Talk:History of public relations/Archives/2014

contd
Hi, I don't know why you've removed content on Basil Clarke. The sections are also mixed up rather strangely. Also, although I understand you want to source things, it's a bit clunky to constantly say things like "Academic A says this, while Academic B says this". If its uncontroversial, then it should just be incorporated into the the flow of the text.

About the origins of PR, I don't think there is an argument per se. Turnbull traces the origins of PR techniques and methods to the 18th/19th century, while other sources discuss the history of the official profession beginning in 20th cent. Etang is really providing a UK history which has simply been neglected by other historians, its not that there is a genuine argument on the issue.Noodleki (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The information I trimmed on Basil Clarke was about his firm and experience in general and not about the history of public relations specifically. I think it would be good information for the Basil Clarke Wikipedia article. Some of what I trimmed was just repeated information.


 * I disagree. There are clearly opposing viewpoints, as there are on almost every aspect of the article. Turnball's paper is called "an alternative history" and he says "Most discussions of the history of public relations are US-centric and suggest that modern PR stems from 19th Century and early 20th Century US developments. Almost all of them are wrong – mislead by effective public relations and myth-makers starting with the self-styled ‘father of PR’ Edward Bernays." We both seem to agree that PR starting as a professional practice in the UK before or simultaneously in the US is a minority viewpoint in the sources, which even the sources themselves attest to. Wikipedia's NPOV policy would therefore suggest we focus on the mainstream view both in level of detail and prominence of placement in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Noodleki. I have carefully and thoughtfully vetted the Antecedents section to incorporate a more global viewpoint using the content you added, while reducing some content I felt was over-editorialized or attributed too much WP:WEIGHT to a minority viewpoint. If you have time to take a look and discuss anything you feel I butchered, I'm happy to keep collaborating on it so we can find the right balance together. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article
I've ordered a copy of "Selling the War: Art and Propaganda in World War II", which should help me expand the WW II propaganda section, as well as point me in the right direction for other sources to round it out with propaganda from other countries besides Germany. After that we'll see if it's ready for a second GA review! Any feedback on anything else it needs is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference to Cutlip's 1994 History has been restored. He writes of Harry Bruno and Earl Newsom, among others, to illustrate the rise of the creativity in the field. Note that propaganda does not qualify as PR: propaganda has no regard for truth and defies rebuttal. On the other hand, PR efforts live in a context of free speech where disagreement is welcome, for it tends to harden up the real facts. For instance, regular web postings may be propaganda, but articles in WP are subject to review and criticism. Please do not confound propaganda with PR. The reference to Walter W. Page should note his inspiration from Vail, as the spirit of honest brokering of information has a background.Rgdboer (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll check out Harry Bruno and Earl Newsom. Several of Cutlip's books are cited throughout the article as in-line citations. "The Unseen Power" is now under the References section twice - once as citation number 14 and once as a separate, loose reference. Reflecting on the sources, most in-depth histories on PR only provide a very short treatment to propaganda as a tangentially related practice and one that was very influential on public relations. I think it would be ideal if we could get both wars covered in about 3 paragraphs like the social media section. Any thoughts on how to best trim down? CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So I've got nothing in terms of Harry and Earl. Both are identified as early pioneers and are certainly notable enough for their own articles, but this article shouldn't become a directory of every accomplished practitioner. The profiles I'm finding on the history of PR only briefly mentioned them, except for Cutlip's books, which cover each era with hundreds of pages and is much more detailed than we would want to be here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Contexts
There are essentially three contexts for public relations, the commercial, the political, and the ecclesiastical. The latter is by far the most important but little mentioned here. Indeed, the Protestant Reformation and the Propaganda Fide mark a standoff that provided the backdrop for communication industries to thrive on public thirst for knowledge. The political context involves governments’ duty to secure the consent of the governed, a task requiring demonstration of merit over and above a strong communicative line. The commercial context is the most transparent and dynamic since companies are formed and dissolved frequently, according to public taste.

The article may be improved by splitting it into History of political public relations and History of commercial public relations. The third context may be skirted as unencyclopedic, even if it sets a standard of tolerance. As it stands this article is a mishmash unworthy of GA consideration. The history of this topic requires development of the cultural contexts, which are relative to century and nation.Rgdboer (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)