Talk:Olswang

Untitled

Appears that this page is just publicity advertising done by a junior in PR department given a homework assignmnet. Perhaps could put even more biasness and spin into article, otherwise well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.94.20.181 (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Claims about Sir Fred Goodwin

I have removed this unsourced claim for two reasons, firstly none of the sources say that the secret injunction (if one exits) was obtained by this firm. If you read the transcript of what was said no reference was made to Olswang. The claim that they obtained the injunction is pure synthesis of the fact that Olswang are or have at some point been Sir Fred’s solicitors and Hemming's claim of existence of a injunction. Secondly in relation to this article it gives undue weight to one of their clients, it is not unreasonable to suspect that over the years a law firm would have obtained a number of injunctions, there is no indication why this (if they did obtain it, and it does exist) is worthy of encyclopedic note. It is unfortunate that Olswang tried to remove this themselves, however this does not change the above. Mtking (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on the undue weight point since this injunction is clearly highly notable and has received very considerable coverage, but on looking again I can accept that the source isn't quite explicit enough on the specific issue of Olswang's involvement, although it is very clear what is being implied and it is accepted that Olswang were Goodwin's solicitors at the time that the injunction was obtained.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "not unreasonable to suspect that over the years a law firm would have obtained a number of injunctions there is no indication why this is worthy" ... That logic doesn't hold water. Any super-superinjunction that becomes public domain is very noteworthy. While we may not be able to procure all information about everything, that doesn't make information that we can procure less noteworthy. With regard to "weight", the matter was discussed in Parliament - that is weighty enough for Wikipedia in normal cases. Furthermore, the Prime Minister himself has expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. The other issue (synthesis) is a naive example of editorial nit-picking. Geraldine Proudler (Olswang) represented Goodwin when his superinjunction was obainted. But, in the interests of peace, I'll have to let this lie.Halkyn (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand by the assertion that in relation to Olswang's involvement in this injunction is not worthy of encyclopedic note, I would also not call the exchange as detailed in Hansard a discussion. I think your comment calling synthesis "editorial nit-picking" shows how naive you are, the concept of No original research is one of the five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates, not nit-picking at all. Mtking (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"I stand by the assertion that .. this injunction is not worthy of encyclopedic note"; then you will have to ignore the comments of both Rangoon11 and Halkyn and accept the false work of Olswang themselves (unless you can give us proper justification). Halkyn (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"I would also not call the exchange as detailed in Hansard a discussion"; It is not the discussion which I claim is weighty, but the subject of it and the fact that it is made public domain in the House of Commons. It is not only noteworthy - it was a remarkable revelation, as you know very well yourself. Halkyn (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"the concept of No original research is one of the five fundamental principles"; Yes, if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C. But in this case, the reliable source says both A and B. There is no synthesis – the original source says Olswang does the legal work of Goodwin, and that Goodwin was granted a secret injunction in court. It is spelled out in big letters. However, I can see you will make a big stink about it if I persist, so I'll have to let this one go. Halkyn (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that is the case then post the source that says that it was Olswang that obtained the injunction. Mtking (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the nub of contention, isn't it? I've already posted the source that says that Olswang obtained the injunction. The source says two things – that Olswang is the solicitor of Goodwin, and that Goodwin obtained an injunction. From a logical point of view, it's like saying “Mtking objects to this section" and "This section is in wikipedia". I don't need a source to say that “Mtking reads wikipedia”, because you have to have read it, in order to object - this should be clear to you. If Olswang is the solicitor of Goodwin, and Goodwin obtained an injunction, then .... I think you know the rest of the story. Halkyn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: synthesis; synthesis requires combination of two or more sources, while I have given only one. You may be entitled to object on some grounds, but not the ones you have chosen. Halkyn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are being a bit of a Blakey here. Information is often bounded by what is not said about it. I gave an example above, about Mtking and Wikipedia. A fact can be conveyed by some explicit indication, or by some implicit omission. By talking of Olswang, the fact is made clear in this source that Olswang got the injunction. You can see a chink of light through this (maybe he represented himself; maybe he sacked Olswang; or got someone else to do the job; or maybe pigs might fly), so I won't push the matter any further. But it looks like Olswang got off easy. Cheers. 13:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk)

Notibility

I have taged this page for notability, as while looking for sources on this firm i was not able to find any that address the subject directly in detail in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (taken from WP:GNG), if none can be found then the article should be deleted. Mtking (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started the referencing work based on reliable legal sources such as The Lawyer and Chambers Partners. Shoreditch90 (User talk:Shoreditch90) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look at the sources used for some of the UK law firms that are widely recognised as amongst the top 40 (ranked per revenue) - and are not tagged for notability. The great majority of these sources are either from The Lawyer, Legal Week and the firms' own websites and, very rarely, newspapers. Therefore, I wonder whether The Lawyer and Legal Week should or not be considered as a reliable source in this case. Also, would the fact that Olswang has been mentioned in relation to the News International phone-hacking case, in mainstream newspapers across the world, not bolster the notability sources? Shoreditch90 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Lawyer and Legal Week are perfectly acceptable sources. Without doubt Olswang does have sufficient notability under WP policy, and for me this is probably already demonstrated by the citations in the article, but the article is in need of considerable work and the tag probably does no harm for now in pushing that along and encouraging the addition of more citations. The COI tag is still appropriate in my view. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I should add that in my view the priority for this article should be expansion of the History section, which is woeful.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. As for the History section, it is woeful indeed. I will endeavour to find some sources...Shoreditch90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

• I disagree - Rangoon11 is correct The Lawyer and Legal Week are acceptable sources, but Rangoon11 is wrong in saying "Olswang does have sufficient notability under WP policy" as they are not good for indicating notability as none of the sources addresses the subject significantly and in detail so fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG, and being "mentioned in relation to the News International phone-hacking case" does not confer notability. Mtking ^(edits) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is that there are many articles on Olswang in The Lawyer and Legal Week in addition to those already cited in this article. Those articles more than demonstrate the notability of Olswang according to WP policy - the most useful and comprehensive ones are not at present being cited in the article though. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the notability issue tag because I red the whole article and talk page, checked the history, unique authors, statistics and WP:ORG. I concluded that the article meets the bare minimum requirements for notability (Although not more) and should not be deleted; Because I found more than trivial and routine coverage (Although not deep and focused) by "The Lawyer", "Legal Week", "Chambers and Partners", "corporate livewire", "Legal500" etc. I did check their reliability and found them to have the minimal reliability expected for a wikipedia article, (Although not more). I suggest updating the references, as they are currently not enough to verify the notability and newer references, esp. from 2015 must be added. — Saeed (Talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Awards section

Since none of the "awards" listed have their own WP articles and there is evidence that Olswang's have been editing the section I have removed it. Happy to see any notable awards re-listed, but this is not the place for self promotion. Mtking (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Offices Section

This is riddled with "Peacock" terms (" to complement the competition team in its London office", "and quickly grew to nine partners and 28 lawyers") and IMO adds nothing to the article, proposing to remove the section. Mtking (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of founders and notability

Hello,

While I am not going to edit this page as I am from the Olswang PR team, it has been brought to my attention that an anonymous user added a new founder name a few months ago - Hassan Abbas - which is incorrect information. This person/name has no connection with Olswang and you might want to refer to our website to cross-check this information: http://www.olswang.com/who-we-are/history/.

I am conscious some of the comments below refer to a previous team's 'bias and spin' and raises doubts on notability so feel free to delete the page or ignore the above comment, but I thought it was worth flagging up in any case.

The page is not up to date either (e.g. the CEO name is out of date) so if you decide to update the page, I have listed below some possible external sources which are widely considered as independent in the legal market (and which have been used as sources in articles about other UK/international law firms and on the Olswang page): The Lawyer, Legal Week, Legal Business, The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsroomO15 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again,

Re name of founders - No steps have been taken to remove the spurious reference to Hassan Abbas in the founders list which I flagged up in the above post. In the spirit of being open, I would like to flag up that I am about to remove this reference as a. I flagged the issue three and a half month ago but no other independent user has picked up on it; b. this is a spurious reference and I hereby reference two sources that will enable you to verify that it is: (http://www.olswang.com/who-we-are/history/ and http://www.legal500.com/firms/3064-olswang-llp/offices/3698-london-england/profile); c. members of the public (including clients) have flagged this issue and this has generated confusion - as Wikipedia is obviously seen as a reliable source of information. User:NewsroomO15 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2015 (BST) NewsroomO15 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)NewsroomO15

Out-of-date information, including offices list

Hello,

Again, as members of the firm's PR team, we won't be editing the page ourselves but would like to flag up information that is currently out-of-date.

1. The firm no longer has an office in Berlin as at 1 October 2015. This information can be verified at the following external sources: http://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/4305-13-partners-to-go-in-germany-as-olswang-announces-decoupling-of-berlin-arm, http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/2413803/thirteen-partners-exit-olswang-in-germany
2. The firm now counts 7 offices, not 8 (as a result of the above).
3. The firm has almost 700 staff and 100 partners internationally.
4. The Chairman of our Board is Dirk Van Liedekerke, no longer David Zeffman. Please see our website: http://www.olswang.com/who-we-are/corporate-governance/our-board/
5. The firm elected a new CEO in 2015: Paul Stevens. This information can be verified at the following external sources: http://www.olswang.com/news/2015/05/olswang-announces-new-ceo/, http://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/4142-replacing-stewart-olswang-picks-new-chief-executive, http://www.thelawyer.com/olswang-elects-ip-head-stevens-as-new-ceo/3035147.article — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsroomO15 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Making corrections to factual errors while citing reliable sources is acceptable for you to do, as long as you maintain a neutral tone and avoid making more substantial edits. What you suggest above seems reasonable. Please make the change and reply to me on this page, prefacing your reply with the tag {{ping|Amatulic}}, which will alert me. I'm happy to review your changes and make any copyedits necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: Many thanks for your help. I have now made the amends as per your response. Hopefully they are in keeping with your advice, but please amend further if necessary. Many thanks ~ NewsroomO15 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Newsroom015: your corrections look fine to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Olswang. 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/20110925183153/http://www.thelawyer.com/directory/uk-200-table-top-100 to http://www.thelawyer.com/directory/uk-200-table-top-100/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)