Talk:Milbank

old stale nonenyclopedic malpractice stuff

"the first lawyer in the United States found guilty of executing a false Bankruptcy Rule 2014 affidavit." why is nonsense like this worthy of any encyclopedia? it seems WP:WEIGHT WP:SOAP WP:no scandal mongering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.209.76 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

and notability. removed accordingly. Antisoapbox (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

also note that this section of the article originated with an edit from Knowsetfree who has repeatedly edited this and other articles to prominently highlight a few select news items from the many thousands about the subject of the article. Repeatedly other editors, with varying degrees of politeness and patience, have corrected this and pointed out to Knowsetfree that such edits violate WP:NPOV among others. The wiki policies applicable to Knowsetfree's edits are:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" WP:WEIGHT

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" WP:WEIGHT Antisoapbox

"Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_articles

"Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." WP:VALID

WP is not for "scandal-mongering" WP:NOTSCANDAL

WP is not to broadcast your personal soapbox WP:SOAP

WP content requires not mere facts, but facts with impact or historical significance WP:NOTGUIDE

WP is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS

"Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism." WP:NOTVAND

"Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews" WP:NOTNEWS

"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." WP:SOAP

"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic "WP:NTEMP

"Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed " WP:NPOV Antisoapbox (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Milbank.gif

Image:Milbank.gif 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement, COI

I tagged this article with {{advertisement}} and {{coi}} because it has been largely written by 194.74.227.194 (t c). Doing a whois lookup on this IP shows that it belongs to Milbank. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Prestigious?

"Milbank consistently ranks amongst the world's most prestigious and profitable law firms, with approximately 600 lawyers who provide financial and business legal services to financial, industrial and commercial enterprises, as well as governments, institutions and individuals."

Why has this been consistently deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.72.228 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a review and specific references for the advertisement/COI flag. I am affiliated with Milbank but as indicated earlier, we want to work with Wikipedia editors to help present a fair and impartial entry for the firm. We have provided facts and references. What else is needed to remove the tag? If the offending word is "prestigious" it should be noted that 1) Milbank ranked #4 among all law firms in Am Law's A-List for 2014; and 2) other peer firm entries that include terms like "elite" have not been flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.144.20 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

request edit

I'm affiliated with this firm's marketing/communications department. We would like to help improve this write-up (update information, fix language flagged as advertising, provide citations as requested where possible), and would like to know the best way to go about this, collaborating with Wikipedia editors as needed. We understand the need for transparency, objectivity and accuracy in this process and would appreciate your assistance.

Some suggested updates:

• Offices section -- outdated. Headcounts could be revisited and the firm's Sao Paulo office is fully operational.
• Practice areas -- many of these sections could be updated to include examples of recent notable deals and matters; some are flagged for citations which we could provide.
• Rankings and recognition -- this section includes information from 2007; we are prepared to provide updates. Notably, the firm placed 4th on The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 list for 2014.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.144.20 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to make minor corrections to spelling, numbers, names, and fixing obvious vandalism. You may also add citations to existing uncited statements.

For anything more substantial, propose your changes on this page as you tried to do, but be more specific about exactly what you want changed (that is, propose specific wording with citations). You will get more attention if you preface your proposal with the tag {{request edit}} so that your request will appear in a special category that other editors might monitor. Be patient, it may take weeks to get attention. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am a Milbank employee. We would like to update our London address information with the following text + a new photo. Thank you. "Milbank's London office opened in 1979 and today offers a range of services under both English and New York law. The firm is located at 100 Liverpool Street in the City of London, London's central business district. The building is among the top 1% of sustainable office buildings in the United Kingdom, according to the BRE Group, a building science and environmental certification body." [Source: https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/1440912/milbank-moves-into-new-london-office] AlbertG2021 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am a Milbank employee. We would like to change the photo for our London office (we have moved to a new address). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.184.101 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

request edit

Thank you for your earlier guidance re. updating the page. We have made some fact-based edits/updates: opening of 12th office in Seoul, change of NY HQ building name to 28 Liberty, deleted stale headcount numbers, updated Am Law and Vault rankings in Recognition section, adding citations.

{{request edit}} In addition, I would like to suggest that the other outdated awards in Rankings and Recognition be deleted/updated. This seems to be a "more substantial" edit better left to a Wiki editor, but you may find numerous updated citations here: http://www.milbank.com/about-us/awards.html

Controversy?

The Story They Don’t Want You to Hear About What Happened to Milbank Funding http://hlrecord.org/2016/02/hls-took-a-stand-for-palestine-programming-students-must-now-bear-the-cost-the-story-they-dont-want-you-to-hear-about-what-happened-to-milbank-funding/

move the page--LLP in the title?

according to the article (and reference i just added, plus others i read online) the company changed its name to Milbank LLP. should the page be moved to Milbank LLP? should LLP be included in the title if so, or should it be something like "Milbank (company) or "Milbank (law firm)?

im guessing the old name should be a page that should redirect to this too? Melodies1917 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Melodies1917:  Done, page moved, and the old name redirects to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)