Talk:Cision

Merger proposal

I propose that Cision Inc. be merged into Cision. Confusingly, the two articles contain a hat note which indicate that the two entities should not be confused but I believe they are the same company. The first is older than the second; I have no strong opinions on which should be merged into which but I believe we generally do not include "INC." In the title which is why I proposed the order that I listed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I also propose that the following articles be merged into Cision: Metrica Vocus (software) Viralheat Andrew³²⁷ 17:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect from iContact

Why is there a redirect from "iContact" to this article? It's not even mentioned once in the text. --93.212.230.88 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120906194717/http://www.nwbmonline.com/content/newsm/news.asp?show=VIEW&a=454 to http://www.nwbmonline.com/content/newsm/news.asp?show=VIEW&a=454

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes to page [June 4, 2026]

Hello,

I am an employee at Cision and would like to request assistance from neutral editors in making a small number of updates to the article.

Given my connection to Cision, I want to ensure that any proposed changes are handled in line with Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. With that in mind, I have outlined two suggested updates below for editors’ consideration.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Extended content

---

1. Add Trajaan acquisition to the history section

Rationale:

I propose a short addition to the history section to reflect Cision’s acquisition of Trajaan.

Suggested addition:

In December 2025, Cision acquired Trajaan, a search intelligence platform.

---

2. Review Dow Jones litigation wording

Rationale:

I would like to ask editors to review the existing wording about the Dow Jones lawsuit:

In July 2024, Dow Jones & Co. filed a lawsuit against Cision for a breach of contract.

My understanding is that the lawsuit received limited independent coverage at the time, with coverage appearing to be largely limited to PRWeek. The subsequent resolution of the matter does not appear to have received wider independent coverage beyond announcements from Dow Jones and Cision.

Given this, I would be grateful for editors’ views on whether the lawsuit warrants continued inclusion in the article under Wikipedia’s due weight principles. I appreciate that this is ultimately a matter for independent editors to assess, particularly in light of the available sourcing and the relative weight this point should carry within the article.

If editors feel the lawsuit should remain in the article, would they consider adding a short update to reflect that the matter has since been resolved?

Suggested amendment if retained:

In July 2024, Dow Jones & Co. filed a lawsuit against Cision for breach of contract. The lawsuit was settled confidentially in September 2025.

References

Crane1901 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply 24-JUN-2026

  Edit request declined  

• Since this involves a lawsuit, we're going to need references from a reliable WP:SS rather than press releases from the parties involved in the lawsuit.

Regards,  Spintendo  04:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you for reviewing the request above.

Given the additional sourcing identified below, I have marked the COI request as unresolved again so that editors can consider the updated information.

On the litigation point, I understand your concern about relying on press releases from the parties involved. I have since found two additional sources which may be more suitable:

Source #1:

: "Dow Jones and Cision Settle Contract Dispute". Daily Research News Online. MrWeb. 30 September 2025. Retrieved 2 July 2026.

Source #2:

: "Dow Jones and Cision resolve ongoing litigation". Reuters. 12 September 2025. Retrieved 2 July 2026 – via MarketScreener.

If you consider these sources sufficient, would you be comfortable updating the existing litigation wording to reflect that the matter has since been resolved?

For example:

: In July 2024, Dow Jones & Co. filed a lawsuit against Cision for breach of contract. The litigation was resolved in September 2025, with the settlement terms remaining confidential.

Separately, I wanted to ask whether you would also be able to review the first part of the original request regarding Cision’s acquisition of Trajaan, as I do not think that point was addressed in your response.

Thank you again for your time.

Daily Research News Online no. 38867 - Dow Jones and Cision Settle Contract Dispute Crane1901 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer the link to Reuters, least of all because it likely would not be paywalled. Also, unless Trajaan is independently notable in Wikipedia, I would decline to add that piece of news. Regards,  Spintendo  08:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Spintendo.

On the litigation update, the MarketScreener article is a freely accessible syndicated copy of the Reuters report. I have not been able to locate an equivalent Reuters-hosted page, so this appears to be the most direct available version of the Reuters reporting. Would you be comfortable using it to update the wording to reflect that the litigation was resolved in September 2025?

On the Trajaan acquisition, I appreciate the concern regarding the company’s standalone notability. My interpretation of the relevant guidance was that this would not necessarily prevent the acquisition from being mentioned within the Cision article. In particular, I understood WP:NNC to mean that notability guidelines do not apply to individual pieces of content within an article, while WP:FAILORG suggests that information about a non-notable organisation may still be included in a relevant article where it is proportionate, non-promotional and supported by independent sources.

However, I may have interpreted the guidance too broadly. With that in mind, would you be open to reconsidering the proposed wording, or advising whether there is a different way the acquisition could be appropriately reflected in the article?

It would also be great to hear any other suggestions you may have that we could work on to improve the article.

Thank you again for taking the time to review this. Crane1901 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)