Talk:Knight Frank

Conflict of Interest issues

There seems to be a knight frank contracted "SEO specialist" (Gareth "_macmoo" (don't fret, I'm mindful of not "outing" you)) watching this article like a hawk.

It's a pity he doesn't also realise management at that company will be as quick as rat up an aqueduct making him redundant when as they hanker for another huge bonus this year. 121.44.71.54 (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Naughty Boy

You seem to have a very big axe to grind with this company and this editor. Your approach has been rude and hostile, and you're quickly obtaining a reputation for editing in bad faith. I've replaced the transclusion of the WP:COI page at the editor's talk page with a more appropriate notice. I suggest you either refrain from making any more edits or I may have to take this to WP:ANI for:

• personal attacks
• vandalism
• synthesis of published material that advances a position

I haven't checked this article for COI edits yet, but when I do it will be done in a more civil manner. Thanks for your cooperation. --Drm310 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit proposals 09/07/26

Hello,

I have a declared conflict of interest, as I work with Knight Frank. I am therefore not making any edits directly, but would like to ask whether independent editors would be willing to review and consider the proposed changes below.

I noticed that the article currently includes a conflict of interest tag.

With that in mind, I wanted to raise these suggestions transparently on the Talk page for editors to review. My aim is to suggest factual updates that may improve the accuracy and usefulness of the article for readers.

Extended content

1. Updating the figures in the lead

The current lead states:

“Knight Frank's global network has more than 488 offices across 57 territories and more than 20,000 people managing commercial, agricultural and residential real estate worth more than US$817 billion (£498 billion).”

I suggest updating this to:

Knight Frank's global network has more than 600 offices across 50 markets and more than 20,000 people managing commercial, agricultural and residential real estate.

This would update the office and market figures based on a more recent source.

I have also suggested removing the reference to “commercial, agricultural and residential real estate worth more than US$817 billion (£498 billion)”. My understanding is that figures of this kind may be difficult to keep current over time, so I wanted to check whether editors would be comfortable removing this from the lead unless a more recent reliable source is available.

2. Considering a short description of the firm’s operations

I also wanted to ask whether editors would consider it helpful to include a short, factual description of Knight Frank’s operations, to give readers a clearer summary of the firm’s activities.

One possible wording could be:

Knight Frank is a property consultancy partnership advising on residential and commercial real estate globally. Its services include property transactions, valuation, capital markets and advisory work across international markets.

I appreciate that editors may prefer different wording, placement or sourcing, particularly given that some of the supporting sources are from Knight Frank itself. I would be grateful for any feedback on whether a brief operational description would be appropriate for the article.

References

Thank you for your time and consideration. Sable57 (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Reply 23-JUL-2026

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  19:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the request and updating the figures in the lead section.

I also wanted to briefly follow up on the second part of the proposal, concerning the possible addition of a short description of Knight Frank’s operations. I appreciate that editors may have reservations about the wording or sourcing, particularly where company sources are involved, but I was not sure whether this part of the request had been considered.

I would be grateful for any feedback on whether a brief operational description would be appropriate, or whether alternative wording or sourcing would be preferable.

Thank you again for your time and assistance. Sable57 (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)