Talk:History of public relations/Archives/2013

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


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


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


 * Ancient origins
 * "It is also believed" [by who??] ✅


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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