Talk:Heenan Blaikie

Winding-up of Heenan Blaikie
As the article notes, "The firm voted on February 5, 2014 to start the orderly dissolution of the firm, the largest in Canadian history, surpassing the previous record set by Goodman and Carr in 2007." However, in my view, it's not correct to start off the article by saying that it "was" a full service firm. The firm still exists and will be serving clients while it is being wound up in due course.

--Aquarius Rising (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is only a matter of time before the winding-up process is complete. It may take years, or months, but the key idea is the inevitability. For that reason, I am also putting this article in the Category of Defunct law firms of Canada.

Fair use rationale for Image:Heenanblaikie.jpg
Image:Heenanblaikie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability Tag
None of the sources on this page address the subject in significant detail, so until they do the notability tag should remain. Mt king  (edits)  23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell me why a firm with over 500 lawyers, 10 locations, and two former Prime Ministers of Canada as partners is not notable? Agent 86 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * because notability has nothing to do with any of that, it is about significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG) the new cite you have added from www.lawyersweekly.ca does not do that. Mt  king  (edits)  08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the thoughtfullaw.com source does not confer notability as firstly is a blog and secondly is about Simon Chester and not the firm. Mt  king  (edits)  08:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree with your flawed reading of policy and guidelines. Each source I provided has established the facts asserted in the article and provide significant coverage about the firm. For example, it is completely disingenuous to say that the Belinsky interview of Chester is not about Heenan Blakie as well - especially a significant number of questions are about "the firm" and not "you" (Chester). Moreover, there are exceptions to the general prohibition against blogs (or any other self-published material). "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Bilinsky is a longstanding expert in his field and has been published in numerous magazines and periodicals. I am also completely perplexed by your assertion that The Lawyers Weekly is not an independent source. One can deny the reality of the well-documented facts all they want, but them's the facts. Agent 86 (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But the answers are written by the subject of the interview, there is no editorial over site or fact checking, remove the content provided by the partner and you have nothing. The discounting of the The Lawyers Weekly cite is todo with it's lack of significant coverage, there is one and only one mention to the firm in sentence More recently, it is in merger discussions with some of Canada’s top 10 firms, including Heenan Blaikie and Fraser Milner Casgrain, both of which have offices in energy-hub Calgary, according to The Lawyer in the U.K. which is not by any stretch significant; I would also say that coverage in trade press does not confer notability due to the close link between them and the beast that feeds them.  Mt  king  (edits)  09:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant" coverage does not mean the whole article/book/website/etc must be about the subject matter of the article. It also means that the topic of the article is reported/talked about/included/an important or integral part of the article/book/website/etc. For major "main stream" papers to include references and coverage of any firm is significant enough as it is. There is also no prohibition against trade papers or periodicals in policy; moreover, it's a pretty bold statement to assert, without proof, that any particular publication is biased. As for the Bilinsky article, it's like any interview by a publication. The answers are provided by the subject, but they're up to editing and the discretion of the interviewer, who is an independent third party providing the editorial oversight. All in all, the attempts to distinguish the facts is at best disingenuous or even an attempt to be wilfully blind. Agent 86 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also add that Thompson Reuters is hardly an organization that is not independent or is not neutral in its business reporting. Agent 86 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the refs are "significant" coverage of the firm IMO, if as you claim it is notable, there should be a whole lot of sources for you to quote about the history of this firm and it activities. Mt  king  (edits)  22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If I take your position to its logical conclusion and accept your assertions, you are saying that this company is not notable and there are insufficient reliable sources to merit an article about this firm. Based on those assertions, you should be nominating this for deletion. Now, I doubt that you truly take that position and I would be surprised if you actually thought an AfD nomination would succeed. Anyone can simply slap notability and refimprove tags on an article without even justifying them on the talk page without further prompting. It's another thing to try to answer the call of those tags and do the heavy lifting and actually work to improve the article by sourcing it and the facts therein. It seems you haven't even bothered to do something as simple as a google search, which refutes any wilfull blindness about the verifiability or notability of this firm. Rather than piling on, I've simply chosen a few representative sources. If Thompson Reuters, LexusNexus, and the CBC aren't sufficiently independent or significant for you, please let me know what is. Agent 86 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right I do not feel that it is notable, and believe that if it goes to AfD it could well end in being deleted. However I believe that in this case given the claims of importance, it is better to leave it tagged for notability for a wile in the hope other editors might come along and be able to quote sources I (or you) have been able to find. You are of cause free to nominate for deletion if you feel you want to. Mt  king  (edits)  02:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only do you seem to be misconstruing the tenents of the policies and guidelines, you have effectively demonstrated you have misconstrued what I just posted. My point was that it would be absurd to nominate the article for AfD, yet somehow you seem to believe I was urging the opposite. You have also failed to addres how three major independent publishers are somehow insignificant or not neutral, or how their coverage of this topic isn't significant. I am restoring the article to its formerly and properly referenced version. If you truly believe the article has no encylopedic value and is contrary to the five pillars, you are welcome to nominate it (so long as you're not just trying to prove a point). Otherwise, instead of merely slapping clean-up templates, please work to help improve the article. Agent 86 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your WP:EDITWAR tactics are such that any AfD I make now you WILL spin as a one to make a point which will distract from what the AfD should be about namely the lack of coverage (your last ref has the clear stench of copy lifted from a press release). I will leave it for now and will come back later and nominate the article if it's refs have not been improved. Mt  king  (edits)  22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The only one "editwarring" seems to be coming from you. Show me the press release I copied. You won't be able to, because I used valid reliable sources cited in the article. It seems that no amount of valid, independent, third party sources will satisfy you. Meanwhile, I will simply work to improve the article, something I am sorry you seem to not want to help me to do. Agent 86 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heenan Blaikie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810100129/http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201101178182/Inside-Story/Monday-January-17-2011 to http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201101178182/Inside-Story/Monday-January-17-2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104202835/http://lawtimesnews.com/201102288269/Headline-News/Largest-law-firms-in-Canada to http://lawtimesnews.com/201102288269/Headline-News/Largest-law-firms-in-Canada
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425230253/http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1448 to http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)