Talk:Bell Pottinger/Archives/2013

Advertisement
Well, what was there to begin with was quite obviously an advertisement by someone working in the company (and given how clumsily it was done, hardly a great advertisement for a PR firm!!!).

If this firm is really notable, then it needs to read as a history of the company, their achievements and problems, and global significance.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, what a terrible job they did! And a copy-paste job, too. I flagged the article as an advertisement. At least somebody added a critical and more wikipedia-like section. I also mentioned two more controversial clients, Iran and Belarus, with references. Grr82 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Independent Dec 2011 story
The Indepdent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html) has an interesting front page story Revealing that Bell Pottinger has a team which "sorts" negative Wikipedia coverage of clients. How should we cover this here? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I have added a little criticism section (Msrasnw (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Add is as a new item then link to it from their page. Disable wikipedia editing for editors from the Bell Potty domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.15.197 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the boasts made about Search Engine Optimisation are quite as newsworthy as all that. I'd be willing to bet that all PR companies do the same (a lot of web developers do it too - to get a site higher up in Google rankings - SEO is always on the front of webdev magazines, so it's a real grey area). I hope this comes out in the press coverage--92.19.156.215 (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to bet that some of the team that the company uses to fix their clients' Wikipedia articles will try to whitewash details of the story that make it to this page. It is inconceivable that this page will not be edited by people paid to clean the firm's reputation 92.12.207.205 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The worst thing that could happen to the Wikipedia side of their business is being caught in connection to their own article. A PR company should be aware of the danger, so it is conceivable that they won't edit here just to be sure, and at the very least they will likely be so careful that we won't find much evidence. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't double-check anyway. Hans Adler 10:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is why it's been put on my watchlist! I don't like it when people try to ruin such a great resource... they're welcome to Itunes. (I'm normally disinterested in the acts of PR companies, even ones that deal with such dubious figures as Trafigura and the Conservative Party) Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 10:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * General clean up of that section - mainly because there's no good reason to quote from the Independent's reporting when there's a transcript available. Mtpt (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be very careful quotign directly from the transcript. The Independent's reporting is the secondary source, the transcript a primary one. Already there is too much direct quotation. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree: the use made is squarely within WP:Primary (reliably published; no/as little analysis as possible). Moreover, the "transcript" is effectively a secondary source: it is an version of a larger (unreleased, afaik) document, edited and thematically presented by the Independent to support their articles. Compare and contrast the "...burnish the reputations of countries accused on human rights violations..." which has been put in; at best misrepresenting a secondary source (since it fails to identify the line as a characterisation by the Independent) or a straight violation of WP:SYN (since it explicitly advances a position). Mtpt (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added 'which the paper claimed..' its the words in the title to the story - explicitly in the title - no sneaky stuff and sugaring over the devil kind of thing - the ref is then to the story Sayerslle (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone has investigated the Bell Pottinger client pages that might have been tampered with, perhaps they can post a summary here? At the moment the Independent article seems like boasting rather than tangible Machiavellian manipulation. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This new article seems pretty tangiable to me. Jimbo is also mention as leading an 'investigation'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably a Defence Against the Dark Arts crack team? --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Bell Pottinger Group/Affected articles lists the articles affected. This post explains what has happened. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing/editing of negative content from Wikipedia for clients
I believe this can be cited as a source of Bell Pottinger manipulating Wikipedia for clients. I did have a FT.com link but sadly it only works when using a referrer from google news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilMonkeySlayer (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also there is now this: "Wikipedia suspends accounts over Bell Pottinger claims" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html Looking at the history of this page it eeems as if someone called 'Biggles' has been editing here also.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.202.17 (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, we know, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget this link too: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/12/08/bell-pottinger-targeted-environmental-campaigners-website/ 108.218.2.235 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening line problem
At the moment is
 * Bell Pottinger is a public relations agency based in London, England, one of Britain's largest lobbying companies.

Would this be better as the following?
 * Bell Pottinger is a public relations agency based in London, England, and is one of Britain's largest lobbying companies.

With and is having been added. Is the grammar wrong at the moment? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC))
 * The bottom version is better. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Msrasnw (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Fake blogs
I removed the following sentence since it needs cites and doesn't belong in the "clients" section

-- cut here -- On the 10 December 2011 The Brokermandaniel website reported that Bell Pottinger had been involved in running fake blogs whilst using fake screen names to push their clients positions. www.brokermandaniel.com -- cut here --

If it checks out it can go back in at the end of the controversy/criticism section.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I think this should be enough:
 * "A presentation shown during the meeting said it could "create and maintain third-party blogs" – blogs that appeared to be independent. These would contain positive content and popular key words that would rank highly in Google searches."
 * (Under the heading "'We've got all sorts of dark arts'") source


 * The Moep! (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Post MBO edits
I have been updating this article in light of the management buy-out that removed Bell Pottinger from Chime Communications in June/July 2012. As some PR operations (run by the Good Relations group) were retained by Chime, the facts and figures about the current extent of Bell Pottinger operations (as BPP Communications Ltd) need to be updated - some former Bell Pottinger offices were rebranded to Good Relations, so some regional offices no longer exist, and some clients will no longer figure on Bell Pottinger's roster. Paul W (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)