Talk:Hill & Knowlton

Proposed change #1: Lead section
The lead section to this article does not appear to follow best practice cited in Lead_section. It does not explain why the topic is noteworthy. I would suggest something along the following lines:

Hill & Knowlton is a global public relations company, headquartered in New York, United States, with 79 offices in 44 countries. Hill & Knowlton was founded in Cleveland, Ohio in 1927 by John W. Hill and is today led by Chairman & CEO, Paul Taaffe. It is owned by the WPP Group.

There should probably also be an Template:Infobox_company here, shouldn't there?

References for the above changes include [], [], [] and [], for example.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Happy to add an infobox if you want to draft one. THF (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Trying this:

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change #2: Sections
The structure of this article remains very POV, focusing only on alleged controversial client engagements, the majority of which date from 20 or even 50 years ago. I would suggest the following structure:

- History (some material can be found at [])

- Notable clients

-- Key clients (these are regularly reported on. See [])

-- Controversies (most of the existing sections could be moved to this section)

- Corporate

-- Awards (see those I suggested on 24 February at Talk:Hill_%26_Knowlton)

-- Mergers & Acquisitions (On 15 November, the merger of Hill & Knowlton and Public Strategies Inc. was announced: [])

I am more than happy to propose these as specific changes if required.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do. THF (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

POV
Large parts of this look like a POV hatchet job against this firm. The allegations should be sourced. Use of the word propaganda is highly charged and statements like Since the 1930s, public relations and propaganda have merged into a profitable business reek of POV. Please do not remove templates until this is resolved. --JJay 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The controversies section still reads very POV. Any way to add citations to this section? Pnkrockr 15:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WARNING
Constructive criticism only, is welcomed. If this page is not to your liking then, make suggestions on how it should be done. The commentary does nothing for the people who created this page, so unless you can help, your "POV" will be totally ignored. Thanks, have a great life. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.90.211 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 November 2005.

UPDATED
It turns out that weeks before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus took place the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam Hussein that the United States would have no objections to Iraq invading Kuwait. It wasn't until Hill & Knowlton's orchistrated PR campaign that Americans accepted the Gulf War. If only someone could find a quote or cite of the two speaking together. This seems important, but isn't large enough for its own page. -Drunkentune 18:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Criminal charges?
Does anybody know what happened as a result of Hill & Knowlton and the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter lying to congress? Isn't that a felony? Was Hill & Knowlton charged, shut down, and all employees thrown behind bars? Any one with any info as to what happened as a result, please add this much relevant info to the article. If they got away scot-free with committing a felony this should be there too. Article is not supposed to be a promotion piece of Hill & Knowlton or whatever the topic of articles. Satfurn 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

H&K still extists... 129.105.45.109 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The well-documented account of Hill & Knowlton training the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter to make false claims in front of congress, so as to provide false pretext for military action with aerial bombing of civilians, does sound like what would be technically (in the most sanitized sense) referred to as perjury. Given the context (providing a pretext for military action), it seems that more aggressive indictments (treason) could be made. Since clearly no indictments were made, the question that arises is whether Hill & Knowlton simply found refuge in the "few bad apples" narrative; or, did they find a more innovative "perception management" strategy? Inquiring minds want to know! Wikibearwithme (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

London City Airport - contraversial client
Hill & Knowlton was hired by London City Airport in 2008, this was part of it asking for planning permission to increase flights from 76,000 to 120,000. The airport is located in a sensitive residential area and it was only ever meant to be a small exclusive business airport serving the business community of Canary Wharf (similar to Wall Street).

Residents suffer from noise and aviation fuel fumes.

Although, it would be reasonable for London City Airport to hire a PR company to represent their view, but Hill & Knowlton & London City Airport have done everything to break "democracy" in the area. For instance, newspaper reports only put airport's side of the claim on why they should expand. For instance, London City Airport put adverts in the local paper Newham Recorder (and a few surrounding area), just so that they get favourable reporting. Even the name of the residen't campaign group Fight the Flights was not mentioned. Even though the airprot is is breach of the law for not carrying out any noise monitoring since 2000, but the local paper has made no mention of this!.

Hill & Knowlton & London City Airport have a "cosy" relationship with the Newham local Councillors, not ONE of the Councillors for spoke up for the residents to stop expansion at London City Airport. Some of our Councillors got free flights! Thank you for breaking democracy in the local area!

Hill & Knowlton even met up with the Mayor of London, to make a "cosy" relationship.

Hill & Knowlton have no scrupples, they have been peddling lies about how good the airport is for the local economy, never mind all the jobs that were NOT created. For instance in the Royal Docks Business Park (Building 1000). A newly built 252 Square feet 5 storey building that remained empty 5 years. I mean who wants to have their corporate offices next a busy runway and toxic aviation fumes?

It is hard enough to fight a big corporate, but Hill & Knowlton have done disgusts me, I have no idea how their people can sleep at night!

89.240.62.252 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable, independent sources and can establish notability, your concerns could be addressed in the article. Otherwise, this is purely WP:OR. --Nouniquenames (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy
As others have already flagged, much of this article is POV and many of the sections that could be considered NPOV require citations and references from reliable sources (WP:Reliable_sources).

I would be more than happy to contribute content or information to help improve the quality and neutrality of this article but I have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), so as per this advice (WP:SCOIC) I will restrict my edits (expecting non-controversial edits) to this talk page. My user page provides more information about who I am, my role and my purpose for being here. Please feel free to use my user talk page to contact me.

As a first step, I would like to suggest that the entire article be checked for its neutrality, its references improved or unsourced material removed.

I look forward to helping improve this article so that it meets Wikipedia's policies.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) 10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * COIN thread at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at the article, and I've started by checking the sources. Here are two non-working links I removed from the Bibliography section. When time permits I hope to verify that statements about the firm come from WP:Reliable sources and that their links work.
 * Holmes Report.
 * Maldives Culture. Hill & Knowlton
 * EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for their edits to date. I am gathering some other notable client engagements and references that I will post here for consideration. In the mean time, perhaps someone can look at the accuracy of the first line. We are not (just) based in the United States, but in 78 offices in 43 countries all over the world (see: http://www.hillandknowlton.com/about). The only significance of the US is that our headquarters are in New York City. Niall Cook (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Based in" generally refers to where the headquarters are located. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I checked some industry peer entries and they do seem to mention the geographic reach of the company, so wonder if this is also relevant here? Niall Cook (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maldives
Sounds noteworthy, however, the link is broken. I read in the John R. MacArthur book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War" that Hill&Knowlton had also worked for other internationally criticized regimes before the Kuwait affair. If I remember correctly it was Turkey and Myanmar, maybe China. Someone can check? Knopffabrik (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Looked it up myself, sourcewatch provides detailed and sourced information on how Hill & Knowlton even used wikipedia to spin on politics in the Maldives.  They also have information of activities for the US federal government between 1997 and 2000 and the government of Uganda that was accused of torture and other human rights violations. Knopffabrik (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Clients
I note that User:HandThatFeeds recently rv'ed an edit made by User:Mburrus1 where a list of notable clients had been added. I'm not sure what the rules of WP say about this, but from a practical POV any large company will tell you that it is almost impossible to have an accurate list of clients. In our case, the list would be huge and change almost every day.

However, I do think that if this article is going to be balanced, then some reference needs to be made under "Notable Clients" to some of the engagements we have undertaken most recently that have resulted in positive outcomes for both client and communities, not just the ones from 20 or 50 years ago that still court controversy today. Short of some kind of independent reference, I can only point you to some of our case studies at http://www.hillandknowlton.com/casestudies. Remember that all of these have been reviewed and approved by the clients in question, so if they didn't feel they had achieved their objectives they would not let us use them.

Failing that, we have engagements that have won many industry awards as well as other forms of recognition for the company. For example:


 * Middle East Public Relations Association: Awards for Bahrain Ministry of Works, the Showtime/Orbit merger and Cooper Notification
 * UK Marketing Society Awards for Excellence 2008: P&G's Ariel brand (winner of Ethical Marketing and Leading Edge categories)
 * International Visual Communications Association Clarion Awards 2007: P&G's Ariel brand (winner in the Climate Change Communication category)
 * Society for New Communications Research Awards 2008: Molson's Brew 2.0 blogger relations campaign
 * Canada's Top 100 Employers 2010 (as well as previous years)

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show notability for the actual work that was done for those clients, the fact that your company worked for them isn't relevant to the article.
 * As to awards, those can be relevant. I'll need to take some time to review the awards (and encourage others to do so). If the awards are notable, we can certainly integrate this into the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, other PR firms do have a list of their clients and while sometimes working for a specific campaign can bring notoriety, sometimes just working for a notable client actually is the "notable" part about it. See for example (pretty much clicked at random): Ogilvy & Mather, Accentmarketing, TBWA_Worldwide etc. notafish }&lt;&#39;;&gt; 14:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts on this? As User:Notafish says above, there seems to be a difference of opinion about the meaning of notability. Entries about peers appear to be much more balanced. I understood that as a policy, notability dictated whether or not the article should exist not the contents of the article. I think that in order to demonstrate some balance, this article needs more references to work that has won awards for delivering a positive benefit to different communities. I have provided examples here and would be more than happy to elaborate or provide additional information as required.
 * Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.55.7 (talk)

For me the list in the article looks like an attempt to whitewash the company, listing some blue chip companies and others that few people know and leaving out the controversial customers. As THTFY also explained above, unless notability for the actual work that was done for those clients is shown, the fact that the company worked for them isn't relevant to the article, so I delete the list. Knopffabrik (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the discussion above shows that there is no agreement on whether notability for the actual 'work' is necessary. This article is about the company, NOT just controversial issues, so the fact that we work for companies who are notable in their own right IS relevant to the article. Please undo your deletion until a satisfactory resolution has been reached on this matter. Thanks. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the oil companies can be seen as controversial customers, and as long as it's not specified what the campaigns were about we cannot know if it was controversial. Even New Zealand will have its not so uncontroversial aims. Knopffabrik (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is Wikipedia principle to be bold. As you wrote above yourself, "any large company will tell you that it is almost impossible to have an accurate list of clients. In our case, the list would be huge and change almost every day." There is two people here who say there must be some indication why those particular clients are noteworthy. This indication absent I don't see how such a list could be useful. Knopffabrik (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reinstating the Notable Clients section. Unfortunately the reference cited does include the clients that Knopffabrik has added and to my knowledge they are not current clients. If sources can be found to support their inclusion, that's fine, but otherwise they should be removed or the text altered to make it clear that these additions are not current clients. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An article about a company must be about all known noteworthy activities of a company. As you wrote yourself, it would be impossible to keep a list of current clients updated because it would have to change all the time. No information was provided in how far it is noteworthy that H&K worked for yahoo or so. But the article has sections about noteworthy activities, so those clients of course need to be mentioned. Knopffabrik (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My point is that the section says "clients today" and those you have added are not "clients today". Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been changed. Now the Church of Scientology has also been added. Do you want us to expand on what the campaigns for the human rights violating governments were about? Knopffabrik (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternet is not a reliable source. Moreover, editors should not cherry-pick from primary sources to slant the article in one direction or the other. If a reliable secondary source has noted H&K's work for a particular client, then it can be added to the list. The article is currently unbalanced towards criticism, and looks like it will become more so as politically-motivated editors add references to the numerous sources criticizing H&K. Niall, it would be helpful if you could identify more neutral secondary sources that could be used for sourcing. THF (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it cherrypicking if I use a long and detailed New York Times article that deals with the history of the company and lists important and newsworthy clients of the company for the section about notable clients? I don't think one should work for a company in order to be able to judge out what is newsworthy about it. Especially not for one accused of using wikipedia for its PR spin. Knopffabrik (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection (and did not complain about) the use of the New York Times article -- though you very definitely cherry-picked the NYT article to only pick facts that support your POV. I fully support a neutral summary of the information in the 1990 NY Times profile, which includes an interesting history of the firm, as well as detail of internal controversies in the 1980s.  That wasn't what you used it for. THF (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to add other information, feel free to do so. The only reason I see why to add information is that the firm became well known for having worked for a series of controversial clients. That is not my personal opinion, it is just the only reason why I have ever heard about the firm. As the controversies were widely reported, they seem worth being included here. Knopffabrik (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Government of Russia
As per my user page, COI guidelines prevent me from direct editing so I would appreciate if another editor could address this issue.

The "Government of Russia" addition made on 10 April is inaccurate, misleading and poorly referenced. It seeks to suggest that the Government of Russia is or has been a client of Hill & Knowlton without providing any evidence. The source cited simply references a company called Rosneft, which is not the Government of Russia.

This new section should be removed as the Government of Russia is not a client (notable or otherwise), nor is there anything contained in the citation that would support a notable client engagement.

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As no one has taken this matter up, I will personally remove this section because it is factually inaccurate by the end of the week, in line with COI guidelines.


 * Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten. Hipocrite (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick rewrite. Unfortunately it is still factually inaccurate and not supported by the reference. The source states only that Hill & Knowlton works for Nord Stream, not that we have "pushed for Russia's inclusion in the EU". Unless this statement can be supported by a reference from a credible source then it is simply POV and should not be included. The title of the section should be updated accordingly.


 * Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to pick this one up before I refer it for a third opinion? Thanks. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Read this section, read the reference, and cannot, for the life of me, see that the section is supported by the only reference. I am deleting the section. If someone can come up with an unbiased support for what was there, please show me. --Nouniquenames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to sort this article out?
Seems that no-one is willing or able to clean this article up and make it more NPOV. I'd do it, but I'm completely conflicted. However, if others are willing to make this article better, then I will happily create a user sub-page and put some material on there that you can decide to use or not. Any takers? --Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niallcook (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that the article is an appalling violation of NPOV. WP:COI permits you to make neutral edits, but I imagine other editors will scream bloody murder if you actually comply with the guideline as written. Propose specific edits on this page, and I'll make them to the extent that they're compliant. There's surely a better historical account of the company out there than the skimpy About page on the firm's website. THF (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I really appreciate your help. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Niall, I am sure the exhibited transparency about your Person is highly appreciated here, but the ongoing try to disguise the fact that your company is doing the modern job of propaganda especially when working for states or "NGOs" which a founded/financed by a state is clearly a fact when you take the wikipedia articles about propaganda and spindoctoring serious. So actually I can't see a NPOV here. I only see somebody who tries to avoid more factual truth about the company he works for by being a super-nice but non-contributing real information person. This article doesn't need more "cleanup" it definitely needs more extended writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensbest (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jensbest. I'm glad you appreciate my honesty and openness. I'm doing what I can within the rules of Wikipedia to help the community produce a factually-correct article with properly referenced citations, not one based on opinion and conjecture. If you think I'm just being "super-nice but non-contributing" then I apologise for that, but Wikipedia's rules actually prevent me from contributing directly to the article, hence I have to use this discussion page, which I will continue to do. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's good that you as an employee of a company which helped to produce lies which then led to a war cannot contribute "facts" to this article. I'm sure you or some of your not-so-officially-registered colleagues doing "your job" in other articles. Just be assured that this is nothing personal, earning money by being forced to work for modern propaganda companies is surely pityful, but than again not everybody has the choice to work honestly for his/her money. You have my commiseration and I'm looking forward to your remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensbest (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on, this is an encyclopedia article, we should not get personal. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Knopffabrik. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am not going to respond to personal attacks from people who do not know me. I'm happy to engage in discussions that follow Wikipedia's policies (WP:Civility, WP:Assume_good_faith and WP:No_personal_attacks) Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assuming good faith" from an employee of a company which is known to have produced lies which then led to strong support of a war by governmental officials....well, I think this is when "assuming good faith" finds its borders. Also when it is now known via wikiscanner that other employees of this company have tried to edit other articles in favor for their governmental clients. I don't have to know you, but your company and every employee has blood of many war victims on his/her hands. This has nothing to do with "personal attacks" this is just naming the profiteers of war and injustice. 03:26, 25 January 2011 (CET) Jensbest
 * Come on, the staff may have changed since the Kuwait lie. We don't know, and it's irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Are you referring to further wars? Knopffabrik (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please keep this discussion focused on improving the article. This page is not a WP:SOAPBOX for criticizing Hill & Knowlton. Admins will remove inappropriate posts. If you think the article is slanted, explain what needs fixing and suggest new material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Connections to government
This source mentions "The man running Hill & Knowlton's Washington office was Craig Fuller, one of Bush's closest friends and inside political advisors." He was "chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president". "Wirthlin Group, research arm of H&K, was the pollster for the Reagan Administration." "Hill & Knowlton senior vice- president Thomas Ross had been Pentagon spokesman during the Carter Administration." "To manage the news media, H&K relied on vice- chairman Frank Mankiewicz, whose background included service as press secretary and advisor to Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern, followed by a stint as president of National Public Radio." Is there more information on connections to the government? Knopffabrik (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Try to use reliable sources, please. It's hardly surprising or sinister that government officials who specialized in communications when they were with the government go into the same field when they leave government. THF (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The extent in this case seems surprising. And you cannot deny that the US government, which listed the millions of dollars paid to the company, is kind of a reliable source. The fact that Craig L. Fuller, chief of staff during George Bush's vice presidency, was named president and chief executive of the public relations firm's US operations in 1991 was also reported by the LA Times. Knopffabrik (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to including the LA Times reporting in the article. I object to the conspiracy theory or synthesis you propose. THF (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no conspiracy theory, just want to report about the number of people who had high positions in US governments and at H&K. Knopffabrik (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

alleged spin using wikipedia
"The PR company was also criticised for editing the statements on the country’s wikipedia entry critical of the former government, after was caught in the act by data-mining tool Wikiscanner." I think this deserves its own section. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Minivannews is not a reliable source. Find a reliable source, and then we can consider the WP:UNDUE issues, since a single employee's actions on something this minor probably don't merit a full section on a decades-old company whose article is so short.  In the meantime, you'll demonstrate that you're here to help the encyclopedia, rather than to push an outside agenda if you aren't so blatantly pushing a particular point of view--why stretch so hard to include Minivannews when there are numerous books and NY Times articles about the company that haven't yet been added? Please adhere to the WP:NPOV policy. THF (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for improving the links. I am not so familiar with advanced reference specifications. I however cannot quite follow you about removing the news reports. Just because you do not know or like them does not mean they cannot be used here. Probably you just don't know any Maldivian news source. And Al Jazeera is one of the most used sources in the Arab world. There is references using Murdoch media as well, would you say it's not neutral then either? Even if it wasn't neutral, as long as you have no legitimate doubt about factual accuracy of the information that the reference is used for you should not just remove it. You are welcome to use others. Knopffabrik (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I presume by the fact that you used unreliable sources that the information could not be found in reliable sources. Alternet is not a reliable source. Minivannews is not a reliable source. Al Jazeera is not a reliable source. If the underlying reporting is true, it should be found in reliable sources. If the underlying reporting cannot be found in reliable sources, it's a very good indication that Al Jazeera--which does not adhere to generally accepted journalistic principles or fact-checking--got things factually wrong. THF (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you do not like them does not mean they are not reliable. As I already told you, the fact that Bush used the incubator lie in many speeches can be read in other sources, too, like in the op-ed by John R. MacArthur already cited. And please show me how US media double checked when they made the US public believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction. How did they double check when the lie about babies taken out of incubators was sold to them by Hill & Knowlton? Unless you have clear reasons why not to accept the references, they stay. Knopffabrik (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a solution, from someone unfamiliar with the page (and, therefore, neutral and unbiased). There are two sources to the segment.  Kinbidhooonline is unreachable, and the other has been called into question.  Having never heard of that second source, let's turn it around backwards (especially since POV is an issue here). Knopffabrik, if it means that much to you, please find a source that would be accepted in a more widespread audience (as the audience of Wikipedia tends to be) and reinstate the information.  I looked long and hard, and could not find a reliable source, only blogs, wiki mirrors, etc.  I feel compelled to remove it per WP:RS until a reliable source can be found.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Corporate Minion was kind enough to point out a reliable source showing that the editing took place and was notable enough to be published. I added this back in.  --Nouniquenames (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

PR firm used wikipedia as a service to its customers - user still editing
As this edit reveals, the IP 194.242.55.7 is used by Niall Cook who works for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton and keeps contributing to this discussion. On top of obscene vandalism, the IP was found to use wikipedia for whitewashing the government of the Maldives that had hired his firm for improving its reputation that had been harmed by human rights violations. Using the wiki-tool of a whois search, one can find that all IPs in the range of 194.242.55.0 - 194.242.55.255 belong to Hill & Knowlton.Knopffabrik (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no secret that I work for the firm or contribute to this discussion, or that I follow Wikipedia's guidance on Conflict of Interest editing. That information is already available to anyone on my user page. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, it will be new to most users that the IP you use and that can be tracked back to your company was found to have been used for manipulating articles related to a dictator who paid your company. Knopffabrik (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes following merger with Public Strategies Inc.
Someone may want to update the article with the latest information, following the merger between Hill & Knowlton and Public Strategies:


 * 15 November, 2010: Merger announced
 * 1 January, 2011: Merger comes into force
 * 11 January, 2011: Paul Taaffe resigns as CEO, replaced by Jack Martin.
 * As of 18 January, 2011, the firm has 82 offices in 45 countries

Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This information could be useful. The sources above are mostly press releases. Do you know if this merger has been reported in the press? Also, we have no article on Public Strategies. Maybe you can suggest where we could find material for such an article.
 * The merger and subsequent personnel changes have been widely reported in the press. Here's a link to PR Week. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On 29 December 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article which mentions Hill & Knowlton. They print a quote from a person called "Chris Gidez, U.S. director of risk management and crisis communication at WPP PLC's Hill & Knowlton". The company known as WPP seems to be WPP Group. At this link WPP identifies H & K as one of their companies, and it seems that Public Strategies is another. So two companies, both wholly owned by WPP, have merged? Will H & K and Public Strategies still be referring to themselves as separate companies? If so, will the merger have any effects that are externally visible? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hill & Knowlton is part of the WPP Group, as is Public Strategies. As per the official release, each company will retain its brand for the foreseeable future. Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone prepared to make these edits? If not, and as they are purely factual, I assume there is no objection to me updating the following myself. I will do this on 18 March 2011 unless the changes get made by another editor: Niall Cook (Hill & Knowlton) (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the chairman and CEO (should be Jack Martin)
 * The number of locations in the infobox (should be 82 offices in 45 countries)
 * The key people in the infobox (chairman and CEO should be Jack Martin)
 * I personally have no problem with you making these edits. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see why someone who uses an IP address that has been found to have been used for extremely severe disruption as shown above should do any substantive edits to an article where he has a declared conflict of interest. Niall, where is your problem with waiting until someone else finds the suggestions you have important enough to deal with them? I have strong objections against editors like you who so obviously use their account(s) for the pure and single purpose of putting forward interests that are not those of an encyclopedia. Just look at what you contributed up to now: . Knopffabrik (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as a recent hire at Hill and Knowlton, I can tell you that I, and at least half of the senior management team has now changed from when this discussion took place. Jack Martin is the new chairman and we did indeed merge with a company called public strategies.

We have also made a number of senior hires, including Ken Luce, Ambassador Lyndon Olson,Rishi Saha, and Ian Bailey.

At the very least, would it not be appropriate for these changes to be made? As is, this article serves as an inaccurate representation of our firm and an embarrassment for the Wikimedia community. Would greatly appreciate any help here. Andrew Bleeker (Hill and Knowlton) (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
I'm cross-posting the discussion I started on THF's talk page below User:Corporate Minion 04:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi THF,


 * I came across the Hill & Knowlton discussion in AfC patrols, because their employee tried to offer a revised version through AfC. As you probably know, AfC only deals with new articles. I find that the article does have POV issues, but it appears several problems have prevented any meaningful improvement.


 * As a frequent COI contributor with a PR background and a disclosed real-life identity, I'm going to pass on making heavy POV edits, but I wanted to make the following observations, which are in order top-to-bottom:
 * Citation #2 is an ambiguous broken link. Suggest a tag to encourage editors to verify the information
 * Since the Center for Media and Democracy has an overt liberal slant with the tagline "reporting on spin and disinformation since 1993," I am unsure it passes WP:RS for such a strong POV quote per the policy on sources with an extreme point of view.
 * Suggest replacing "almost entirely" with a less dramatic "mostly"
 * Based on the source, it seems like the section on Nurse Nayirah is misleading and overly confident in its assessment. It would be more accurate to say that Amnesty International originally supported her testimony, but Amnesty and other human rights groups later withdrew their support. Additionally, the public was told her identity was concealed to protect her family, when it was later discovered she was the daughter of the Kuwait ambassador to the US. Their defense is that her testimony is still valid, while the other viewpoint is the public obviously sees her testimony in a more critical light seeing her political affiliation. I've already formed my opinion based on the facts, but we should let the reader do the same. Additionally, citation #7 citing the "enormous emotional impact" is an op-ed, which can only be used to establish the POV of the author, not for statements of fact.
 * I would like to take the "distorted" claim out of quotes


 * Just my quick run-through. On the other end of things, I'm not sure I see the value in the uncited statement regarding Trade Association Membership, unless we can put that in some kind of notable context. I'll cross-post this note on the H&K talk page. User:Corporate Minion 04:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the note at AfC. This seems like a big project to straighten out, but I will try to help as I can. Disclaimer: I have never worked for this company. To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked for any client of this company. I do not know anyone who has worked for this company. I was unaware this company existed before seeing the AfC note. --Nouniquenames (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! User:Corporate Minion 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the Wikiscanner bit, how about this: Wikiscanner found that a Hill & Knowlton employee added a reference to a company blog post in the Wikipedia article on internal communications.


 * I don't think the source necessarily specifies that they broke any rules or that they were criticized. Based on what's disclosed in the article, it's quite possible it was a positive contribution.


 * I hadn't actually read it closely yet when I shared it on your Talk page. User:Corporate Minion 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding to attract attention to the issues above. I have no affiliation with this firm, but am merely uncomfortable making direct edits due to the speculation that could arise due to role on Wikipedia.  User:Corporate Minion 08:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation 2 works for me, but I removed two other dead links. I removed CMD quote, and changed "funded almost entirely" to "heavily funded." Will continue to work on the list. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Finished the above list. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am making what looks like a lot of edits now. Each edit is small, but this allows me to better explain in the edit summary what I am doing and why. Consider it one edit in multiple steps. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article stated that the campaign in Kuwait had a "huge emotional impact."  The reference states "whether or not Hill & Knowlton's efforts were effective, or even needed, is open to debate." (Third paragraph from the last.)  This would contradict the article statement, so I removed it.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One reason this popped out at me is because the Christian Science Monitor just said "definitely made an impact." I think it's fair to assess that it had an effect, but the op-ed exaggerated to make a point, as an op-ed is likely to do. User:Corporate Minion 15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems ok by me. __meco (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Contributions from HIll & Knowlton
Here is the AfC submission I had turned down as "Exists." The submission had been repeatedly declined for being promotional, however at a quick glance there are some key facts that could be added:
 * Add C-level execs to the Key People section of the infobox template (currently unused I think)
 * Jack Martin, Global Chairman and CEO
 * Ken Luce, Global COO
 * Meredith Marks, Global General Counsel
 * Mark Bunker, Global CFO


 * Add to the lead: The agency is part of WPP.


 * Add to history: In 1946, Hill and Knowlton dissolved their partnership and Knowlton took over the direction of Hill & Knowlton Cleveland, which closed shortly after Knowlton’s retirement in 1962. ✅


 * In 1952, Hill established a network of affiliates across Europe. Hill & Knowlton was acquired by JWT Group Inc. in 1980. In 1987, JWT was acquired by WPP Group. ✅
 * User:Corporate Minion 19:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WPP are mentioned, most people will probably know who they are, but we should not puff them. As for the execs, I'll leave that to someone else.  Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Revised User:Corporate Minion 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, it is there already. User:Corporate Minion 17:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Source
In writing on the History of public relations I came across this source, an entire book about Hill & Knowlton in the post-war era which could really help balance this page. Apparently they were the first major US firm to create a strong international network. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

other sources related remark hello, i hope this is the right place to mention that the so called --reflist-- is not to be found, well not be me :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.201.236 (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I added AND removed a wrong story, sorry about that, i hope i corrected it well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.201.236 (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new draft
Hi to any editors watching this page. For a while, I've been working on a new draft for this article that aims to bring the page better in line with guidelines, improve sourcing and bring the article up to date. In particular, seeking to use reliable sources to add information about the company and make this an informative article for readers. To fully disclose, I am working for Hill+Knowlton Strategies as a consultant and have had their input in preparing new material for this article. Due to this financial WP:COI, I will steer clear of making any direct edits, preferring instead to propose draft material for others to review and move live if it looks good.

My draft can be found in my userspace, here: User:16912_Rhiannon/Hill%2BKnowlton_Strategies

So, why a new draft? There are a few reasons, the largest being that there simply is very little information about the company's history and overall operations in the current article. Despite being one of the largest and longest-established PR companies in the United States, this article spends little time on covering its long history or noteworthy activities beyond those that are more controversial. If you've taken even a cursory look at this article, you'll have seen that the Controversies section dominates its content, while the only other section, the History is just five sentences long. Essentially, it's not so much that individual "fixes" are needed to the article, but more that whole sections are missing and needed drafting.

In brief, here are the key issues with the current article as I see them:
 * Article is lacking in information about the company's history and operations
 * Inconsistent use of the company's name throughout, which is now Hill+Knowlton Strategies
 * Use of sources that do not meet WP:RS and lack of sources for some information
 * Several instances of wording that is based on opinion, rather than fact. For example, in the Government of Kuwait section, the following is a statement of opinion that is not supported by the sources cited: "This testimony had an emotional impact on American policy makers and on the public in support the war against Iraq."
 * Also, per WP:CRITS, generally "Controversies" or "Criticism" sections should be avoided, unless there's not really another way to organize that information in an article

My draft for this article retains the vast majority of the current information from the article, and adds information to it, to build up a fuller picture of H+K as a company. Much of the Controversies section is incorporated into the History section in my draft, retaining the key information and placing it into historical context. An exception is America's Natural Gas Alliance, which I've included mention of under Clients and partnerships. A brief note on the company's name: throughout the draft, I've used "Hill+Knowlton Strategies" or a shortened form "H+K Strategies", except in the History, where I have referred to it by its name at the time of the events described, "Hill & Knowlton".

I've placed the full draft in userspace but I'd be just as happy to work through section by section, if that's what editors prefer. Please take a look and feel free to make any small edits directly in the draft, although I'd suggest discussing any larger edits or concerns here. Comments and questions are welcome. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 04:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have substantially reworked the article based in part on your draft, though I revised, edited, and did not include some of the proposed material. I do not think every acquisition needs to be covered in the general contours of growth and milestone events are covered.  This rework moves the controversies directly into the chronological historical narrative, which I think is fine.  But I created a single paragraph on Controversies to prevent that from regrowing without readers and editors understanding where it is coming from.  It is the nature of an article like this to catch "controversies" like a net, which requires reworking from time to time.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Milowent, first of all, thank you so much and apologies for missing this until now. I honestly wasn't expecting you to be able to work on this so quickly! With regards to how you've incorporated material from my draft, this all makes total sense to me and I think the article is much, much improved. The treatment of the Controversies seems reasonable, though I'm always a bit skeptical of sections with that heading being a magnet for future additions; as you say, from time to time, such sections do require reworking. Overall, I'm very thankful and very happy with the changes that you made. I do have a few small tweaks to suggest, if you're open to entertaining them:
 * I'd like to suggest adjusting the wording in the introduction to make clear that when the firm was founded it was called "Hill & Knowlton". With the wording as is, I think that might be a little confusing to readers. Would you be open to adjusting that? For reference, here's the wording I proposed in my draft: The company was founded in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1927 by John W. Hill as Hill & Knowlton.
 * The History section is great now, much more detailed, but I wonder if it isn't a bit offputting to readers as a wall of text without some subheadings. What do you think about adding subheads such as Foundation and early history, 1980s to 1990s, 2000s and recent history?
 * Within the Current operations section, I have a couple of thoughts:
 * Could a line be added to summarize the types of work / services that H+K provides? I think that this is helpful in giving a quick overview of what the company actually does. Here's what was in my draft, though I think it could perhaps be cut down if you're concerned about including such a listy sentence:
 * Services provided by H+K Strategies include public relations, public affairs, media relations, digital communications, marketing communications, content development and marketing, corporate advisory, corporate reputation management, business to business communications, risk and crisis management and crisis training, research, product launch support, global brand positioning, lobbying, and grassroots campaigning.
 * Could a subheading for Recognition be added above the mention of the work for the Special Court for Sierra Leone? Otherwise, it might seem a bit confusing why this is mentioned within operations and not history.
 * Let me know what you think about these suggestions. Meantime, I'm working on finding some images that H+K own the rights to and can release to add into the article. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhiannon, I will take at look at these proposals soon, I think most of them can be reasonably accommodated while remaining objective and fair. E.g., some history subheadings are needed upon further reflection.  However, as to #1, I don't think the firm was called Hill & Knowlton until Knowlton joined around 1933?  It wasn't clear to me if Hill had a separate name for what he was doing in 1927.  Thanks for checking on the images, these is an area where Wikipedia could do much better but editors rarely take the time necessary to do it.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense about the name, Milowent, I was confusing myself with the original name of the firm Hill and Knowlton had together with that begun by Hill on his own in 1927. Maybe there's a different way to refer to name in the introduction so that it makes sense why the article is called "Hill & Knowlton", but the article text refers to it by (its correct current name) "Hill+Knowlton Strategies"? How about something like "Until December 2011, the firm was known by the name it had held since 1933, Hill & Knowlton."
 * For now, I'm still looking into the images. I was hoping that H+K might have an image archive of sorts, but it seems like a lot of company images (eg. images of Hill) may be owned by newspapers or photographers. Still, I'm hopeful we can turn something up. Thanks again for your help here! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Milowent. Good news on images: H+K have found some in their archives and their legal team have given the go ahead for releasing copyright to upload one or two to Commons! I'll get going on uploading tomorrow though they'll need to release copyright via OTRS, so that might take a bit of time. Will ping back here once I have one uploaded, so you can take a look. I think what they've shared is pretty good, and will be a neat addition to the article. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi There's now a photo of John Hill (I think from the 1960s, although H+K weren't 100% sure) uploaded to Commons and ready to add into the article. Here's the link: File:John_Hill_portrait.png Do you think this would work best in History? Also, just wondering if you're able to take a look at my suggested tweaks for the article, such as the History subsections. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 16912 Rhiannon, I've made some tweaks this evening, let me know what you think. I also added the photograph, that is an excellent quality picture.  I will add to John W. Hill as well.  Also, what you think about moving the article to Hill+Knowlton Strategies or Hill+Knowlton?  We'd keep a redirect from Hill & Knowlton.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks so much, the article looks fantastic now! Appreciate you adding the photo to John Hill's article, too. Re: moving the article, I'm definitely in favor and think that Hill+Knowlton Strategies would be best as it is the full current name of the company. Ultimately, either would be appropriate, so whichever you feel would be best is totally fine by me. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI)  16:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hill+Knowlton Strategies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822053525/http://www.hkstrategies.com/global-presence to http://www.hkstrategies.com/global-presence
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403032526/http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131121187309 to http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131121187309
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209132004/http://www.hkstrategies.com/services to http://www.hkstrategies.com/services

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"ever-litigious Church of Scientology"
Just a shade on the POV side, wouldn't you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.93.165 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Update the CEO and Chairman
Please update the current Chairman and CEO to AnnaMaria DeSalva, as shown on H+K's website and covered by media. 2A01:4B00:82E1:3500:A83F:FA2A:B4E5:A0B1 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

For Consideration
You might want to consider adding in: - H&K was, in the 1970s at least, considered the largest public relations firm in the world and the agency of choice for the blue chips. - The firm was one of the very few that refused to solicit clients/new business. Rather: Clients solicited H&K. H&K’s top brass would determine which clients to do business with. - H&K for years had a stellar reputation. — Look up the names of former leadership. Some are to this day considered the best in the profession. I’m not going to spend the time looking for sourcing on this but I’m sure you could find verification of these points. And as one who was there… Pete NY PHX (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Name change and new logo
It looks like Hill+Knowlton recently changed their name to Hill & Knowlton and updated their logo. I will make the changes here. If you have any objections or questions, please direct them here, on the talk page. FourtuneFavors (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes to the name change for the page, no to changing every plus-sign (+) to an ampersand (&). The changes you already made are only partly done, and confusing; please complete. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the China one be left with a + ?
 * Add a sentence about the name change in the History section, and cite one of the press releases about the name change; here is one.
 * Change the website URL at the bottom of the page, and note the old website URL hkstrategies.com somewhere (talk page, and/or hidden comment in the article page) for anyone who needs to find archive.org pages between 2011 and 2021 (or whenever the older URL was in use).
 * Sentences such as "the company that became Hill & Knowlton Strategies..." should be fixed because & and Strategies doesn't go together and the sentence is now out of date.
 * Check all occurrences of Strategies.
 * Re-read the page and check it all again.
 * Use an insource search (like this one or this one) to locate instances around Wikipedia where "Hill+Knowlton Strategies" or "Hill+Knowlton" are used.


 * @Grorp Thank you for the help here. I will make these changes.
 * Changes to make:
 * Add information about the name change to History:
 * Hill + Knowlton Strategies was rebranded to its original name, Hill & Knowlton, in November 2023.   Using this source
 * FourtuneFavors (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)