Talk:Fasken

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article IssuesEdit

  I removed the practice areas list, as it is unusual to have such a list in a Wikipedia article. This article was clearly written by a paid writer and needs a great deal more work.Montrealguy123 11 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Alumni ListEdit

  The list of alumni is incomplete. Please help improve it. Thank you! Montrealguy123 12 December 2018

NotabilityEdit

I believe the subject meets the notability criterion. Montrealguy123 12 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

COI editingEdit

This page is currently having significant issues with COI editors looking to remove maintenance tags without addressing the problems. Any more eyes on this is welcome. Isingness (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

More information here. Isingness (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced and problematic content, but it's still best to keep an eye on this to make sure no more similar material is added. Isingness (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Funny you should say that. I became independently suspicious of the new user Histnewbie, whose first action here was to puff up this article, and then went through articles about a dozen other law firms deleting material as improperly sourced.[1] You keep an eye on this article, and I'll take a look at their removals from other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC) P.S. Has the same kind of puffery here been done previously by other editors? Should we be thinking SPI? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Forgot to ping: @Isingness: -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN Thanks! In terms of the other accounts - by all the ones I listed in the template, yes, they added puffery in a similar manner. The attacking of other firms' entries seems to be new behaviour, but Histnewbie posted on my talk page here before pursuing edits about other firms, so they weren't surprising (the user's comment reads, at least to me, that they feel that Fasken is being treated unfairly in comparison to their competition). Isingness (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Filed. We'll see what happens. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly more historyEdit

The article is confusing; it lists several founding dates, 1863 and 1999-2000. This firm's ancestors do seem to go way back. According to the linked reference to Archeion in the article, "The firm began as Beatty and Chadwick in February 1863, and has evolved through various firm names over the years." I found this book source [2] which goes into quite a bit of detail about a preceding firm, Beatty Blackstock, which somehow came under the control of David and Alexander Fasken in 1915. At that time it was renamed Fasken Cowan Chadwick & Rose. It may not be possible to trace all the backstory but it might be worth mentioning since it is referenced. BTW I don't know why we have a picture of Alexander Fasken here; it seems to have been David Fasken who was the big dog. Anyhow, if someone wants to try to piece the story together there are some references. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN and Isingness, please note that I would be inclined to add history to this page, as that is very much a particular area of my interest, except that it appears that increasing the profile of this page may be the impetus behind so many subsequent, and on-going, destructive edits in the law field, now requiring many tedious examinations and reversals, since the chastised editor does not deem to do so themselves, it would appear (with notes on the editor's TALK page regarding are all, apparently, ignored),but, rather, continues chopping away; one is loathe to be a supporting puppet to the destruction. Lindenfall (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Histnewbie has commented at my talk page and suggested that they will try to do something about the history. I told them they should post their proposed addition here at the talk page rather than in the article, so we can evaluate it. I would say let's give them a day or two and see if they can contribute constructively.
As for their rampage through other law firm articles, I will take a look and see if I need to give them a warning. I notice they are sometimes using the edit summary "unsourced" while actually removing sourced material. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I'm inclined to extend-confirm-protect these law firm articles. Ironically those who work at law firms seem incapable of respecting the "laws" that the Wikipedia community has imposed. Whether that's through incompetence or ignorance or both, I cannot say, but I would expect better. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Be my guest. You can find a list of articles that may need it by looking at the contributions from Histnewbie and OhSweetNuthin. I see that one of Histnewbie’s hatchet jobs has already been undone by an admittedly COI user.[3] -- MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In the last few days, brand new SPA users re-added puffery to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and O'Melveny & Myers. I think you are right about law firm articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Did some reverts, EC-protected those, and this one. No objection if an EC editor reverts me. Actually I found Histnewbie's removals seemed justification. COI and SPA editors need to be using talk pages to propose substantive changes, not add swaths of material directly themselves. Law firms in particular should know better. If we have to enforce discipline on them, so be it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)