User talk:Charliepickny

Welcome!

Hello, Charliepickny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

February 2015
Hello, I'm WikiDan61. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have twice removed cited material, and now twice had that removal reverted. If you disagree with the material, if you fell that it presents an unfairly skewed view of the law firm, make a note of your concerns at the talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61,

I've been in conversation with C. Fred about this. Hi Fred, I'm a legal reporter and found something preposterous last night. I noticed that out of all the major law firms, only cleary gottlieb has skewed and unfair accusations on its wiki page, highlighting arguments by all of its critics. Why is this published on wikipedia? I urge you to please make a comparison between the Cleary page and that of other law firms. You will see that something has gone terribly wrong.

I checked Cleary's peer firms and they don't cover any controversies. Please review the following Wikies: Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, etc. NONE of these other firms have any sort of besmirching criticism or highlighting of critics the way the Cleary wiki does. The Cleary wiki is dominated by criticism and bad coverage, especially a long section on the Argentina case (if anything that should be its own page covering controversies regarding that case, but not a skewed expose on the Cleary website)


 * The coverage afforded other lawfirms isn't really the issue here. Wikipedia is a work in progress: if there is information about controversies that other firms have been involved in that isn't presented at those pages, it is only because no one has gotten around to writing that information yet. But concentrating on the case at hand, we have reliably sourced information indicating that CGSH has been involved in several controversial issues, so that material should be presented. I will agree with you that the amount of coverage given those issues may be undue, but the way to address that is to open a discussion at the appropriate talk page. Merely deleting the cited information looks like an attempt to whitewash the article, which neutrality cannot allow. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is relevant if you cannot show ONE peer law firm that has similar coverage. Doesn't that tell you that something is off here? In any case, even if you don't agree, then we clearly have to initiate a serious conversation about the undue coverage of the cricism.

There are specific falsehoods in the coverage that I can detail but I'll give you two examples: The statements about BNPP are not correct. The DOJ did not name Cleary, only two unnamed people did. The 9/11 pro bono section cites Jihadwatch, hardly a source we can trust. I can detail mistakes like this for hours. I think the best thing we can do is to make the Cleary page look like that of other law firms and, in addition, to remain neutral and to keep the controversial coverage, we can add the criticism in to specific articles about those issues. For example, if we want to keep controversial coverage over the Argentina case, then we should add that into an article on the Argentina case, not the Cleary main page. Similarly, we can add the BNPP controversial information to the BNPP website. Does that make sense?

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)