Talk:Kluger Agency

Sounds like it was written by AKPR

This sounds like it was written by somebody from AKPR. I can find the Wired article about the controversy, but nothing on the "more notable sources" refuting the legitimacy of the emails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.146.80 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just pretty much re-written the page. Obviously it's better than before, but it still needs a lot of work. Fakelvis (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable source of information is from the agency themselves. We've spoken with the PR director for the agency, we've started a story on the events that lead to this fictional online war, and we have documents and quotes to prove it. Your best bet is to contact the agency's pr dept. yourself, their number is on the site, i believe its 949-379-2008. AKPR is not KA..they are two seperate companies. There is no documentation to prove anything written on wired.com was true and to our knowledge less than 10% is. According to wired.com the information was given to them by anti-advertising advocates. Put two and two together..Anti-Advertising advocates + a high ranked news source on google NL = marketing scheme.

We have no interest other an stating whats 100% known. If for some reason you feel that you know more than us (the people that actually spoke to the agency), i'd ask you to contact them and get some reliable information to post online.

Pussycat dolls were never even mentioned to anyone to our knowledge and if you do your own research, you'll find the email said to have been written by a member of KA was sent in Late Aug.. PCD launched their album already and theres no way on earth that a jean brand could have been added to an already mixed and mastered album schedualed to release less than 30 days later.

Based on research, Interviews (with both KA and Wired), we've found that most of the information INCLUDING the "PCD Controversy" and "The Letter to Jeff Crouse" were both fictional and possibly fabricated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please not remove large portions of text from the talk page while a discussion is still in progress?

As I have only added information to this article that is cited from reliable sources, I feel that if you refute these claims you must provide information from similarly reliable sources. Please do so.

Furthermore, as you may notice from the article page itself, I've filed for a third opinion - again, please don't remove large pieces of text without a good reason. Below is the reinstated text you deleted.

Furthermore, in all honesty I couldn't care less about this article or the Pussycat Dolls themselves. What I do care about is providing information on Wikipedia that is reliable. If it proves not to be, then I'll let it lie. Please provide a reliable source backing up your viewpoint.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reliable source is the agency themselves! You just agreed with the fact that the pussycat dolls had nothing to do with this, hence, you are making it a point to include that in the "reliable" information. I am willing to bet any amount that you are either a member of wired.com, anti advertising agency, or another publisher of the story. It was a bogus story, every reliable news source knows it...if you honestly want to dispute this, i'd recommend doing an "on tape" interview with Jake Fryfield, KA's PR guy who we spoke to. If not, then back off of this subject that you so clearly know nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, some civility: your edit summary (BS) is not helpful, courteous, or appreciated.

If you want to remove information because it is incorrect, please provide some citable resources that corroborate your story: just saying that your reliable source is the agency doesn't help anyone.

Where did I "just [agree] with the fact that the pussycat dolls had nothing to do with this"? I don't believe I did?

As I stated on my talk page, I do not work for "wired.com, anti advertising agency, or another publisher of the story"; I am simply an independent Wikipedia user who wishes to improve the encyclopaedia and wishes to do so in a pleasant environment. Can we please try and keep this discussion polite and reasonable, and try and refrain from accusations of impropriety?

To this end, do you really expect me to phone up some agency on the other side of the Atlantic to find out this information? My edits were based on reports from reliable sources that have since not been redacted or retracted. They still stand as fact and have already passed verifiability checks at Wikinews. All I ask is that you please provide similar information verifying your side of events.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i am the anon user..it was an error and i forgot to sign, i did not intentionally do so. Who is Jack Kluger? No such person. I'm starting to get the feeling that either A) You are a member of wired.com or AAA staff, using wikipedia to try and promote your story, B) You are refusing to contact TKA because you KNOW that what your writing is fictional, or C) Your mentally challenged. CONTACT THE AGENCY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MATTER. We did! We got alot of useful information that we used to create this wikipedia page. We know far more than you about the agencies past,present,and future. I'm sure the staff on wikipedias board..to whom i personally know from working in the same office building with in downtown st. petersburg, florida will KNOW that the most credible source for information is the source themselves. I will delete fictional information so you might as well not waste your time (fakelvis). I am not against reporting..it's what i do..however, you need to report the truth. Wired.com is NOT a credible source, unless it was published in the actual magazine..then it would indeed be credible..however, it was written on a BLOG! Blogs are not always credible, period. I could go a write a blog today stating that George bush said "I hate America"..would you write about that on wikipedia? Don't waste your time as i will only allow what the agency confirms as TRUTHFUL material to be published on wikipedia..The article is entitled "THE KLUGER AGENCY" therefore i would think you'd want the info to be accurate and about the group..not about internet rumors...Internet rumors written about an advertising agency BY a group called "the anti advertising agency"...lol..give me a break. I'm conviced you (fakelvis) are a member of this group, and shame on you. (Keywordrenewals (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Actually the wikipedia community frowns on WP:ORprimary sources, so your buddies that you know must have given you wrong information. Unless you can prove it is wrong, please do not revert any more information.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what Jojhutton wrote above, I would just like to inform you that unless this changes into a constructive discussion and/or you cease your ad hominem arguments I will not take any further part in discussing this with you. I would like to request you read the following Wikipedia policies and come back when you are willing to be more of an asset to the community by following the guidelines.

And for the record, I too have no problem with any form of advertising or product placement and reiterate my position of not having any relationship whatsoever with any agency, group, or company involved with this article. If you so wish, you can actually discover this quite easily.

Thanks, fakelvis (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information written about a Pussycat Dolls controversy was stated as "Fabricated" by Aaron Joseph, Administrative Director at the Kluger Agency. Information was confirmed by Adam Kluger, Chief Executive Office at the Kluger Agency via email as of 10/5/08. If you require a copy of the email, please provide me with an email address and i will forward all conversation with the agency. I've tried to contact Elliot from Wired.com pertaining to the story and he has yet to respond to my attempts. I'm deeming this as reason to NOT state any information written on wired.com on wikipedia as the information has been called "fictional" and "fabricated" by The Kluger Agency (whom this article is about). I have dated emails sent to me from TKA and i'd be happy to pass them on to the powers that be at Wikipedia. User Fakelvis seems like a member of the Anti-Marketing Association and i'm having a hard time believing he has good intentions to write factual information on TKA. Since i am the original writer of this informative article, i'm going to only write what i was told by the SOURCE (TKA) is accurate and factual information. 99.191.218.97 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is only what you can cite from a secondary source. Kluger Agency is not considered a source because the story is about them. Primary sources are discouraged on wikipedia (see WP:PRIMARY, regardless of what you may have heard. Again,unless you can find a secondary source to dispell this story, then the information needs to stay. It seems very odd that if you are right, then why would Kluger not sue Wired.com, and why doesn't wired.com retract?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pussycat Dolls 'controversy' information

99.191.218.97 (Talk), you appear to be ignoring the request I lodged on your talk page regarding the editing of this article. You have repeatedly removed large chunks of this article that I have written that are cited with reliable sources and verifiable information.

I will, once again, reinstate these changes and leave another comment on your talk page. If you feel the need to once again revert my changes, I will request a third opinion so that we can maybe come to some arrangement over this article's content - I don't want this to turn into an edit war.

I have no vested interest in this article, and merely want to make the entry encyclopaedic. As this article was only created once the Pussycat Dolls controversy was reported on Wired News, I feel this should stay in the article. For now I am assuming good faith and civility - please do the same.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01 October 2008 edits

Reasons for my edits:

Pussycat Dolls controversy: see above.
External links: The reinstated links are useful from the viewpoint of the Pussycat Dolls story.
Company-stub: This article is on a company. The article contains little information on the actual company, therefore I am marking it as a stub-grade article. I believe this is correct and that you repeatedly remove it by mistake: if this is incorrect, please let me know why.
Brand Awareness vs. Brand Integration: we seemingly cannot agree on the correct phrase, so I'm now removing both in order to be fair. To me, the practice Kluger Agency is involved in seems like brand awareness campaigns. "Brand integration" seems more like a marketing term for this practice (if I am incorrect, I suggest creating an article explaining what it actually is).
"Several record labels": we have no verifiable information saying that Kluger Agency work with 'several' record labels. If you can find a source, please update the wording and cite.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Help.

I am a bit confused on what the controversy is. All I can tell is that an anon user has repeatedly reverted your edits without comment. Are you trying to add links, or other information? I also see that the anon user has not participated in any discussion with you that I can see, so no matter what, there is no way to know that the other the anon user will respect any decision made by me or any other editor. Part of the WP:Dispute process is discussion, but since very little has happened, I would suggest that User:Fakelvis continue to make his good faith edits and if the anon user reverts more than three times in one day, then report them to WP:AN3, which is a page that reports abusive editors. Please leave any comments on my talk page, if you have any questions. As a side note, you may want to reword the first sentence after Clients, as it seems to be a weasel phrase.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add further information: information that was pertinent at the time of this article's initial creation. This revision of the article contains the information that actually brought this agency into the limelight (and initiated the article's creation): it is also the revision I am attempting to re-create. I accept that it is not perfect (NPOV issues and—as you point out—possible weasel words), and I want to edit this to improve the article.

I will, as you suggest, make another good-faith edit and reword the section significantly in an attempt to appease the other party. However, I don't hold much hope of anything I write staying for long because of what was written here (after everything—including your 3O help—was deleted).

Thanks for the help, Fakelvis (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet, since the other party is not communicating at all, is to continue improving this article and report abusive editors to the WP:AN3 page, especially if they make three reverts in one day, which it looks like may have happened on several occasions. That is a major no-no in the wiki-community. I will be monitoring the situation, good luck and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such PCD controversy, there was never a mistaken letter written to Double Happiness Jeans. It was all a spam scam written by AAA to promote there blog. Wired make a big "no-no" for picking it up and now they're being called out all over the web for doing so. I will not allow you to post the invalid information on this informative site. see : http://ipandentertainmentlaw.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/dont-believe-everything-you-read/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keywordrenewals (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, what info needs to be added, and what is the source. Remember, reliable third party citations are always encouraged. If the only source of the info is a blog, then the info should not be added. Also, every editor on wikipedia should follow WP:Good faith. Do not immediatly revert edits unless the edit is obvious vandalism.

Also, this is for User:Keywordrenewal, why did you delete my comment on this talk page earlier? That type of behavior is not tolerated on wikipedia. I hope is was just a mistake and that you hade no ill intentions when you blanked the section. I hope that it does not accidently happen again. All comments and ideas are welcome. Thank you all and happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would like to include information from this article on Wired.com. I believe it to be information from a reliable source, and this information also appeared on Wikinews: passing newsworthiness and verifiability checks there. As this is the news article that spawned the creation of this article a few days ago, I believe it should appear here - at least for now.

If a third party believes this to no longer be newsworthy, reliable or notable, I have no qualms about it not appearing here. As it stands, I believe it should as I have not been provided with (nor can find) a reliable source refuting these claims.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"NO SUCH EMAIL WAS EVER WRITTEN TO AAA", "WIRED.COM HAS HARMED THIER OWN REPUTATION BY PUBLISHING FABRICATED MATERIAL". - Head of Public relations (The Kluger Agency). I do not see any reason why fabricated material should be published on wikipedia, and the fact that user fakelvis is working so hard to get the information on the page makes me question his relationship with Anti advertising advocates and wired.com , Wikipedia is so great because they typically only publish the facts, so i'm confident if they want to dispute anything they will contact the kluger agency themselves as i did over a week ago. fakelvis, do your homework, don't believe all you read, and if you want credible information...go to the source. (Keywordrenewals (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a third party citation, or a wired.com retraction to support that? On wikipedia, it is not about truth, it is about verifiability.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wired.com is not retracting the story according to the kluger agency, and TKA is "not going to legally pursue it at this time". However, we do have TKA in quotes stating that the article was "mostly fabricated and taken out of context". If you look into the article, you'll see it's been changed 4 times, that to me dictates unverifiable information. If you'd like to vertify any information i'd refer you to TKA themselves. Several other news sources, online blogs, and industry representatives have come forth challenging the authenticity of the article. According to TKA, "The editor and cheif of Wired did assure us since the information was taken out of context, the article will not be printed anywhere else. We do not expect wired to retract any story as it can harm there reputation, however, they do understand this fictional story may have harmed ours. The Kluger agency is not about being vindictive, we are about making beneficial partnerships between talent and growing brands. I can tell you we will not be speaking with any mediaunless they are verified as reputable firms."

(Keywordrenewals (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THE TRUTH, CONTACT THE SOURCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keywordrenewals (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article history and I can clearly see that yes, it has indeed been changed four times to remove this verifiable information. However, these changes have all come from either you, Keywordrenewals, or the anonymous 99.191.218.97.

I have already verified the information: Wired is classed as a reputable and reliable source. With no retraction I still believe the article to be true. If, as you say, "Several other news sources […] have come forth challenging the authenticity of the article", then please provide me with a link. If this comes from a reliable source (not the already posted ipandentertainmentlaw blog article), then I will gladly change the article myself, removing any information that is proven to be false.

Also, you continuously use quotes in your replies here. As with the information in question, for any editor to rely on a quote you post please provide a link to it so it can be verified.

Most importantly—from my point of view at least—is your increasing ad hominem arguments: I take offence being called-out on a verified edit and am increasingly frustrated at it being implied that I have a relationship with the source of this information. I ask you to look at my past contributions and then to reconsider your personal attacks.

Thanks, Fakelvis (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the post that is in question quite a few times. There are two things that really matter when it comes to adding information on Wikipedia.

1. Can the information be cited by a reputable third party source?

In this case, the answer is yes.

2. Is the information useful and interesting to the reader? WP:Useful.

Another yes.

As far as I can tell, there should be no reason to not add the information, as long as you state that The Kluger Agency denies that any e-mail was ever sent. Whether or not the e-mail was sent at this time is irrevelant. What matters is that a source has printed that one has been sent. Until the source prints a retraction or another source, other than Kluger, says otherwise, the e-mail controversy should be added. That is my opinion based on what I have seen in this case. Try and rewrite the information so that it is as neutral as possible. NPOV (A big pet-peeve of mine). Lets try and get along and work together. There is a way to add the information, without either party looking bad.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jojhutton, thanks for your help and advice throughout. I'm actually already in the process of re-writing the section in question to make it more neutral as not only is NPOV also one of my main grievances (whether I agree with the stance or not), but I hope doing so will maybe go some way to assuage the concerns of any other interested parties. However, it's now late and I'll make my changes tomorrow. Thanks, fakelvis (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on WIRED.COM was changed muliple times, NOT on wikipedia...I had nothing to do with the info being changed on wired..they changed the info because the story was fictional and they were contacted by kluger's pr firm AS IT STATES in the article. You might as well not write any info about the pussycat dolls because that will be deleted..by me, or i will contact the agency and let them know you are writing info that is clearly fabricated and fictional. ASK YOURSELF THIS...what's a more reliable source? Wired.com (who has changed their story 3+ more times in the past 14 days) or TKA (the people the story is about). Contact TKA www.klugeragency.com/contactus , until then..i will delete every bit of fictional info on this company being that i created this page and i feel it's my right and DUTY to report the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:own and WP:Sockpuppet. Wikipedia is a community of editors. Just because you create an article, that does not give you the right and justification to decide what is added or retracted. If you did not want your additions to be edited, you should not have added them. If you continue to make disruptive edits, I will be forced to report you to the admin board for review which may result in a ban from editing. A ban will not help your cause and may in fact hurt your reputation as a whole. Please work with other editors so that we can create viable articles worth reading on wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the following:

The current version of the Wired article - Monday 6th October, 19:57 GMT
Google's cache of the article - Saturday 20th September, 04:27 GMT

There are two differences between the current version of the article and Google's cached version, taken a matter of hours after its initial publishing:

First paragraph: "from Simon and Garfunkel" changed to "from Paul Simon"
The update informing the reader that 'The Kluger Agency' is a completely different company to ''Adam Kluger PR', who had nothing to do with the news story.

Other than those changes—neither of which has any relevance whatsoever to this article—nothing else has changed. As has been agreed by a respected third party, I will make my changes. Remove them by all means, but I will revert and report until you provide some verifiable information backing-up your claim.

Thanks, fakelvis (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, make your changes. We also may have a case of sock puppetry, as both the anon user and keywordrenewals seem to have the same argument and the same writting style, and neither seems to be able to sign a post.

As a side note, after looking at what the Kluger Agency does, I actually have no problem with what they actually do and do not see product placement as a bad thing. It is the way of the future. Kluger Also seems to admit that the e-mail was sent through an automated system rather than trough Jack Kluger himself., but my opinion on that has no bearing on wikipedia policy. I am only concerned with the policy of this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for 'citation needed' tag

I have added the citation needed tag to the final paragraph of the Pussycat Dolls controversy section. I have done this because while re-reading all currently referenced articles I cannot find anything actually stating that The Kluger Agency deny sending the email in question. Rather than not add this information, I have done so as a way to try and prevent wholesale removal of my edits. fakelvis (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, deleted, and deleted again...I wish you'd stop wasting your time. We have conducted the interviews, on tape..give me your mailing address and i'd be happy to send you copies. TKA said that was a fabricated story, this story is on TKA..so i'd take there word for it. quit wasting your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more revert and you will get reported to the admin board for a possible ban.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be bullied into allowing you to post non-sense about this firm. Once again, if you'd like to conduct a story about the company..use legit information and contact the agency themselves.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.218.97 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE UPDATED THE INFORMATION AND CHANGED A FEW THINGS TO MEET YOU IN THE MIDDLE. I HAVE CONTACTED TKA AND I'M SURE THEY'LL BE CONTACTING WIKIPEDIA IF THEY ARE OFFENDED BY THE AMOUNT OF FABRICATED MATERIAL WRITTEN IN THIS ARTICLE. I HOPE THIS ENDS THE EDIT WAR. Keywordrenewals (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new fix.

I was going to suggest a new header for the section. I think the way it is written now is very good or at least better. Thanks for working together.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am happy with these new edits. However, I have just two qualms:

The title: Typically 'Vs.' is used for legal cases (Defendant Vs. Plaintiff). As this isn't a legal case and is merely a dispute between two separate organisations/groups, I feel this is a misleading title. I would suggest changing it to something with less inherent connotations.
The final sentence: This sentence does not adhere to any part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and I suggest it be rewritten. Furthermore, I cannot find any source explicitly stating that the Kluger Agency deny the email was sent, or that AAA fabricated the story as a promotion. If you can point me to a (reliable) site stating this, I will gladly add the reference.

Thanks, fakelvis (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I FEEL I'VE DONE A NICE THING BY ALLOWING SOME OF THE CLEARLY FABRICATED INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE. WE INTERVIEWED THE AGENCY AND THOSE WERE THEIR WORDS EXACTLY. IF YOU'D LIKE A COPY OF THE INTERVIEW, I CAN ARRANGE FOR THAT TO BE EMAILED TO YOU. HOWEVER, THIS INFO WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED ONLINE UNTIL 11/15/08. 99.191.218.97 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page 'good practice' guidelines. Please take special note of the section discussing excessive markup, and even more so the part of that section asking editors to refrain from using all capitals: it is considered shouting and poor form.

As for the points raised: even if it were published online now it should be reworded: the final sentence—and especially the latter half of it—is in violation of the NPOV guidelines.

I have added the citation needed tag to the sentence. I will not reword it myself as my edits will undoubtedly not remain in place.

Thanks, fakelvis (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED INFORMATION:

—Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I've added links to this page directing readers to interesting articles written about product placement, big brands influence on new age music, and the kluger agencies position within these campaigns. This is strictly to inform and entertain the readers on the issue. Thanks 72.211.207.168 (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]