dispute over the history but Tom Watson at Bournemouth University has called for historical evidence and is organising a conference. It may be worth waiting for this event. To contribute a paper at the Bournemouth conference abstracts must be submitted by Monday, December 10 this year to prhistory@bournemouth.ac.uk. All will be reviewed by an international academic peer review panel, with decisions advised in the week of January 21-25, 2013. It still seems to me that taking PR practice in its modern guise, it has been practised for millennia. The Amarna[letters] would seem to be something of a cross over between diplomacy and public relations we know now as lobbying C1300 BC which is quite a bit earlier than the the Duchess of Devonshire and the much later Americans.

The article needs work. To date the text has not included the books by Scott Cutlip cited in References. Cutlip notes that SPQR is a nod to the power of public opinion in the Roman populace. He has other early references. This "History" article can take perspective on the past while the PR article needs to keep abreast of contemporary practices such as the third party technique. Though lagging other parts of the encyclopedia project now, WP editors will find time to become informed and write on the topic as its profile grows.Rgdboer (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have two books from Cutlip that I have borrowed from the library (have to be returned soon) that are now cited extensively throughout the text. One covers the 1900s and should help me fill in the section dedicated to the 1950s to the 2000s. I also noticed Cutlip was widely cited as one of the most credible accounts of the history of public relations.

I still need to identify the best sources for Recent history, regarding the transition to digital and web, social media and all that new-fangled stuff. Obviously things will get crowded in an era where anyone can publish a book. Anyone have suggestions for sources? CorporateM (Talk) 05:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A paragraph has been added on Arthur W. Page, his career and contribution, since he has been held in high regard. Thank you CorporateM for including material from Cutlip. As the playing field levels in public relations, the subject will gain more analysis. IMHO we do better to comb historical sources rather than attempt current clarity.Rgdboer (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I added some sources and did some re-writing. Also, I'm quite glad you added that the first code of conduct was developed in the UK. I just found a source claiming the PRSA created the first code of conduct (some decades later). I am trying to avoid being US-centric and when the sources claim that PR started in the US, it's hard to tell how much of that is genuine and how much is a US-centricity and ethnocentricity problem. Haven't found many sources other than the UK and US, but it is possible that most major milestones in PR's history are genuinely concentrated there. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The efforts by CorporateM have brought readership of this article to a high level. A contribution on July 15 was made by User:Rre122 also. Due to a request for sources in the Modern era, the articles Twitter Revolution and Facebook diplomacy were read. The dramatic changes in channels of communication put new challenges to PR practitioners.Rgdboer (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts for improvement

I have not read the entire article word for word but here are some thoughts to consider:

• Lead
  • Title of article should be in bold in first sentence  Done
  • First sentence should define or summarize the term  Not done There's a huge debate on the definition of PR, which I've started to cover on Public relations, but I don't want to tackle the subject here.
  • "according to some academics" is very weak wording for a lead IMO, especially the first sentence. There are also other weasel words like "some" and "most" that are in my mind not appropriate for a lead. The lead should be solid and definitive summary. If scholars are ambivalent on certain issues then let that come out in the body but say what you know in the lead.  Done sort of I think. It's a tough issue because sometimes the sources just say "some" without identifying specific notable viewpoints. But the lead needed some re-writing I think now that the bulk of the article is done.

• • Wikilinks are needed for World War II, Social Media, Twitter, Facebook and other terms  Done
  • In the body you present the Roman history etc as ancient origins. In the lead you get the impression that the Roman stuff is part of the history. Its not, IMO. Public relations started when the term started to be used. Its OK to say PR has its roots in this or that, but I would not characterize ancient origins as history, which is the sense I have from the current lead.  Done I better characterized the debate in the lead.

• Ancient origins
  • "It is also believed" [by who??]  Done

• Foundations
  • "She claims" see WP:Claim  Done
  • One might consider starting the article with this section and putting the alternative and disputed views about the origins of PR at the end of the article. This might be a more satisfying arrangement for the reader
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will also look through it for any other "some believed" type phrases I can correct. That's something I knew would be an issue, but haven't figured out how to fix yet. Although I tend to agree that ancient history is not public relations, I think the most neutral format is to be strictly chronological, as to avoid favoring some views over others. But I'm open to thoughts from others. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of public relations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farrtj (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Edward Bernays should not be linked twice in the lead. I've sorted this one.  Done
• Link public relations. I've sorted this one. Done
• Say "according to the academic, Scott Cutlip" Done

• I think the lead could benefit from a paragraph explaining exactly what PR is, and how it differentiates from advertising and marketing. I note that User:Keithbob has already suggested this. Done

So is PR a branch of marketing? Or advertising? Or neither, or both? Farrtj (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a part of marketing and a distant cousin to advertising, however, doing a quick look at sources, there doesn't appear to be any consensus on referring to it as marketing, or as something completely separate. CorporateM (Talk) 17:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well maybe explain in the lead and then in the body of the article somewhere that there is some debate. Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I don't know if there is a debate worth including even on the main article about whether it is a part of marketing (people just refer to it differently), but I just added that it is sometimes a part of marketing organizationally, which seems like it would do the trick without going off-topic. CorporateM (Talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Expand the PR description further with a sentence described the mediums (media) through which PR is disseminated, both now and historically. You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm guessing the likes of pamphlets, press releases, advertising. Farrtj (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is PR a form of communication? Farrtj (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yah, advertising usually refers to paid placements, marketing is typically intended for direct prospects and lead generation (webinars, whitepapers, etc.), while PR addresses the general public and the industry at-large. Defining it is a thorny topic and not one we should cover on this sub-page, but I will see what I can do without vearing off-topic. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally, the lead will not have reference citations in it, as it is merely a summary of the article. The new section detailing what PR is can be replicated in the Ancient Origins section. Farrtj (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done

• What is "media outreach"? Does this need some sort of link or explanation? Farrtj (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fathers of the profession

• You italicise the Freud books, but not Public Opinion (1922) and The Phantom Public (1925). Done
• Full stop after Heinz. Link the terms "skimmed milk" and "pasteurized".  Done
• I think it's better to use "percent" rather than the "%" symbol, as you use later in the sentence. Done

International expansion

• Remove the red links. Done
• PR Week et al should be italicized. Done

Modern era

• I've noticed you seem to do this a lot. If possible, cite the name of the author of the work in the text, rather than the name of the book.  Done
• British Petroleum are officially called "BP". Done

References

• References should not have a retrieval date when no url is given. Either add the url, or remove the retrieval date.
• References are inconsistently formatted. Sometimes you give a single name as "Egan, John" and sometimes you give a single name as "Jacquie L'Etang".
• Reference 18 is incorrectly formatted.
• Picked almost at random, Ref 26 lacks the first name of the author, and an end page for the page range. What I think you may have done is used "pages" in the citation, rather than "page", if it is a single page you are intending to reference, as this problem occurs on numerous occasions.
• To many formatting errors in the referencing to list individually.
  •  Done I will keep an eye on this as well to see if I missed any

This isn't done. A quick glance shows that Ref 3 lists the name "Barbara Diggs-Brown" whereas the references above and below it use the Diggs-Brown, Barbara" format. Farrtj (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that refs 19, 25 and 26 still give page references with a number and then a dash, ie "36-". Farrtj (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I realise this isn't FA standard, and on the whole the references are fine. Farrtj (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I'll keep an eye out on any others. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I just gave all the references a once-over and cleaned up a lot of additional errors. CorporateM (Talk) 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Other

• I think this article could do with more than two images, given its size.
• Just make sure you've italicised everything consistently.
• There are lots of cases of WP:Weasel words in this article. "Some" scholars, "some" people should strenuously be avoided. Give the names of scholars who have said this.
• Citation: The major claim "Former journalist Basil Clarke is considered by some to be the founder of public relations in the UK." doesn't have a citation directly following it. Farrtj (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Maybe some material on how the growth of PR correlated with the growth of a consumerist society in the Western world? Farrtj (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Prose quality

• In the instance of "Ron Smith from Buffalo State University", just say "academic Ron Smith". You don't need to list the university he's associated with in the text (besides, he may switch his university affiliation at some point in the future). Farrtj (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Standardise the use of "U.S." and "US", even if it's within a quote. Farrtj (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Italicise Common Sense and The American Crisis, and put publication dates in the text, ie Common Sense (1776)  Done
• Instead of repeating public relations throughout the article, just use "PR" after the first instance. Farrtj (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that you've fully utilised all the available sources? This article seems a little bare for a history of an entire social science. Look at the size of the GA listed History of KFC page for instance. And I can't allow this to pass until the formatting has been sorted out. I will give you a week or so to make any changes you may wish to make. Farrtj (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

For this "Some scholars believe that the first appearance of the term "public relations" was in the 1897 Year Book of Railway Literature" - the source literally says "some scholars". Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 20:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't trust that source. The OED for example, who I consider to be pretty definitive on these matters, claims that the first use of "public relations" in the modern sense was in 1898, not 1897. Farrtj (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done I just found a stronger source (there are plenty of sources on this), but I note that some specify that it was the first time the term appeared in print, while others are credited for bringing the term into common use. CorporateM (Talk) 12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

• I feel that the article could better articulate the criticism of PR (which has been extensive). For example, in the article, Bernays is described as the "father of PR" and a "pioneer", yet a Google Books search finds two different books on the first results page alone that describes PR as "spin". There doesn't seem to be enough on the critical opinion of PR. which is otherwise described as "spin" or "propaganda". Farrtj (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible we are reaching an empasse here, because you keep wanting to add material that in my opinion belongs on other articles on public relations. This article is only about its history, not its definition, ethics, theory or other debates. And the article does properly include a long history of misleading communications, such as the misleading descriptions of Virginia to promote colonization, "pioneer" Lee bieng called a "poisoner of public opinion", manipulative techniques to promote circuses, and a slew of recent PR snaffus. We do have other articles on astroturfing, spin, and on PR in general that I also work on from time-to-time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. But on the other hand, have you considered adding an example of PR being used for good? Farrtj (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• This article is very America-centric. I realise that that's where modern PR originated, but I feel as if maybe the UK coverage could be expanded, and maybe some information about the growth of PR in Europe and Asia? 14:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible. I noticed this problem while authoring it. Most textbooks seem to suggest its history is most strongly rooted in the USA, but I suspect in part that is the bias of US sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

For example, I unearthed this quote from Noam Chomsky (who's quite the expert on PR himself) and he says "the PR industry developed “in the freest countries in the world—the U.K. and U.S.”". I know you mention a little bit about the UK founder of PR, but we have nothing about the growth of PR companies in the UK, or how the field developed there after its foundation. Farrtj (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just some brief digging has found this on international PR: [1] Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Jacquie L'Etang has written a complete history of PR in the UK. Farrtj (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Farrtj. I think this would be a good point to leave the article on-hold for a little while, while I do more research and order a few books, etc. A few things on my to do list:

• US centricity: Currently all the global stuff is lumped into "International Expansion". Some degree of US centricity seems appropriate in this case, but I will see if I can find some more non-US sources and maybe break up this section so the entire article has more of an international feel.

• NPOV: I do notice we could use an explanation of Barnum's "manipulative tactics" and I will double-check Bernays once more to see if there is negative stuff I missed. There are plenty of examples of PR that are both positive and negative (or up to interpretation) throughout the article, so I am not attached to creating a slant in either direction that does not flow naturally from the source material. But I will double-check a few things.

• Broad coverage: I was trying to keep things concise and it's possible I went overboard. Certainly there are enough sources (entire books from Cutlip just on specific time periods) to make the article as long as needed, but I would prefer to keep the article a short, readable length that offers a good summary. Still, I will poke around with an eye towards any "major aspects" that are missing.

If there's anything that needs to be addressed from criteria #1 and #2, I can fix those right away, while I wait for a couple books to come in the mail. CorporateM (Talk) 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay perfect. Take as long as it takes. As a Wikipedian, I'm somewhat of an inclusionist, reasoning that any excess information in a given article can normally be spun off onto a separate page, so I wouldn't worry about that too much :) It's really good to see someone giving advertising/marketing based pages some attention, as they sorely needed that. Farrtj (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Part of the reason I improve these articles (besides having a PR background) is we do not have many good editors with an interest or knowledge of marketing topics and the community's frustration with unethical participation on Wikipedia tends to lead to a systematic bias against it. Marketers are obsessed with short-form content, so Wikipedia's long-form is counter-intuitive, but admittedly I do have an inclusionist bias where I have a COI.

Of course, the disadvantage of writing articles about topics within the field I operate is the awkwardness when I met two employees from Ogilvy at a conference in Nashville and I blurted out that I had just cut their article in half. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I ordered 3 books, but they will take 10-14 days to arrive. One of them titled "Pr!: A Social History of Spin" was mentioned in other books on PR history and may provide the angle you're looking for. The Google Books preview only shows me a few pages and I didn't order it before because - based on the title - it sounds biased. But seeing it cited in other books makes me think it is significant. CorporateM (Talk) 13:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! Farrtj (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have both books now, which just leaves about 600 pages of reading between me and the continuation of the GA review. I do notice that a lot of material could be added that I think is needed to meet the GA standard, much of which is along the lines of spin and propaganda. It may take a while for me to get through both books though. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid this has taken far more than the standard 7 days, and needs a lot more work. I have no choice but to close the review. You can renominate it at a later date. Keep up the good work! Farrtj (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It does need a lot of work before it will be ready for re-nomination. I appreciate your patience. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

changes

It's a bit parochial to separate the 'Settling the New World' section from broader events in Europe. The people living in the New World identified themselves as Europeans - most of them were born there. To discuss pamphlets produced by Harvard in the mid-17th century outside of the context of the flourishing print culture in Europe, or the Boston tea Party and American Patriot pamphleteering without putting it into the context of the flourishing public sphere and social movements in England is just odd.

L-Etang's book does not say that PR started in the swamps of Virginia. (Captain Arthur Barlowe would be surprised to know that he was an American, as well.) The book actually says the opposite. The history of PR has been generally dominated by US historians, who tend to have a very national perspective. L'etang contends that PR developed independently in the UK at roughly the same time. However, she is certainly not talking about pre-20th century precedents.

No one contends there was anything abnormal or precocious about publicity for New World settlement (Raleigh, Magellan and Columbus were English, Portuguese and Spanish/Italian and were not exhibiting a "U.S. talent for promotion" (!?!) ). These things have to be set into an international perspective, and until the 20th century, if anything, the article should focus on Europe - the development of journalism, public opinion, movements and so on.

You've also doubled up a lot of information. I don't think there needs to be a separate 'fathers of profession' section. Apart from being a bit pretentious, the material is covered in the main part.Noodleki (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noodle. This all sounds ok to me at-a-glance. I know there is some repetition and additional re-structuring work that needs to be fixed and just haven't gotten a chance to get to it yet.

Most of the sources I found were very US centric in regards to PR's early history and it's possible that is because of ethnocentricity. If there are sources with a different perspective, we should summarize both points-of-view.

However, we need much better sources than stuff like this and some of the content was unsourced. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Noodle, I just started looking through the "Public Sphere" section, but none of the sources I have looked at so far appear to actually mention "public relations". We really need sources that make it clear they are talking about PR and not social movements and politics in general. I'm going to try to keep working on it bottom-up, so you have time to take a look at it, but I don't see the relevance atm. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Holding pen

Storing a source here until I (or noodles or someone else) gets a chance to add it back in. It did not directly support the text of the article, but it has a lot of other content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bates, Don (2002). "Public Relations from the Dawn of Civilization" (PDF). Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved 2012-12-17.
• Valentini, Chiara (2009), Italian public relations in a changing world: Historical overview, current questions and future challenges (PDF), Prism Journal, retrieved November 22, 2013