Talk:Public Relations Society of America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC Take 2

I'll take a crack at a neutral RFC:

1. What is the preferred location for the Controversy section?
2. Is the current controversy section neutral? If not, how can it be improved?

CorporateM (Talk) 03:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking generally, the preferred location is nowhere. If at all possible, the information should be divided into the article where it belongs, such as the relevant parts of the history. If this is impossible, every effort should be made to find some alternative title. I think the use of "controversy" is an inherently negative wording and should be avoided, and the existing ones examined to see if something better can be done. If there's a particular section it corresponds to, it should be located after it. If it's a general collection of problems, it should go at or near the end of the article. I'm not going to comment on this particular problem, except to ask if this is the only controversy the PRSA ever engaged in? Have there be no comments from outside the society about their activities? DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG, to answer your question, the other controversies include

• The 1977 FTC complaint (in History)
• The 1986 SEC complaint (in History)
• Like any code of conduct for PR, there is some criticism (in Code of Conduct)
• Like any attempt to define PR, there was some controversy (in History)

The issue with O'Dwyer is the only one pulled out because it spans 40 years and covers a broad range of topics, but it would be possible to disperse it (or at least give it a better title). CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this while providing a third opinion on one of the disputes regarding the content of this section and would say that I believe one issue with the section as a whole is that it appears to be entirely about a dispute with a single living person. As a result one might consider renaming this to reflect that singular focus. The section also seems a bit one-sided in favor of the PRSA. It should be made more balanced to present all sides.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should rename the section "Controversies" as per most organizational articles and the reduce the O'Dwyer stuff to a brief summary rather than a back and forth. We should also add a brief paragraph about PRSA and Wikipedia since that's been a subject of controversy, too. And for the love of all that's beautiful, please kill that picture. Rklawton (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoid section named "Controversies" - As wise user DGG says above, sections named "controversies" or "criticisms" are generally a bad idea. See WP:CRITICISM for more guidance on this commonly-raised issue. A good example of an article about a controversial organization which does not include a section named "Controversies" is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article. Try to follow that article's approach, where the sections are named after the controversial event/topic, but avoid the word "controversy" itself. There are a few exceptions, where sections named "controversy" may be appropriate (e.g. if there are a large number of 2ndary sources that call it a "controversy" using precisely that word), but those are rare. --Noleander (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a unique case. The criticisms do not take place at a specific date (40 years) or a specific topic and it is beneficial to the reader to provide a summary of the feud, which cannot be placed in any specific sub-section. Having a summary of the feud such as is presented in the first paragraph of the section is useful to the reader and could not reasonably be placed in any other location. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would echo several of the comments already made. 1) First, don't have a dedicated section, incorporate it into the History section 2)Summarize the content to half its current size or less and give it a dispassionate tone. Right now it is "catty" in tone and overly personal on both sides ie he said, she said.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Though I disagree; there is enough consensus in favor of it being an WP:UNDUE and WP:Criticism - so I have dispersed the content appropriately and reduced its emphasis. CorporateM (Talk) 21:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Public Relations Society of America/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Review discussion

Looking through the history, archives and last nomination, I think that I must at least acknowledge the gorilla in the living room. Having spent only 30 minutes rather than 3 hours trying to absorb it, I still don't have a clear picture. But it appears that until a few months ago there was controversy over the amount and formatting/organization of coverage with respect to the situation between O'Dwyer and the organization. I noted that now there are a few sentences on this. Any thoughts on whether or not the current amount of coverage is correct.? My initial quick thought is that maybe another sentence or two giving background or overview on this might be in order. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I did feel it got overly reduced. Someone claimed it was not NPOV because it sounds "catty" but this is the correct way to portray it based on reliable sources. The level of argument only occurred because of an editor that was hounding me and creating arguments on every article I have contributed to. I don't think it's actually an issue anyone is that passionate about. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. You added a bit more. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Near the end there is the sentence "They found that recent college grads lacked writing skills and that teachers were inexperienced.". On the face of it this sounds like a finding for all college students and all college teachers. I assume that there are some fine points missing on this? North8000 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I think that fixed it. I rechecked the source; it sounds like they didn't "find out" college grads had poor writing skills, this was assumed as an obvious fact and the implication was that it was caused by poor teachers. CorporateM (Talk) 13:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

• Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Meets this criteria. One nice expansion would be covering the "employee" side of the organization; i.e. in addition to the senior (volunteer) leadership which was covered, they have a a facility with employees.....maybe a paid manager / executive director that they report to. But there may not be sourcing for this, and either way, it's a sidebar item not affecting passage of this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

• Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

• Meets this criteria. Has had at least 4 months of calm regarding this. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• Meets this criteria. Has two images; both are free so no article-specific rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Result

This passes as a Wikipedia good article. I left one possible expansion recommendation in the checklist. Nice article! Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

(I am "repeating" this here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Reviewer

Thanks so much!! CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with PRSA Foundation

main organization DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PRSA Foundation is an independent organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himehdi12 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PRSA and PRSA Foundation are two distinct organizatons, and cannot be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.29.127 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

anything can be merged BlueSalix (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The PRSA Foundation has historical, but no direct links to the Public Relations Society of America. It is an independent, 501C3 non-profit, and it receives no financial support from PRSA.

• Weak Support I'm inclined to support the move proposed by DGG. While it is a separate organization, there is simply not enough in the article to sustain it. While it has sufficient RS, the article itself is just a list of staff, officers and awards. That doesn't really make a Wikipedia article. Condense it into a single, concise paragraph and make it a section in the PRSA article. The legalities of its separate status can be dealt with there. There is no WP policy that requires legally distinct organizations have separate Wikipedia articles. For instance, we have a single article for Royal Dutch Shell, not Shell USA, Shell UK, Shell Brazil, etc., even though they are all separately incorporated. BlueSalix (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Request edit on 20 January 2020

Hi, my name is Rod Granger, and I am the Director of Content and Integrated Communications for the Public Relations Society of America. I would like to make some edits to our company page but do not want to violate Wikipedia protocol, so I am writing this message to ask for some guidance. I'm particularly interested in editing the information box on the top right of our entry:

Information to be changed: In the "Type" heading, change "Nonprofit trade association" to "Not-for-profit trade and business association." Reference supporting change: PRSA's New York State Charter says: "The Corporation is organized and shall be operated as a not-for-profit trade and business association within the meaning of Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Regulations thereunder, as they now exist or as they may hereafter be amended (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Code").

Information to be changed: In the "Chair and CEO" heading, change the heading to just "Chair" as PRSA no longer has a combined Chair/CEO position. The correct name for the Chair is T. Garland Stansell, APR. References supporting change: https://www.prsa.org/about/national-leadership/t-garland-stansell-apr-chair

What is the best way to go about making these edits while not violating your Conflict of Interest policy?

Thank you very much for your help with this process.

Rod Granger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhdg1 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 21-JAN-2020

  Edit request implemented  

• The COI editor is reminded of the need to sign all talk page posts using four tildes.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 22 January 2020

Thank you for making our requested changes. I have an additional edit I would like to have made.

Information to be changed: In the top right hand box, can you add "APR" after T. Garland Stansell's name, so it looks like this: T. Garland Stansell, APR. The source is this: https://www.prsa.org/about/national-leadership/t-garland-stansell-apr-chair

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, it is much appreciated.

Rod

Rhdg1 (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We really don't do credentials in common usage like this, see our MOS at MOS:CREDENTIAL. Thank you using this template instead of editing the article directly. Kuru (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 23 January 2020

Information to be changed: In the "Services" section, I'd like to change the second paragraph to this: PRSA's Public Relations Journal was published from October 1945 to 1995.[50] Its original mission statement was "to carry articles that deal with fundamental public relations problems, as they currently press for solution." In January 2018, PRSA combined Tactics, its monthly newspaper, with The Strategist, its quarterly magazine, to create Strategies & Tactics, an all-new monthly publication.

Source link: https://apps.prsa.org/StrategiesTactics/Articles/view/12144/1153/A_New_Year_a_New_Look_for_Our_Publication

I am also hoping to replace the logo currently on the PRSA page with a new one, but when I tried to upload it I got a message that said: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." Do you have advice for how I might go about uploading a logo to substitute on the page? I very much appreciate your advice.

Thank you.

Rhdg1 (talk)

Reply 26-JAN-2020

1. To guard against the addition of the claim regarding PRSA's publication as being only to promote the journal, please provide a reference for this claim from outside of PRSA.
2. Without seeing the error message you received, I'm unable to comment on its purpose. A possible next step would be to post the question at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard, where editors who are more knowledgeable about the Wizard than I may address any errors encountered.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 26 January 2020

Hi, thank you for your response. Regarding the requested change to the Strategies & Tactics paragraph, we did not receive any press coverage so there is no outside sourcing. Our main intent is simply to revise a now out-of-date posting. What's the best way to proceed from here? Thank you again for your help and feedback, it is very much appreciated. Rhdg1 (talk)

 Done I've added a link to the External links section. Regards,  Spintendo  21:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow up to Strategies and Tactics information...

Information to be changed: Hi, thank you very much for your help with Strategies and Tactics, I really appreciate your help. I do have a follow up question: I'm not trying to be difficult, as I've said I really do appreciate your help, I'm just trying to understand the process a bit more fully: What is the reason that the updated information can not be added to the actual paragraph? It's really about replacing out-of-date data with current data, so people who read the entry will have the most current information, not for promotion purposes but for more clarity. Again, I really appreciate your help and of course understand that there are Wikipedia guidelines created to be followed.

Thank you again.

Rod Rhdg1 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

PRSA's definition of Public Relations...

Information to be added: In the second paragraph of the "History" section, I'd like to add information following the sentence that ends "...adapts mutually to each other..." The information to add is: "In 2011-2012, PRSA undertook an international initiative to update the definition of public relations. The project included a crowdsourcing phase and a public comment/voting period, which resulted in this updated definition: "Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."

The outside source for this is: https://prowly.com/magazine/what-is-public-relations-definition/

Please let me know if you need any additional information to make this change. Thank you for your help.

Rod ~~ Rhdg1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow up to Definition of Public Relations request...

Hi, I'm following up on my request from Feb. 20th, 2020 to add information to the second paragraph of the "History" section in the Public Relations Society of America article. Specifically, I'd like to add information following the sentence that ends "...adapts mutually to each other..." The information to add is: "In 2011-2012, PRSA undertook an international initiative to update the definition of public relations. The project included a crowdsourcing phase and a public comment/voting period, which resulted in this updated definition: "Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."

The outside source for this is: https://prowly.com/magazine/what-is-public-relations-definition/

Please let me know if you need any additional information to make this change. Thank you for your help.

Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Follow up to Strategies and Tactics information (January 23, 2020 request edit)...

Hi, I'm following up on my request of January 23, 2020 to make a change to the second paragraph of the "Services" section, in which I requested a change to the second paragraph to this: "PRSA's Public Relations Journal was published from October 1945 to 1995.[50] Its original mission statement was "to carry articles that deal with fundamental public relations problems, as they currently press for solution." In January 2018, PRSA combined Tactics, its monthly newspaper, with The Strategist, its quarterly magazine, to create Strategies & Tactics, an all-new monthly publication."

On January 26 you did respond, adding an external link instead of changing the body of the text as I did not provide a source outside PRSA. I am now including below an outside source, so would like to request again that the copy above actually be added to the text. I very much appreciate your help with this.

Thank you.

OUTSIDE SOURCE: https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/StrategiesTactics

Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 11 May 2020

Information to be added: In the second paragraph of the "History" section, I'd like to add information following the sentence that ends "...adapts mutually to each other..." The information to add is: "In 2011-2012, PRSA undertook an international initiative to update the definition of public relations. The project included a crowdsourcing phase and a public comment/voting period, which resulted in this updated definition: "Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics."

The outside source for this is: https://prowly.com/magazine/what-is-public-relations-definition/

Please let me know if you need any additional information to make this change. Thank you for your help. Rhdg1 (talk)

 Not done for now: I fail to see how a biased definition of PR is encyclopedically relevant. The given source, while technically an outside source, also appears to be a PR firm itself. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Revising the name of the PRSA Chair in the top righthand fact box...

Each PRSA Chair holds office for one year, so as of 2021 the new Chair is Michelle Olson, APR. An independent source for this information can be found here: https://www.prdaily.com/facebook-instagram-and-twitch-ban-trump-burger-king-and-the-cia-rebrand-and-ben-jerrys-rebukes-u-s-capitol-riots/. Is this an edit I can make, or does a designated Wikipedia editor need to make the change? Please let me know when you can, thank you. Rhdg1 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you for being cautious. Kuru (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Revising the name of the PRSA Chair in the top righthand fact box...

Hi. Each PRSA Chair holds office for one year, so as of 2022 the new Chair is Dr. Felicia Blow, APR (you helped me with a similar name change in 2021). Sources for this information can be found here: https://www.theafricandream.net/pr-predictions-for-2022-10-industry-pros-weigh-in/ https://www.prsa.org/about/national-leadership/felicia-blow-apr-chair

You'll see that the first source (from December) lists her as Chair-elect, which means that as of January 2022 she is now Chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhdg1 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to make this change but as with last year I wanted to ask if a designated Wikipedia editor should do this. Please let me know when you can, thank you.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhdg1 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you again. Kuru (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten

Needs more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:747D:D048:CE5B:8260 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Revising the name of the PRSA Chair in the top righthand fact box...

Hi, Each PRSA Chair holds office for one year, so as of 2023 the new Chair is Michelle Egan (you've helped me with similar name changes). Sources for this information can be found here: https://prnewsonline.com/new-prsa-chair-focuses-on-ethics-dei/ https://www.agilitypr.com/blog/post/pr-profiles/pr-profiles-episode-24-a-conversation-with-michelle-egan-2023-prsa-chair/

Thank you for your help with this. Rod Granger Rhdg1 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're late this year, Mr. Granger. Done. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha, better late than never:-) As always, thanks for your help. 24.193.211.106 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)