Talk:Burson-Marsteller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Somebody really needs to take a look at this
User:Lusanders 21:16, July 8 2007 (EST)
- You're right, this was ridiculously pov. To the author: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I have removed everything, and kept only a one sentence stub. Anything worth including may be reinstated, provided it meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. AecisBrievenbus 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Penn References
There are a few references to "Penn" without any mention of his first name or Mark Penn's status as CEO. This makes for a shoddy article, IMO. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] stop the concertina
This article has gone out and in like a concertina. Most of what it has contained is hostile, which is perhaps why it keeps getting blown away. But essential, indisputable material has gone with it.
I've put some basic facts at the top and bottom of the page. These should be expanded. As to the catalog of wrongdoings, perhaps they should be separated to another article where the basic facts won't suffer collateral damange. Coughinink 10:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additions to notable clients
I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add Microsoft as a notable client, as it has been publicized that Burson-Masteller was hired by Microsoft to campaign against Google's acquisition of DoubleClick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092500009.html) and they were also hired in an effort to help Microsoft acquire Yahoo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A).
Furthermore, would it be appropriate anywhere in this article to note that Burson-Masteller's chief executive, Mark Penn, is also the chief strategist for the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign? - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=1eaf7624ae72ae11&ei=5087%0A
Philipashlock (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello I am quite curious why Burson-Marsteller's relationship with Blackwater was removed from the 'Controversial Clients' section with absolutely no comment on this page. A quick search will reveal plenty of sources including the ap, this is perfectly cited and legit, why would someone remove it with no comment? Is there a reason for Blackwater to be absent from this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.64.211 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Colombia?
The recently-added Colombia section needs to be re-written, IMO. There is a last-name reference to a person who may be in the news right now, but who has yet to be introduced in the context of the article. Also, "Marsteller" ends in "er," not "ar." The brief sentence, though cited, feels like a mad scramble by someone to be the first to post something on a current event, rather than an attempt to describe the facts or situation surrounding the event. The editor didn't even do enough reading to know how to spell the name of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.156.10.80 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
