Talk:Teneo

POV Issues and cleanup
This article reads almost uniformly from Teneo's perspective and looking through its revision history I am concerned with a number of edits that appear to mirror the company's talking points and ppossibl minimize criticism. One of the most notable things about Teneo, at least based on a quick Google search of its name, is the controversy surrounding it: on the first page of results, we see this NYT article and this Politico article, neither of which appear in this article as of now. I am tagging the article for POV issues and will begin cleaning it up soon. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There have been some recent edits to the masthead regarding whether Teneo should be described as a 'public relations and advisory company', 'consulting company' or 'CEO advisory company'. These edits should be assessed in light of WP:NPOV guidance. Almost all reliable sources refer to Teneo as a 'public relations and advisory' company or, synonymously, as a 'communications' or 'political and corporate comms company': example, example, example, example, example, example. Furthermore, this is an WP:NPOV issue because there is a precedent of Teneo leadership trying to distance themselves from this terminology see here: "When PRWeek included Kelly on our annual Power List in 2017, Teneo attempted to get us to remove him from the list. The implication was that Teneo was too important to be considered 'just a PR firm'." According to Teneo and owner CVC's website see here, Teneo also has integrated other advisory services - which comprise a minority of its staff and services. 'Public relations and advisory company' is the most balanced description of Teneo. --87.224.72.157 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are very passionate about this minor change, do you have a COI in editing? Some of the articles you're referencing are outdated, and it's interesting that your IP address has only ever edited Teneo's page, and that this was the first edit you've made. PubHobbyst (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
I recently reverted the last 2 edits on the page for vandalism. Upon further investigation, the editor that made the additions only has 3 contributions, 2 being to the Teneo page. 83.11.202.232 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTVAND and explain more specifically what you think is problematic about these edits. Is your concern about this part (added here)?

In May 2021, it was revealed investigations by the Navajo Nation Department of Justice, as well as broader public interest, had constructed a timeline of business dealings between key Navajo Nation figures, AR-15 manufacturer Remington Arms and Teneo. From 2018 to 2020, Teneo was engaged several times to assist in a potential transaction to acquire Remington Arms on behalf of the Navajo Nation. Teneo was reportedly paid $150,000 per month in as part of its 2020 contract and would have made as much as $10 million if the deal had closed. At the time, the Navajo Nation Department of Justice raised several issues with the adequacy of the legal due diligence conducted, among other red flag issues. According to the Navajo Nation Budget and Finance Committee, the deal “could lead to substantial risks to the Nation” for multiple reasons.''


 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: fixed copypaste error HaeB (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Reverted a change that claimed to fix the article grammar but was an unexplained change and removal of the actual content of the article intro without supporting information Carbinecolonelr (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Undid a reversion that deleted a part of the controversy section. I agree with comments on the talk page that this section can be streamlined but this content is relevant vis a vis wikipedia guidance unless others strongly disagree Carbinecolonelr (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
A majority of the writing here is coming off to me as predatory. I'm definitely questioning the neutrality of this article. I noticed a few sentences that could have more of a neutral tone, and could read more factually. Please discuss any neutrality edits here.WildKatUnder (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Clinton controversy
I've yet to see an article with a massive Controversy section like this one. There is no way this article should have more information about the Clinton family than Teneo itself. This article is clearly more focused on the Clinton Family than it is on Teneo's history. Rv some edits: WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NPOV. Please discuss any rv here. PubHobbyst (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi My two cents: The reason the article covers the Clinton family so extensively is, at least as far as I recall, because the underlying reliable sources overwhelmingly discuss Teneo in terms of the controversy related to the family. To be blunt, there's very little information on the firm as such, and it gets most of its notability from its more scandalous coverage. WP:TOOMUCH only applies in cases of trivial information — and there may be some in there — but if a major news article is written and includes that information, we can presume that it is not trivial. As far as WP:NPOV goes, I assume the issue would be an WP:UNDUE one, but again, insofar as there is a lot of media coverage about Teneo with respect to the Clintons, that may not apply here. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)  (talk, contribs)  02:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Senior Advisors
It seems the company's bread and butter are the 32 Senior Advisors, many of whom have political backgrounds. I have added the US political advisors. Should this be limited to only the political advisors? Should we only list those that currently have a Wikipedia biography? I am interested in what others think.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For reference on those with a political position and a Wikipedia article:

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I lean against inclusion like this. It's very common for organizations to have a wide range of rather amorphous "advisor" type roles, often mainly serving as a form of PR cred — to be frank, I doubt that the advisors are their "bread and butter"/do much of note. That'd be the unnamed analysts and consultants who very likely do the actual work, whatever that means. I'd only prefer mention in cases where those roles garner mention/coverage in media. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request: Remington bid streamlining
} I had some suggestions on updating and streamlining the Remington content in the controversy section, which currently reads like this:


 * In May 2021, it was revealed investigations by the Navajo Nation Department of Justice, as well as broader public interest, had constructed a timeline of business dealings between key Navajo Nation figures, AR-15 manufacturer Remington Arms and Teneo. From 2018 to 2020, Teneo was engaged several times to assist in a potential transaction to acquire Remington Arms on behalf of the Navajo Nation. Teneo was reportedly paid $150,000 per month in as part of its 2020 contract and would have made as much as $10 million if the deal had closed. At the time, the Navajo Nation Department of Justice raised several issues with the adequacy of the legal due diligence conducted, among other red flag issues. According to the Navajo Nation Budget and Finance Committee, the deal “could lead to substantial risks to the Nation” for multiple reasons.

1) The content includes a wordy overview of the politics behind the bidding process. However, in the original New York Times and Navajo Nation articles used as footnotes, the controversy is painted as primarily related to internal Navajo Nation politics dating back to 2010, not Teneo's direct actions as an advisor in 2018-2020. And looking at the articles overall, Teneo is mentioned as a side-note, so having so much coverage of tangential politics on the Teneo page seems off-topic. Move some of the details to the Navajo Nations page maybe? But on the Teneo page, streamlined to most concrete and relevant details?


 * From 2018 until 2020, Teneo advised key Navajo Nation figures on potentially acquiring Remington Arms, reportedly being paid $150,000 per month on the matter in 2020. ✅

2) Could this be added to explain the bid died?


 * The Navajo Nation backed off from buying Remington in 2020. ✅

AMKatTeneo (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Requests make sense, are backed up by the sources and make the article more encyclopedic. Some cutting down of the final requested sentence, to "Negotiations ended in 2020." Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Requests
Hello, I had some requests. AMKatTeneo (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cigna lawsuit
The Cigna investors content reads like this in the "Controversy" section:

Teneo was a named defendant in a lawsuit filed by Cigna investors for its role in a 'Trojan Horse' campaign aimed at "making misleading public statements...[and] proffering non-credible testimony". The case was later covered by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, where it found "that the case underscores the need to exercise caution when hiring an outside adviser or communications firm". The Forum went on to comment that "the case is a vivid and cautionary tale reinforcing that the mere retention of a communications firm by a law firm will not create privilege and that an aggressive assertion of privilege in such a manner can undermine credibility".

1) The Forum's white paper is not overly focused on Teneo, with the quote seeming random and unconnected when the whole paper taken into context. Not sure what it added to the page, or why it was added? Could that quote be removed?

2) I think this version is easier to understand, more on point, and has fewer loaded words plucked from the original article.

Teneo has worked with the insurance firm Cigna, advising on a planned merger with Anthem in 2015, which fell through in 2017. In 2020, Cigna investors sued Cigna executives and Teneo for allegedly undermining the merger.

3) The "trojan horse" case concluded earlier this year, mention that please? Although I'm torn on the word "tossed", since it seems loaded - other option might be dropped, but that is a little loaded as well.

The case was tossed by a judge in 2022.


 * I was looking over the request, and I found number one to be credible. I'm not a big fan of ellipses in any article, and I'm dubious when they are in quotes. I agree with point two that it is easier to understand and avoids cherry-picking. The word "tossed" was also a red flag, and I would prefer using the term "dismissed". Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Greensill controversy
In the controversy section, the Craig Oliver/Greensill paragraph reads like this:

In 2021, articles published in The Times reported on an understanding that Teneo employee Craig Oliver had promoted the interests of Greensill Capital in the months leading up to its collapse. Craig Oliver previously worked for David Cameron, the former UK prime minister accused of performing lobbying activities on behalf of Greensill. Teneo has previously acted as a public relations representative to Greensill and retained 3 former colleagues of David Cameron as advisors.

1) As it is, it seems wordy and the tense hasn't been updated. Could the first few sentences be combined, maybe to something similar to this? (I didn't add any references, just changed wording, and added a link to the Greensill scandal)

In March 2021, The Times reported on an understanding that Craig Oliver, then a Teneo employee and former cabinet member of David Cameron, had promoted Greensill Capital, a former Teneo client. At the time, Cameron was accused of performing lobbying activities on behalf of Greensill and Teneo had three of Cameron's former colleagues on staff as advisors. Oliver left Teneo in October 2021.


 * I agree this section is much too wordy and could use some good editing which I think was accomplished with the above text. References have been verified.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

2) Registrar detail - At the end of the Greensill paragraph, about this response from Teneo:

In March 2021, a letter from the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists received a response from Teneo asserting that "Sir Craig Oliver did not lobby anyone in government on behalf of Greensill Capital".

Could it be trimmed to something more encyclopedic and with a less bureaucratic detail? Maybe:

In response, Teneo refuted that Oliver had lobbied for Greensill to "anyone in government".


 * May go back and put in "Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists" to the last sentence.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"Work for Russian oligarchs" streamlining
1) The work for Russian oligarchs section has a lot of redundancy, I assume from similar snippets being added at different times. It's also confusing without dates in the right order. Condense please? Thank you! Recommendation below (with the same sources already in the section, just name="DOJ" added).


 * I'm good with most but needed to change an international firm to an "international investment firm". I also think we should not use the acronym FARA and it needs to be linked to Foreign Agents Registration Act.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

=== Work for Russian oligarchs ===

In September 2020, it was disclosed that Teneo had provided strategic counsel and stakeholder outreach for LetterOne, an international firm whose founders included Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, both Russian oligarchs sanctioned by the EU in February 2022. With Teneo likely being paid at least $1 million, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the contract ended in October 2021. According to CNBC, in 2022 the department's FARA Unit said it believed the contract "remains active."


 * AMKatTeneo, I have a question. question. Why did Oliver leave Teneo? I would like to have the reason added to the article, but the reference article is behind a paywall.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To, thanks so much for helping go through these! Sorry for late response on this, but about leaving Teneo, from what I can tell, looks like there isn't any declaration about why he left, so "no reason" is the apparent answer (i.e. no controversy as the reason, at least in what is stated by the parties involved from news sources). AMKatTeneo (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To, could you provide me with on or two of the sources? I looked around and could not locate or they are behind paywalls. This article, PRovoke] is vague and this Tweet give no insight, tweet. Thanks. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've brought sources this time. :) Looks like he himself said on Twitter he was going on "gardening leave" before taking the new position, but not much else. Behind the PRWeek paywall, I only get: "Amber Rudd and Sir Craig Oliver have resigned from Teneo and are now understood to be on six months' gardening leave before joining FGH next." The other PR Week article, also behind a paywall, does state that "Finsbury Glover Hering poaches Amber Rudd and Sir Craig Oliver from Teneo," which could just be a dramatic turn of phrase.


 * The more complete Provoke Media article gives no detail either, just gardening leave and mentioning that year's Teneo controversies. These don't have paywalls (not vouching for reliability just coverage): City A.M., Business Post, FT.com, Politico. Reading the articles myself, I could speculate on why he left (juicy job offer at colleague's brother's firm, or just wanting to flee controversy after the Teneo CEO changed), but the journalists themselves don't seem to know anything whatsoever beyond Oliver's original twitter statement. I couldn't find an official statement from Teneo on the matter. Sorry if that wasn't particularly useful at clarifying the issue. AMKatTeneo (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Teneo requests - October 2022
Some requests for October to look over? Thank you! AMKatTeneo (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Craig Oliver sentence swap
With the Craig Oliver paragraph, would it be possible to swap the last two sentences so that they make more sense in context?

Navajo Nation redundancy
This line: "In May 2021, it was revealed investigations by the Navajo Nation Department of Justice, as well as broader public interest, had constructed a timeline of business dealings between key Navajo Nation figures, AR-15 manufacturer Remington Arms and Teneo". Can it be removed as bloat? I feel it doesn't add anything meaningful that the sentence afterwards doesn't already cover. Removing it would also fix the fact that Navajo Nation is wikilinked three times.


 * Regarding the two requests above; your arguments hold water, to my eyes, and the guidelines apply - going ahead and implementing.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring the page for balance
There are several reasons I feel the "Controversy" heading is unwarranted, and that the section's content should be moved elsewhere on the page. I laid the reasons out below in order of relevance, by my estimation (sorry if I over-explain the manual of style guidelines a bit, I just didn't want to come off as too wikilawyery by only barraging with acronyms).


 * 1) Use of a "Controversy" section heading goes against WP:CRITS, which recommends more neutral wording. The guideline explains how clumping controversy in one section without counterpoint can result in a structure that is arguably non-neutral, also leading to a non-neutral POV fork if the page gets big enough to split.


 * 2) The section's content isn't nearly ample enough for the heading to be structurally indispensable per WP:CORG (which is an exception to WP:CRITS that is reserved for large, extremely controversial companies).


 * 3) Many of the items currently in the section are not framed as "controversies" anyways. For example, the McDonald's campaign (diff1) is going to be seen as negative to those who support wage increases. To the upper echelons of big business, however, keeping wages low is a good thing, which means positive or negative framing is partly dependent on the stance of the overseeing newspaper editors. But, since the live sentence fails to mention either perspective, currently it would fit just fine as a routine detail in "History".


 * 4) The controversy heading doesn't result from a discussion-based consensus so much as one bold edit from 2020, with the resultant lack of pushback being the weakest form of consensus (see WP:WEAKSILENCE). To summarize, the heading was first included in a series of edits in 2020 (diff2) and then expanded with new and old content (diff3) mostly by the same editor WhineyTheYounger. While the contributor seems to edit in good faith, concerning their decision to add this particular structure, I think it's relevant to point out that diffs 1-4 (all theirs) hint at ignorance of several relevant style guidelines relevant to controversies, for example the selection of reliable sources (Huffpo articles being really not great for politics, see diff1 and also diff4). Also, the diff2 edit summary lends to the impression that the editor may not have been familiar with WP:CRITS, as they describe controversy sections as a norm instead of a last resort. To me, diff2 and diff3 also contain some WP:SYNTHESIS, lending to the impression the editor may not have been closely familiar with neutrality guidelines (WP:BALANCE) back then. In short (haha sorry too late), I think it would be excellent to re-approach the matter with the relevant style guidelines fresh in mind, as they may not have been sufficiently baked into the decision-making process the first time.

To summarize the overall request, if the respondent agrees with my reasoning, could the items in "Controversy" be moved into "History" and the "Controversy" heading itself be removed?

I'm not sure what would be most appropriate placement for the "Sexual Harassment" or "Work for Russian Oligarchs" sub-sections at this point, since they are pretty hefty. But if they aren't moved into "History", maybe they could be left floating in their own independent sections at the bottom of the page as they are now, just without the parent heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMKatTeneo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have given this much thought and researched the points made, and I will have to agree, the heading is unwarranted. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

See also section
Could this item be added to the See also section, since it is a major component of the Teneo business since it was acquired earlier this year: WestExec Advisors AMKatTeneo (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry AMKatTeneo, I just do not see any reason to link the WestExec Advisors to the See also section at this time. Not warranted because they already have their own page. I will decline.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoisjohgngalt, thanks for much for implementing/considering the last requests! I think it looks far better and the history makes more sense this way. Question: I think WP:CSECTION could also apply to the "sexual harassment" heading, since it has loaded verbiage that doesn't reflect the whole paragraph (like the firing as well). Just remove that heading and move the content into history please, like the rest of the controversy section was? (sidenote: I'm not sure the "Russian oligarchs" part is really very loaded or negative, so no request one way or another on that section. I guess that would make more sense in a "Notable clients" section, but that would involve just chopping up much of the rest of the page and an entirely new layout, and one I'm not sure would really be much better.). AMKatTeneo (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you on the "Russian oligarchs", but not sure where it would be placed in the article. I will give it some thought, but it will stay in place for the time being. I've moved the "Sexual harassment" material to the history section. I will return to this article for some general copy edits and clean-up, and then I get some time. Working ten-hour days for the next few weeks, so my editing will continue to be intermittent.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 Requests to Update Teneo
I had a few minor requests related to structure and balance on the Teneo page, as well as some recent updates. It would be great if you could screen the requests and implement the ones you think seem sound. Thanks! ^_^ AMKatTeneo (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

New "History" subheadings
Could the "History" section be modified to have these subheadings? I think this breakdown will help with readability. ===2011 - 2014=== ===2015 - 2017===  ===2018 - 2020===  ===2021 - 2023===


 * I agree with the COI request of using additional subheadings to break up the text into smaller, more manageable chunks.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ✅

Trimming BLP-related content in the lead
1) Can mention of the Declan Kelly resignation ("following Kelly's resignation in the wake of revelations of inappropriate behavior at a charity event") be removed from the lead? Considering WP:UNDUE in relation to the lead and its current size, I think including that detail makes the event seem overly prominent to readers when compared to other press-worthy events and routine facts also on the page.
 * Implemented the COI request based on WP:UNDUE and this material being more appropriate for the history section. The resignation should remain in the article.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ✅

2) In the lead paragraphs, can the paragraph about the Clintons/Teneo be trimmed to just the first sentence? I feel that in the lead, where readers are looking for key facts or a big picture, such dense/repetitive name dropping isn't necessary.
 * The lead should be a concise and informative summary of the article's main points and be written in a way that is easy to understand. The material is covered in the main body of the article.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ✅

Recent developments to add to "History"
Could these details be added to the "History" section? In September 2022, Teneo extended its contract with golfer Shane Lowry.

Teneo purchased the PR firm Tulchan in the United Kingdom in January 2023.

Also early in 2023, Teneo opened an office in Amsterdam.
 * ✅ Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oligarchs placement and heading
The  ===Work for Russian oligarchs===  section appears to be well-written except for a few typos. The title and placement, though, seem at odds with several Wiki guidelines. Could the heading please be erased and the content moved into the "2018-2020" section of history? Reasons, in my estimation, to delete the heading and move the content are:

a) It's weird to have this content floating alone at the bottom of the page; placing both routine and controversial developments in "history" is more the overall style of the page, currently, so that lone heading breaks the page's stylistic consistency.

b) Concerning the page's overall layout, using a heading to highlight just one controversy seems to be at odds with the WP:BALANCE and WP:STRUCTURE guidelines (or more specifically, the WP:Be neutral in form explanatory essay), especially since other Teneo-related press items (all sans dedicated headings) seemed to attract more long-term attention in the media.

c) The heading/placement also kind of goes against WP:CSECTION, even though again, the paragraph itself seems fine.

d) I think the heading has loaded wording anyways, and deleting it would be an easy fix. If I may observe, in recent years the US/EU/UK/AU press seems to dub every multi-millionaire Russian expat an oligarch, to the point that "oligarch" now seems to have a specific association with New Russians and at least quasi-illegal behavior. As such, I would argue it's an inherently loaded phrase for an encyclopedia entry when stated as fact, and using it in a heading goes against the spirit of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL (not sure if WP:BLPSTYLE guideline also applies).

In other words: I think it makes sense to use a loaded word in the prose when framed correctly, for example "the businessmen were dubbed oligarchs in The Times." However, in a heading I would argue it's unnecessary to use "Oligarchs" when more neutral descriptors like "Businessmen" or "Russian and Ukrainian billionaires" could be used instead.
 * AMKatTeneo, this one was difficult for me. The main difference between a Russian oligarch and a Russian businessperson is that an oligarch is a wealthy individual who has amassed their wealth through close ties to the Russian government, while a Russian businessperson is simply a wealthy individual who owns or operates a business in Russia.


 * Oligarchs typically gained their wealth during the privatization of state-owned assets in the early 1990s, when they acquired these assets at a fraction of their true value through corrupt deals with government officials. They have since used their wealth to exert political influence over the government and often have close personal ties to top government officials.


 * Russian businesspeople, on the other hand, have typically acquired their wealth through legitimate business ventures. They may have started their own businesses, or they may have worked their way up the corporate ladder. They do not have the same level of political influence as oligarchs, and they do not have the same close personal ties to government officials.


 * For me, the term 'Oligarch' needs to stay in the article.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC) ✅