Talk:Mayer Brown

message: This entry apparently violates What Wikipedia is not Rule 18.  
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
Rule 18 states Wikipedia entries are not to be "A vehicle for advertising. Do not make an article on an item just because you work for a company that makes it, or you make it yourself. You can link to a page about a company if it is to show what companies are important in certain topics. See Wikipedia:articles on commercial enterprises."
This entry appears to have been written by Mayer Brown employees and copies major portions of the Mayer Brown website.  
This article does not mention significant negative public information, such as securities fraud litigation against the firm and the federal indictment of a partner.  
http://abajournal.com/news/refco_trustee_seeks_2_billion_from_mayer_brown_others/
http://abajournal.com/news/mayer_brown_partner_sued_and_charged_by_sec_in_refco_case
Wiki20067 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been "fixed"; advertising elements removed (the article is down to a stub in fact) but there are sources showing notability. -- Atamachat 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Notability seems established and the article could even stand a little more detail. Ronnotel (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Added a paragraph regarding Meyer Brown's role in Refco bankruptcy.
Tristes tigres (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entry apparently violates What Wikipedia is not Rule 18 

message: A well-sourced and notable factoid about Mayer Brown role in the ongoing campaing against LGBT rights in Russia was deleted without reason; I reverted the deletion. Tiphareth (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This factoid is present in Yelena Mizulina article, but it is directly related to Mayer Brown. Also, this article reads now as an advertisement, as if it was written by Mayer Brown employees. There are apparently many controversies surrounding this establishment, omitted from this article because they are not enough documented. The LGBT issue is, fortunately, well documented, and it is probably the single most notable bit of information related to Mayer Brown. Hence its removal can be understood as an act of censorship and whitewashing. Tiphareth (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayer Brown provided counsel for the plaintiffs in the case that overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban. They're not anti-LGBT. One of their partners is well-known for being the gay clerk to Supreme Court Justice Powell when he cast the deciding vote to uphold sodomy laws.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.51.108 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship? 

message: This section covers an alleged controversy related to alleged homophobic statements made by the son of Yelena Mizulina, a Russian politician, who happens to work for the company that is the subject of the article. Part of the controversy is that the firm is allegedly LGBT-friendly, yet employs this person who is allegedly LGBT-hostile and whose mother is at the forefront of anti-LGBT activity in Russia. This source in English (which might not be reliable to begin with) for example summarizes it as follows: Mr. Nikolay Mizulin made homophobic statements on his Facebook account that were quickly deleted after his employment with Mayer Brown was publicized. I understand that the LGBT issue in Russia is a delicate and serious one, but ultimately unless reliable sources can be produced that prove the company's involvement in this, the material should be kept off the article, because it implies that the company is somehow guilty by association because one of its 1,500 employees said something stupid. I will note that none of the sources in Russian that I was able to read via Google Translate seem to imply or place any blame in the company per se. Rather, the "controversy" seems to be with Alfred Koch attempting to attack Mizulina by claiming hypocrisy since her son lives and works in societies (Belgium and the UK) where LGBT people have much more freedom and security. For example, running this through Google shows a report on a series of rather snide Facebook posts and tweets about Mizulina and her son. All this is well and good, but ultimately it belongs in the Mizulina biography, not in the Mayer Brown article, which doesn't even operate in Russia. Proposal: Remove the "Controversy in Russia" section, merge whatever material is appropriate to the Yelena Mizulina article, as undue weight and offtopic. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment You seem to be making my point for me - that's precisely why we don't inflate "controversies" and put them where they don't belong. Infamy, like notability, is not supposed to be inherited. Wikipedia is not a platform for social change or commentary, and neither you nor Tipareth have managed to provide evidence that the company has been in any way, shape or form involved in all this, other than employing the woman's son. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: *Comment  I went through some of the sources provided. Most of them are attacks on the politician, using her son to shame her. They are completely irrelevant to Mayer Brown the company. Mayer Brown does not even operate in Russia, and has never (as far as I can tell) even commented on this supposed controversy. Keep in mind I don't read Russian, so my method consists of running the sources through Google Translate.  A link from the politician's bio to here mentioning the controversy would be OK I guess, my objection is to three paragraphs of material here that places the company in a negative light when they have (as far as I can tell so far) done nothing wrong. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment In fact I would point to the Yelena Mizulina article, where the controversy is stated as follows: In June 2013, the writer and former Russian Vice Prime MInister Alfred Koch published an article concerning Mizulina's son that lives in Belgium and works for a large international law firm Mayer Brown, that sponsors pro-gay associations and organizations and is among the hundreds on pro-LGBT rights organizations in Belgium, whilst his mother is waging war on homosexuality in Russia. In response to this, Mizulina accused Koch of being a member of a "pedophile lobby". It's fairly obvious that this has nothing to do with Mayer Brown, bombastic claims by Tipareth and his friends notwithstanding. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * If a former vice-PM takes uses his media platform to denounce a company, that is very much to do with the company. If it is reported in reliable secondary sources, then it belongs in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate?

message: *Support removal, as RFC originator. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment You seem to be making my point for me - that's precisely why we don't inflate "controversies" and put them where they don't belong. Infamy, like notability, is not supposed to be inherited. Wikipedia is not a platform for social change or commentary, and neither you nor Tipareth have managed to provide evidence that the company has been in any way, shape or form involved in all this, other than employing the woman's son. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Comment It should be disclosed that I was made aware of this via OTRS by an employee of the company, who complained that the material has nothing to do with the company. I agreed, and removed the paragraph, after which the above discussion ensued. I do not believe taking this to DRN would be productive given User:Tiphareth's position that this is is probably the most notable piece of information about Mayer Brown *ever*. There is *nothing* to discuss here.. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment  I went through some of the sources provided. Most of them are attacks on the politician, using her son to shame her. They are completely irrelevant to Mayer Brown the company. Mayer Brown does not even operate in Russia, and has never (as far as I can tell) even commented on this supposed controversy. Keep in mind I don't read Russian, so my method consists of running the sources through Google Translate.  A link from the politician's bio to here mentioning the controversy would be OK I guess, my objection is to three paragraphs of material here that places the company in a negative light when they have (as far as I can tell so far) done nothing wrong. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment In fact I would point to the Yelena Mizulina article, where the controversy is stated as follows: In June 2013, the writer and former Russian Vice Prime MInister Alfred Koch published an article concerning Mizulina's son that lives in Belgium and works for a large international law firm Mayer Brown, that sponsors pro-gay associations and organizations and is among the hundreds on pro-LGBT rights organizations in Belgium, whilst his mother is waging war on homosexuality in Russia. In response to this, Mizulina accused Koch of being a member of a "pedophile lobby". It's fairly obvious that this has nothing to do with Mayer Brown, bombastic claims by Tipareth and his friends notwithstanding. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * If a former vice-PM takes uses his media platform to denounce a company, that is very much to do with the company. If it is reported in reliable secondary sources, then it belongs in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Hi Gaijin42,
You removed the practice list and commented it was "unsourced brochure advertising." If I were to link it to the practice list on mayerbrown.com's website, would that be acceptable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvicker6 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make it somewhat sourced, but it would still be advertising. Wikipedia strongly prefers WP:INDEPENDENT  sources not maintain both WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:NOTABILITY of information. If there aren't such sources available for particular bits of info, that probably means its WP:NOT encyclopedic. Also, you should probably look into WP:COI since I have a suspicion that may be in play for you. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  question for Gaijin42 re. removal of "main areas of practice" list 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion