Talk:Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Sources needed

The article needs in-line sources, and, I should say, it partially reads like an advertisement. Please help improve the article! Thanks. --Edcolins 08:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've refreshed and reformatted the article, including removal of as much of the repetitious, advertorial content as I can. Still needs sources! Carbonix 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still reads more like a promotional PR piece than like an encyclopedia article. It focuses on parading awards etc. instead of describing what the firm actually is and does. (One also wonders if besides all this enthusiastic praise heaped upon them, the company was ever subject to criticism?)

Another example: The only client mentioned are the "London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games", and this is presumably because, as the "official provider" language indicates, it is a sponsorship for marketing purposes (just like Coca-Cola likes to publish the fact that it is the official provider of beverages to the games). Surely there are other more important (but maybe less popular) clients?

Some examples for advertising language: "leader", "powerhouse", "superlative" (see also WP:PEACOCK).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that mention of the Olympics - now a rather outdated bit of promotion. I've also removed some of the material introduced by Wptraineem, an account now blocked as a sock of Jfmisha. One account was used to denigrate Clifford Chance, the other to promote this firm - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jfmisha/Archive. We were left with an article whose history section relied heavily on the company web-page and material copied from it to a blog (neither a reliable source for our purposes), dwelt at extraordinary length on nineteenth-century clients and their titles and positions, mentioned the Bank of England three times in three consecutive sentences and otherwise indulged in puffery and WP:PEACOCK terms, set every sentence in a new paragraph and was altogether so blatantly promotional that it would have embarassed Freshfields themselves. And that's just one section - there's more to do.

Re sourcing, the history section is still heavily reliant on a book published by Freshfield, which can't be counted a reliable source for our purposes. NebY (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour is quite frankly ridiculous. I find it extraordinary that you think that you are better judged to adjudicate on what constitutes relevant material and that you are apparently better qualified to judge what is relevant that a historian who wrote a book about the firm in question. The history section of-course talks about the 19th century origins of the firm - what else would one expect? The material about the firms work for the 2012 Olympics is clearly relevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.63.168 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being repeatedly targeted by a number of users. They seem to remove or try to gut relevant information. Can this page be protected?

Overuse of PEACOCK words have been removed plus I've cut down paragraphs and clearly indicated that the historical information is not current and relations to the early history of the firm by adding the sub-paragraph. Hopefully this helps cut down the repeated removal of this information.

Regards,

Jackboston (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackboston (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The content that the IP keeps adding is being "targeted by an number of users" as it is not in accordance with our content policies. Wikipedia is not a vessel for promotion and neither is it a directory of a companies offices. That other stuff exists is considered a poor rationale to keep content in an article. Dolescum (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable promotional material in lead

@User:90.197.164.93 This is unsuitable for the article. If it was substantially rewritten, it is possible that some of the content could be added to the article, although not in the lead section in any case. zzz (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove some of the hyperbolic wording and put some of the content in the main article. Some of the information you've deleted is very standard stuff and is sourced. Hopefully you'll find my edit ok.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.164.93 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims not wanted?

Austrian journalist and publisher Wolfgang Fellner emphasized several times in his TV program that the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer would not employ Muslims. Source:

"Fellner! Live: Dominik Nepp zu Türkis-Grün” from January 8, 2020 from minute 8:50 (quote “… [Zadic] is without faith, because she worked at Freshfields law firm, where you can't be a Muslim, at least since then she no longer practices any religion. ") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z_u5vu0NTc (also on OE24.at)

as well as

"Fellner! Live: Die Insider Cap & Westenthaler” from January 8, 2020 from minute 38 (quote“… [Zadic] could never have worked as a Muslim at Freshfields…. absolutely impossible! ”) https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXPpzk_PSSs (also on OE24.at)

Is that so?

If so, public should get informed on an allegedly discrimination of Muslims by Freshfileds Bruckhaus Deringer.

If not - should Freshfileds Bruckhaus Deringer have a word with Mr. Fellner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.18.130 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to verify the videos since they are not in English or another other languages that I am familiar with. Any other sources to point to this alleged discrimination? robertsky (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not. This is a unique issue. But it's not to be ignored for Mrs. Zadic is the Austrian Minister of Justice! I put it online also on the German version, nothing happened. I'm a native speaker and I can swear that the translation is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.18.130 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robertsky: I did add the correct minute of the quotes. The language is correct German. It is not so much of a business to find someone who would translate two sentences. Will you either verify the allegations with Freshfields - or how do you treat serious accusations? I think the issue needs to be cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.18.130 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as it looks as if you're ducking away I will inform FBD directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.18.130 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to insert the content as you wish, provided that the content meets the editing policy here. I am simply watching the page for vandalism edits. robertsky (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]