Talk:Big Six (law firms)

message: Someone suggested in the AFD (linked in the box above) to rename this page to Big Six Australian law firms.  I endorse this idea, but I would prefer that others make the decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this.  Potential to cause confusion elsewhere.  They're only the big six in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the term, so it should be named exactly as the term is used. To put the title in context, a better idea could be Big Six law firms (Australia). --Damiens.rf 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Damiens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I have amended the previous claims that King & Wood Mallesons and Ashurst Australia are "big 6" law firms. This claim is not supproted by any of the cited sources, since all the sources date from before 2012.
I think it would be reasonable to argue that K&WM and Ashurst have "inherited" the "big 6" status if MSJ had simply become K&WM, or Blake Dawson had simply become Ashurst Australia. The reality is more nuanced - the new K&WM is fully merged in Hong Kong and in China. Only K&WM Australia and UK are in any sense derived directly from the old MSJ -- but even then that is only part of the old MSJ, the other parts having merged into / with King & Wood. Likewise, Blake Dawson in Asia has fully merged into Ashurst, so Ashurst Australia consists only of the Australian part of Blake Dawson.
Are MSJ and Blake Dawson, shorn of their Asian practices, still "big 6"? Perhaps, but until reliable sources come out to support that contention, such claims should be left out of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallesons and Blake Dawson post merger 

message: Upon reflection, I believe this Big Six article really needs to stay as an overview of the historical situation. An encyclopaedia is not a business directory, or a Fin Rev-style publication. (If WP had been around at the time, it would not have deleted everything in its Soviet Union article in order to transform it into the Russian Federation article: Editors would change the tenses in the wording and include links to an entirely new article! That is what needs to happen here.) 
Suggest AustralianLawMan's text (below) be foundation for a separate article on the current legal scene, with a title something like Top-tier law firms.  49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose separate article for Top-tier law firms (Australia)

message: The Fin Review source cited for this claim:  says, in part, this [emphasis added]:
::The second claim from our WP article of the demise of Big 6: "" is supported by the same Fin Review item and another from Beaton Consulting. The Beaton's source says, indeed, "the Big 6 moniker no long fits for this strategic group and the competitive dynamics of the market" and headlines itself as an "obituary" for the term. Nowhere does it state "top tier" will be the replacement. Instead it says:
:# Going by the sources used at present, it is not verifiable that: a) Big six is not current; or b) top tier is an industry-wide accepted replacement term
:# This WP article is about the term big six, whether current or historical, and there is no justification for including more than a passing mention of any successor term.  would belong in an article specific to that term, if it's considered notable enough to warrant one.
::For those reasons, I made an adjustment to the lead, removing mention of the "top tier" firms to a footnote. On a separate but related note, the section headings are not in WP style, which should not be duplicative of the article title per MOS:NOBACKREF, as was "Big Six firms". Similarly, the section "Developments since 2012" belongs in another article, as does "Top tier law firms" section.
:: This article has been morphing into something it is not meant to be; it is suffering from sourcing which does not really support what the inserting editor intends it to support. I notice that pretty much this same argument has been ongoing for some time, but the inserter/s of the top tier information are not taking the other expressed views on board. I hope that will change and that consensus can be reached. In the meantime, I intend to make further changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifics of source content to support "top tier"

message: Is the detail of the use of the term "top tier" in scope here, in an article about the term Big Six? Specifically, is top tier usage as a preeminent term for leading law firms, verifiable? If so, does detail re "top-tier" firms belong in  article?
Should the article say that top tier is the industry-wide accepted term for leading law firms, on a par with the way the Big Six? has been used in Australia? If so, is detail of "top-tier" firms within the scope of the article? 
* Diff showing different approaches. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply, NickCT. You may be right about this article being outdated. The term itself is, or at least is becoming so. And that is the main driver for user ChilledIntentions' wish to include the replacement terminology instead. But I, and a few other editors, see new terms as still developing, with no RS stating CI's preferred replacement term ("top tier") as an industry-wide accepted terminology, or in as near-universal use, as Big Six once was. ChilledIntentions believes the sources do show that, though. Even if there were solid sourcing, the term should have its own new, separate article, if notable enough, not overwrite the historical usage, in my view. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts here are basically encapsulated by WP:NOTNEO. New terms may exist, but whether they deserve articles seems highly questionable. Whether this term (i.e. "Big Six") ever deserved an article to begin with, also seems questionable. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Is the term "top tier" law firms [[WP:V|verifiable]] and in scope here?

message: It is not best practice to revise a page by simply undoing all changes. In restoring your preferred version, you did not solely reinsert disputed content. In addition, you undid format and layout changes that were in WP-style (see WP:MOS) and many reference improvements. You deleted maintenance tags, which WP-user guidelines require are removed only when the issues are addressed or  reasoning is given for removing them. 
If you do not understand the problems editors have raised at:  and earlier posts:  regarding what sources seem not to support, then please ask for clarification. Please don't just ignore the discussions as if no-one has mentioned anything, and then repeat the same justification in each edit summary. WP is a collaborative project. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanket reversions and disputed claims

message: There is already extensive discussion above about article edits and getting back to earlier versions. Relevant arguments are in several sections of this talk page, some listed here for easy reference:
*
*
*
**
*
*
Changes made today are in line with my previous discussion. The editor  who has reverted all of my earlier attempts to keep the Big Six article about, well, the "Big Six", has not responded to any of the earlier posts. This is discouraging. I live in hope that, should they return to edit, they will do me the courtesy of directly and specifically addressing my careful reasoning, rather than reverting and using the well-worn and invalid variations on a theme, such as (edit summaries, with diffs, by  from most recent to least):
# I have reverted the page. I am very concerned with your changes. Please refer to the sources
# @aukusruckus, not sure why this page continues to be heavily edited, removing information that finds considerable support from authoritative and independent sources. Please see the various sources cited supporting the information in this version. Page is being watched for future edits.
# WP: REVERTED. Previous edit inconsistent with the numerous independent and recent citations of this version. The sources cited herein are from leading Australian newspapers and industry sources. The previous edit seems to have removed them for some inexplicable reason, preferring to rely on outdated sources which are not relevant or even accurate in recent time. Watching this page. (No sources were in fact removed, so uncertain what is meant here ... unless, as some pars were moved around, it was just an assumption?)
# No edit summary
## This null ES edit reverted three of my edits, which, I thought, had given explicit and detailed reasons: 
# WP: REVERTED. Subsequent edits inconsistent with the numerous independent and recent citations of this version. (reverting another user)
# Unsure why previous edit referred to this as subject to debate. Included another citation from legal newspaper of Australia (now overall several citations) that support the view as conclusive. (reverting a third, earlier editor)
# various changes that continued in substance and tenor that of previous editor, also challenged, user:AustralianLegalRankings
* To similar effect as more recent ChilledIntentons edits, user AustralianLegalRankings reverting, 
* ... then there's yet earlier edit warring by user:AustralianLawMan, to much the same effect (i.e. detail of top tier without connecting it to Big Six–so out of scope– and unsourced claims that it is the current term du jour that displaces the title of this article).
What none of the reverters have ever addressed or seemed to understand is that appending sources which mention "top tier", however reputable and reliable the source and no matter the number of them, is not the same thing as having a  source explicity saying "Top tier is what is used now in the legal industry". Without this, you're simply asserting, unsourced, that Big Six is not used and top tier has taken its place. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of June 2023

message: User  reverted the article to the exact version preferred by user:ChilledIntentions, who edit-warred that version into the article in March 2023. (Added: There had been 18 intervening edits by nine distinct users between Chilled and Diogenhty's edit: including new content about the history of the term, reference formatting improvements, maintenance tags, etc. All such interim edits were overridden by Diogenhty's restoration of March version.)
Diogenhty returned ChilledIntentions' claims of Big Six usage as being, baldly, "prior to 2012" and the industry now being "characterised by the concept of top tier". Sources simply to do not support either of these claims—there is, indeed, evidence to the contrary—but despite the ongoing opposition here at the talk page, Diogenhty, soon after registering their account, reinstated ChilledIntentions' version; the next day, they also reverted my restoration, without any discussion.
I would like to hear directly from Diogenhty, before they make any further reversions. We should try to reach some consensus.
(Similar discussions are in order at other law firm pages, where they are also removing material, and then reverting editors who reverted them, without commenting or leaving edit summaries: for example, at Ashurst Australia, where Diogenhty also reverted another editor, @.) Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2023: Reversion to March 2023 version by [[User talk:ChilledIntentions|ChilledIntentions]]

message: :Despite the fact that I am, for the most part, talking to myself here, I will just make a note for any future editors, following the blocking of  and  as socks of  (as  had been previously): 
:These socks are the only editors who have, over two or more years, ever advocated for the creeping replacement of the term Big Six with "Top tier". This article is a little-frequented backwater, but nevertheless, several editors have voiced opposition, or at least misgivings, about AustralianLawMan's and their socks' determined efforts to insert an undue replacement term. Their modus operandi is to leave the ES blank (or merely state variations of "please look at the multiple sources"), while reverting other editors' restorations, often undoing new work by others. They rarely post on talk pages, doing so only when (maybe, what they perceive as) someone with authority issues them a warning; even then, their posts are not responsive to any substantive issues raised.
:I have struck their posts on this talk page, few as they are, to make it obvious that the source of "top tier"-insertion campaign is one person, a block-evading, socking, SPA editor. (Some sections, which include gf posts from others, are hatted, mainly for streamlining). 
:I expect, if they follow their established pattern, they will bide their time for a few months and be back to make the same poorly-sourced, improper-synthesis edits, against consensus. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppeteering for ''top tier''