Talk:Burson (company)/Archives/2011

Comments
Somebody really needs to take a look at this User:Lusanders 21:16, July 8 2007 (EST)
 * You're right, this was ridiculously pov. To the author: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I have removed everything, and kept only a one sentence stub. Anything worth including may be reinstated, provided it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Penn References
There are a few references to "Penn" without any mention of his first name or Mark Penn's status as CEO. This makes for a shoddy article, IMO. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

stop the concertina
This article has gone out and in like a concertina. Most of what it has contained is hostile, which is perhaps why it keeps getting blown away. But essential, indisputable material has gone with it.

I've put some basic facts at the top and bottom of the page. These should be expanded. As to the catalog of wrongdoings, perhaps they should be separated to another article where the basic facts won't suffer collateral damange. Coughinink 10:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Additions to notable clients
I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add Microsoft as a notable client, as it has been publicized that Burson-Masteller was hired by Microsoft to campaign against Google's acquisition of DoubleClick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092500009.html) and they were also hired in an effort to help Microsoft acquire Yahoo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A).

Furthermore, would it be appropriate anywhere in this article to note that Burson-Masteller's chief executive, Mark Penn, is also the chief strategist for the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign? - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A

Philipashlock (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello I am quite curious why Burson-Marsteller's relationship with Blackwater was removed from the 'Controversial Clients' section with absolutely no comment on this page. A quick search will reveal plenty of sources including the ap, this is perfectly cited and legit, why would someone remove it with no comment? Is there a reason for Blackwater to be absent from this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.64.211 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-add it then with references. Nobody has the authority to take down sourced statements. Chendy (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Colombia?
The recently-added Colombia section needs to be re-written, IMO. There is a last-name reference to a person who may be in the news right now, but who has yet to be introduced in the context of the article. Also, "Marsteller" ends in "er," not "ar." The brief sentence, though cited, feels like a mad scramble by someone to be the first to post something on a current event, rather than an attempt to describe the facts or situation surrounding the event. The editor didn't even do enough reading to know how to spell the name of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.156.10.80 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Burson-Marsteller article improvement
According to the warning at the top of the main entry, this article has been considered low-quality and requiring improvement since September 2007. I would very much like to help improve it. To that end, I have corrected some punctuation and added a couple citations, including one to assist in updating the number of offices in the lead section. I have now also added this talk page to a few relevant WikiProjects. However, before I go any further I must disclose that I work with Burson-Marsteller, which is aware of and supportive of this effort. It is my goal to help encourage the development of a better article, and I have spent considerable time researching and writing a new version of this article, which I will post in my user space once it is soon ready.

As stated on my user page, I have committed to learning as much as I can about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, among them Conflict of interest (including Suggestions for COI compliance), Identifying reliable sources, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view. I am confident my suggestions will help improve this article according to Wikipedia conventions, and I welcome help from any neutral editors who are willing to help. Thank you. Flatiron 230 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of draft
Following on my note from earlier in the week, I've now posted a fairly long draft of what could become the Burson-Marsteller Wikipedia article, if there is consensus to do so. (Read it here.)

Following several months of research utilizing online and offline sources, this draft is my result. Every topic covered in the existing article has been also covered in the current one, except where I couldn't find sources. The shape of the proposed article is relatively similar to the current one. The "History" section follows the lead section, in both drafts. In the current version, "Notable clients" and "Crisis management" describe B-M's historical work, and in the new version this is all covered within an "Operations" section with many sub-sections. Some of these clients have been considered controversial, although none are current issues. I have tried to be careful in my approach to these topics. Likewise, I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or self-promotion, so I have attempted to be very neutral in my description of the company's services and organizational activities. I have also been careful to strictly utilize high-quality third-party sources. Fortunately, Burson-Marsteller has long been recognized as one of the most important global PR firms, which provided ample sources to work from.

I would like to invite any editor who is interested in the subject to review my submitted version and offer comments, or edit the draft themselves, and help me understand what needs to happen in order to improve the existing article. I have put this page on my watchlist, so I will see any responses that occur here. Thank you in advance. Flatiron 230 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you did a good job with this new version of the article. Accordingly, I moved it from your talk page to mainspace.  Oh, I almost forgot, you're going to need to edit the information in the logo.  It may have been find a few years ago, but standards are higher now and the image is likely to be deleted unless you fix it (most of the fair use justification fields were left blank by the original logo uploader).   Banaticus (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I am simply amazed at the speed of your response. I appreciate the help very much. I will see what I can do about the image licensing, as well as finding additional images to illustrate the article, consistent with image use policy. Plus, I now see there are some grammatical and formatting errors of my own that I can fix, and I will do that soon. Flatiron 230 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Google smear campaign brou-ha-ha
Apparently, Facebook has been outed as having hired Burson-Marsteller to orchestrate an anti-Google smear campaign.

More about this here, here, here, here and here. It seems pretty notable.

Anyone want to tackle this? It's pretty likely that Burson-Marsteller's PR flacks will be trying to bury it, so it may require some upkeep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)