This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I work at Macfarlanes and would like to add some content to present a more balanced picture of the firm. The profile seems to concentrate on controversies and redundancies at the moment, which does look a bit one sided. Looking at the types of content other law firms include (Ashursts, SJ Berwin – although this feels a bit promotional for my liking and Allen & Overy), I was thinking of adding details of a few notable clients, perhaps any major awards (NB not everything only a few of the more interesting ones) and any reference to other interesting pieces of work it has been involved with. It goes without saying that everything will be appropriately referenced and would not read like a promotional brochure. It would be good to know what you think of this before I make any edits. thanks KempyK (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-10-21T13:14:00.000Z","author":"KempyK","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KempyK-2011-10-21T13:14:00.000Z-Suggested_changes","replies":["c-Rangoon11-2011-10-21T14:36:00.000Z-KempyK-2011-10-21T13:14:00.000Z"]}}-->

It's appreciated that you have been upfront in declaring your conflict of interest. I agree that the article needs work. Your proposed additions do sound highly promotional however. There has been a general move against content such as client lists and awards in WP law firm articles on the grounds that they are unencyclopedic and wholly promotional, and this sort of detail has been removed from many articles (it has even been felt that comprehensive lists of offices, where firms have a number, is unencyclopedic and promotional). There may be scope for adding details of where the firm acted on high profile transactions however, which is a way of referring to clients indirectly.

In my view the main weakness of this article at present is the pre-2000s part of the History section and that would be an ideal place for content additions by someone with a close connection to the firm.

In view of your COI it would be best if you posted any proposed edits/additions on this talk page for general discussion rather than editing the article directly. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-10-21T14:36:00.000Z","author":"Rangoon11","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rangoon11-2011-10-21T14:36:00.000Z-KempyK-2011-10-21T13:14:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I am unsure as to why the following properly cited content has been removed, in view of the sources prominently referring to the firm (one is actually titled 'Macfarlanes partner invented kidnap story to avoid drink-driving charge, court hears'), Bridgeman having been a partner (and therefore owner) of the firm at the time, Bridgeman having left the firm as a result, Bridgeman having been drinking with colleagues prior to the incident, and an employee of Macfarlanes also being involved in the police investigation.

"In December 2011, the British national newspapers the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror reported that Francis Bridgeman, a parter at Macfarlanes between August 2009 and December 2011, was being prosecuted for attempting to avoid a drink-driving charge by lying to police about have been kidnapped by an armed gang.^[1][2] It was reported that Bridgeman had crashed his car into a telegraph pole on 6 April 2010, and that, although Bridgeman had told police that he only drank one pint of beer in London, a colleague at Macfarlanes had later informed detectives that Bridgeman had another four pints during a three hour drinking session.^[1][2][3]" Rangoon11 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-17T14:23:00.000Z","author":"Rangoon11","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T14:23:00.000Z-Removal_of_irrelevant_information","replies":["c-Mtking-2011-12-17T21:30:00.000Z-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T14:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

I posted at your talk page with my reasons for removal (see here) there is nothing to even hint that this has incident has anything to do with this firm, it looks like it is nothing more than colleagues drinking after work, on the way home one is accused of hitting a power poll while DUI and fabricating a cover story. Did the firm ask him to DUI or to make up a story ? where is the Controversy here ? It has nothing to do with the firm.Mtking ^(edits) 21:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-17T21:30:00.000Z","author":"Mtking","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mtking-2011-12-17T21:30:00.000Z-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T14:23:00.000Z","replies":["c-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T21:43:00.000Z-Mtking-2011-12-17T21:30:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Mt"}}-->

1. Don't edit other editors talk page contributions, there is no reason why the content in question should not be on this page for other editors to see easily. 2. You have failed to address the points which I raised above. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-17T21:43:00.000Z","author":"Rangoon11","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T21:43:00.000Z-Mtking-2011-12-17T21:30:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mtking-2011-12-18T03:38:00.000Z-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T21:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

1. I did not edit any of your post, I simply but Collapse around a repeat of the irrelevant information making sure that I put a link in the reason to clearly show the original post. 2. I have addressed your issues with questions of my own; you have failed to show how this is a controversy involving the firm as opposed to an employee; He was driving a Range Rover, was educated at Oxford University he worked at Allen & Overy before Macfarlanes so if we follow your twisted logic we should add sections there as well ? unless it can be shown that the firm either knew of or in some way condoned his actions this is not appropriate content for this page. Mtking ^(edits) 03:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-12-18T03:38:00.000Z","author":"Mtking","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mtking-2011-12-18T03:38:00.000Z-Rangoon11-2011-12-17T21:43:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Mt"}}-->

Hi all I would like to make some changes to this wikipedia profile but before I do, want to make sure there are no major objections. I'm all for consistency wherever possible and having had a look at other law firm profiles on wikipedia (Herbert Smith, Travers Smith) would like to remove the references to work etc so that the history section provides a brief overview of the history of the firm and ends after the mention of Vanni Treves.

The way the profile is written at the moment, it is different to add up to date content without it appearing promotional. (I will not name and shame other law firms who have done just this!) I would rather the profile be concise and to the point and stating the basic facts about the firm.

Any objections or thoughts?

thanks KJK2000 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-10-10T15:20:00.000Z","author":"KJK2000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KJK2000-2012-10-10T15:20:00.000Z-Proposed_changes","replies":["c-Rangoon11-2012-10-11T00:44:00.000Z-KJK2000-2012-10-10T15:20:00.000Z"]}}-->

Hi, the Travers Smith and Herbert Smith articles are both pretty poor and not really a good model. However I do agree that the History section should not be filled up with lists of deals/matters that the firm has worked on, which are very large in number and the great many of which are not significant in the overall history of the firm. Some may be however, such as the Trafigura matter which attracted considerable controversy.

In my view the references to acting for Peter Lim in relation to an offer for Liverpool F.C. and advising private equity firm OpCapita LLP on its acquisition of the electrical retailer Comet Group from Kesa Electricals can both come out. I am neutral on advising Four Seasons Health Care on the restructuring of its £1.6 billion debt facilities, arguably this was of significance to the firm due to its size.

I'm not sure if I understand your proposal correctly but if you are suggesting the deletion of the whole of the History section other than the first line and a half then I can't agree to that. I can see a case for also removing reference to resignation of Eliza O’Toole however.

What the history section really needs is greater detail on the period 1875 to 1987. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-10-11T00:44:00.000Z","author":"Rangoon11","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rangoon11-2012-10-11T00:44:00.000Z-KJK2000-2012-10-10T15:20:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi, thanks - I agree re removing the references to Peter Lim and also Liza O'Toole and will remove. In terms of sourcing additional content, perhaps it is worth mentioning that in January of this year, Macfarlanes was joined by a team from D Harris & Co International Limited to boost its hedge fund practice. I wouldn't usually suggest including details of staff appointments, but as this was a "whole team" joining the firm, I think it is more relevant to the history of the firm. What do you think?

I've done some digging to see what I can uncover on the period 1875 - 1987. There is some interesting material re the firm's growth (in 1960 there was 90 people, in 1980 it had doubled in size) so perhaps it is worth highlighting the fact the firm as grown organically over the years and has never merged. There was also some interesting details about the history of the firm's offices (the offices in Watling Street sustained damage in wartime bombing and were pulled down as part of the re-development of the City, and a new office in Dowgate Hill was built for them). Not sure how appropriate this is however.

It would be good to get your thoughts and I will keep hunting for relevant material. thanks KJK2000 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-10-12T09:01:00.000Z","author":"KJK2000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KJK2000-2012-10-12T09:01:00.000Z-Proposed_changes","replies":["c-Rangoon11-2012-10-12T21:25:00.000Z-KJK2000-2012-10-12T09:01:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes agree with including the addition of the hedge fund team. All of the details on earlier history which you describe would in my view be appropriate for inclusion. Didn't this firm also have some offices outside the UK at some point? If so then some mention of when they were opened and closed would also be relevant.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-10-12T21:25:00.000Z","author":"Rangoon11","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rangoon11-2012-10-12T21:25:00.000Z-KJK2000-2012-10-12T09:01:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->