Talk:Qorvis

Qorvis
I author quite a few articles on PR organizations, such as the ones on Waggener Edstrom, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and the Public Relations Society of America. I came across this controversy and thought I would chime in here. If someone from Qorvis is interested in helping build the article, I would be willing to donate some time to show them more productive ways to participate here. Might get some perspective in the process as well, cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of that organisation and came across it today with regard to Fiji. More about the organisation's activities can be found out by typing their name in a search engine and combine it with a media organisation, one by one so that you can see where the activities have been or are. PR firms'news change every day. 2001:8003:A921:6300:C529:BB70:6609:AA93 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding improving this page - I think one reason it is viewed as a "real yarn" by the CEO is because the company only seems to be known for being nasty. I've tried previously to find sources to make it more balanced, but after an hour on factiva only turned up a handful compared to the tens or hundreds about Saudi, Bahrain etc. If this is all that other people have written about it is what the article should discuss, and it is hardly surprising that the CEO doesn't like it. Other's might argue that it means we are doing a good job! Your removals look ok, but you've removed quite a lot of references that could be used to write prose about clients (which is why I had decided not to remove it all before). Are you planning on converting them to prose? SmartSE (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't have any concrete plans to re-write in prose immediately. Do you think it's better to have the list than nothing at all? It's actually based on your feedback a while back (forgot which article) that I started deleting lists like that. But another thing I can do is store the citations on Talk so it's easy for anyone who wants to re-incorporate them properly.


 * A little secret, most PR clients aren't happy with their media coverage either, which they also think is bias, but they still participate. On the other hand, is the following content necessary: A former employee was reported as saying, "I just have trouble working with despotic dictators killing their own people."CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's tricky to decide about the client lists - there is a fine line between promotion (look how great we are because we have all these clients) and providing information (what kind of clients do they do work for). If there are secondary sources for them, then I think it is ok to include a list (I can't remember the specifics of the previous lists either, but I imagine secondary sources were lacking). We could write a long section on their clients from secondary sources, but since no one has decided to do so yet, a referenced list might be better than nothing. As to the quote - that's a tricky question, but since we are clear that it is an employee's opinion and we know that their work for Bahrain was highly controversial, I think it provides an interesting viewpoint. If you search for it, you'll see that plenty of RSs picked up in the quote after it was in the HP e.g. Time and Salon. BTW - you did remove quite a few good references before - can you replace them even if you don't add any content? If there are good references it is best to leave them so that readers can find them more easily than googling etc. SmartSE (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... now that I've read a few more news stories on them, I have more of a drift of what you mean. CorporateM (Talk) 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - looks good. And yep, this is an example of where NPOV may not be everyone's idea of neutral. I've suggested that a PR editor who's currently blocked has a go at expanding the history section though which would help to balance the more negative content. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

History
I've started improving the history section. Feel free to chip in if you find anything else that should be on it. Thanks Kt1502 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks good. One question though - is the constellation info correct? The nearest thing I can find is Corvus (constellation) and the "largest constellation in the universe" doesn't really make sense since they are artificial constructs rather than distinct objects. SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, spent some time searching for anything that would back this up but nothing came up. Have removed the info. Kt1502 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post Piece
Looks like an executive from the firm has given his views on wikipedia in a Washington Post commentary piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/commentary-the-problem-with-wikipedia/2013/03/17/0bef0c84-8a74-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

I guess it is natural for a PR firm to have a grade A issue with being restricted in their natural tendency to "shape the message" - especially when they are in the business of shaping it for governments with questionable human rights records (something Mr Lauer fails to mention). If anyone knows of any inaccuracies on this page they should flag them up here for correction - everything looks fairly well sourced, which makes me wonder what the real intentions of the commentary are. SFC9394 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We've already had a little chat about this above. There are so many problems with that article that it's different to know where to start... there has never been anything about a super gypsy in this article, the original block notice clearly states the only reason was because of the username, and anyone who thinks that we don't "allow corporations, individuals or organizations to ... submit information on their own behalf" is a bad thing, is seriously missing what Wikipedia is about. (We should probably move this elsewhere if we wish to continue discussing). SmartSE (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)