Talk:Armstrong Teasdale

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am requesting an edit to Armstrong Teasdale's Wikipedia Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Teasdale).

Armstrong Teasdale is no longer a member of the China Alliance, which has disbanded. We also no longer have an office in Shanghai. Please remove the following section on the noted page.

Armstrong Teasdale established a presence in China in 1994 and was awarded a license to open a foreign law office in Shanghai in 2000 by the PRC Ministry of Justice. Armstrong Teasdale is also a member of the China Alliance, an arrangement with three leading independent law firms with practices in China's business and regulatory centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.40.130 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[My repsonse copied from the Help Desk, where the above request was originally posted] Hi! Please reword your request and put it on the article talk page, here: Talk:Armstrong Teasdale. Rather than remove a section, we would most likely put the end date of the alliance. Are you able to provide any independent, third-party sources WP:RS for this change? (I was not able to find any in a quick search.) Thank you. Orville1974 (talk) 10:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) reposted Orville1974 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@209.64.40.130: When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards, Spintendo 18:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits

My name is Monica and I work for Armstrong Teasdale. I would like to request removing the following sections from the page:

The "Notable lawyers" section, because it is a simple list of employees per WP:NOTDIR #7 (and because it is unsourced, outdated, and off-topic).
The "Pro Bono" section, because it is unsourced, except for a couple short blurbs in minor publications that are focused on individual employees.
The "Offices" section because it is a simple list of offices without context, per WP:NOTDIR #7.

I would like to propose some content additions/changes as well, but wanted to start with this. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance. Best regards. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monica, and thanks for following the WP guidelines for conflict of interest so closely. I see that you earlier tried to get the article deleted, but without success. I don't know why you would want the article deleted, but I agree with the standards cited by Bearian here; this firm clearly qualifies for an article here and cannot be deleted. I will take a look at your suggested edits and see what I can do. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actions so far: I removed the "offices" section. I removed one non-notable lawyer from the "notable lawyers" section and left the other two, because we commonly do list attorneys associated with the firm who have articles of their own (usually because they became judges or high government officials). I will remove the separate "pro bono" section but will evaluate whether to include those cases with the rest of the high-profile cases. I will also trim a LOT of puffery and fat out of the lead section. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the two pro-bono cases. I can't read the references because of a paywall, and I couldn't find any other reference to the cases except press releases or the attorney's own web page, which don't count as Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the lead section drastically. I have a question: the section about China is unreferenced, and a China office is not mentioned in the lead. Does the firm have an office in China? If so, can you provide a reference about it? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MelanieN:. The page is looking so much better thanks to you. To answer your question, Armstrong Teasdale did previously have an office in China. That office was closed several years ago, but no news stories exist about the office closing. Regarding the Notable lawyers section, can we add Bill Corrigan? I also want to propose some other content for the page if you have time to consider a couple more requests. Thanks, again. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to add Bill Corrigan, even though he does have an article here. An unsuccessful candidate for county office - not much of a claim to fame. What else ya got? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MelanieN:. Bill Corrigan is actually a judge for the court of appeals in St. Louis[1]. The Wikipedia page on him is outdated.

I'd like to request you take a look at the draft History and Cases sections I've shard here and consider either replacing the page's current content with them or otherwise incorporating the content. The proposed history section would replace the current section with one that is cited and incorporates recent events. The proposed cases section would be a more concise summary of the cases the firm has gotten media attention for, rather than citing every article where the firm is briefly mentioned or quoted in the context of a case.

Thanks so much for spending time collaborating with me. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance or if there is anything I can do to make it easier to review the proposed changes.

Best regards. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkriege14141: OK, thanks for your patience. Finally found a minute. Yes, I think your proposed rewrite is an improvement and much better sourced than the original, and I will put it in the article in place of what's there. I see that you omitted the "notable attorneys" section, was that intentional? I am OK with that also BTW; I don't think law firms necessarily need such a listing. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkriegel4141: Oops, mistyped your username. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MelanieN:. I only intended to address the “History” and “Cases” section, but now that you mention it, trimming the Notable Attorneys section is not a bad idea. It’s kind of a dangling section with only two names and doesn’t really seem that useful/necessary. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have inserted your text in place of the original text in the article. We need to talk about the infobox. The two versions show different headquarters, and I think we should keep the logo. Also, most law firm articles specify the number of attorneys, not just the number of employees. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MelanieN:. A few notes on the infobox:

David Braswell (not Michael Chivell) is now the chairman. [2]
Patrick Rasche (not David Braswell) is now the managing partner. [3]
Michael Chivell is now chairman emeritus. [4]
The citations are creating error messages
I suggest adding an "industry" parameter

I didn't intend to suggest removing the logo and the current infobox's employee information is accurate. Are the changes above ok? Mkriegel4141 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mkriegel4141, done. Thanks for including the references for verification. There is still a problem with the headquarters location. The lead sentence says St. Louis, the infobox says Clayton. We need to make that consistent. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @MelanieN:. Both should be St. Louis, as noted on our website location page [5]. Thank you. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]