Talk:Lazard/Archives/2013

Change logo
A new logo is up for Lazard. I don't know how to change it, but it is here: http://www.lazard.com/images/logo.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.65.182 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes
I did a wholesale reversion of recent changes because they all seemed to rely upon company sources rather than independent reliable sources like newspapers and magazines. Perhaps I was wrong to do so, but when we use company or non-independent sources I think we should make it clear in the text exactly where the information comes from. If anybody wants to reinstate the recent changes, it might be wise to do so one at a time, or discuss them here first, so we can get a consensus that they actually add to the article in a neutral way rather than simply push the company's point of view. What do you think? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the person who made the changes, and for full disclosure: I work in corporate communications at Lazard. My motivation to re-do the entire entry was that the entry overall was a) extremely dated (it appeared to have been written shortly after former CEO Bruce Wasserstein died in 2009 and overstated his prominence in the 165-year history of the firm) and b) was a patchwork of random information that, in sum, gave the reader a warped sense of what Lazard does and what it is known for. I am a former journalist (20-year career), so I understand and agree we should be suspicious of corporate sourcing. Regarding this article, I will go back and attribute as much as I can to third party sources. However, I would suggest there is one company source that should not be automatically considered "puffery".  That is any SEC filing (such as a 10-K). An SEC filing is a legal document that must be signed by senior officers of the company, attesting to its veracity. They are legally liable for any misstatements, so SEC filings tend to be very, very  carefully vetted by legal counsel (internal and external). Every statement must be be able to be proven. Most companies' legal counsel will also strike out any exaggerations that might be seized upon by a potential disgruntled shareholder in the future--because they don't want such statements used against the company in a potential lawsuit. My opinion is that for basic information, such as listing the company's board of of directors, or stating the date that a person was named chief executive officer, or how many countries the company operates in, a simple reference to the SEC filing should be adequate. If the statement goes further and says "XYZ Co. is the biggest widget manufacturer in the world"....then a third party reference is probably in order.  Thanks, glad to hear any other opinions. Philipmaher (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)