Talk:Marcus & Millichap

Lawsuit controversy section

I just submitted an edit that added a "Lawsuit controversy" section; unfortunately, I accidentally submitted in the middle of writing an edit description. It seems that, in this edit on February 5, anonymous user 70.170.89.200 deleted the section with no edit summary. The content seems well sourced and accurate, so I restored it.

There was also another set of edits by another IP user on March 11 that added a lot of promotional text (which I reverted). Anonymous editors: if you are associated with Marcus & Millichap, I'd advise you to read Wikipedia's guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this article from now on. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Several IP users have removed the Lawsuit controversy section again, all of them claiming it's "out of context". As it stands, the section seems to be reasonably balanced, including both sides of each issue and even incorporating a quote from Marcus & Millichap. It seems to me there is plenty of context. And that's besides the point -- if context is missing, that context should be added, rather than removing the section entirely (which is akin to pretending the incident never happened). -IagoQnsi (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw this on the Administrators Notice Board. I am not an admin but decided to have a quick look. I think the section could be improved but simply removing it without discussion was not good. I have renamed it as I don't like the word "controversy" in titles unless other sources are using that description already. The second lawsuit was thrown out so I'd recommend making that element a bit stronger in the description. Reporting allegations at moderate length only to quickly mention that they got thrown out is likely to be perceived as unfair even if that was not the intention. Also, it would be good to get a second WP:RS source on it. It is far harder to object to two independent sources than to one.

The stuff you removed as promotional looks like it could be puff lifted from another website but I have seen far worse spam than that. Unless it was copyright violation, in which case the whole lot has to go, I might have been inclined to trim it down to keep the solid facts and remove the "state-of-the-art" verbiage. Then again maybe not. I'm not saying you called it wrong, just that it isn't clear cut spamming. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I just checked it and the "state-of-the-art" verbiage was lifted from their own website, so you were 100% right to remove it. Spam and copyright violation often go hand in hand and, while spam can be subjective, copyright violation is an objective red line. So my tip is that whenever you see borderline spam to use Earwig's Copyvio Detector to check for copyright violations. It so often turns up exactly what you might suspect. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I question whether the content even belongs if we consider WP:DUE. These don't seem like lawsuits that were defining moments in the firm's history. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

One lawsuit filed by the firm and one filed against the firm. I've got no issue removing the lawsuit filed against them - the references all seem local and the charges dismissed. If we had coverage from WSJ, that might give it more weight, but as it is... The other one is tougher. Case was filed in DC, so coverage in regional. At it's face, this seems to be a common type of lawsuit when someone leaves a company. Yeah, they got smacked down by the judge, but that doesn't seem remarkable to me. I tweaked the phrasing on the first claim and in the process really started to question the section as well. Ravensfire (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please update CEO, Hessam Nadji's name. Right now it is spelled incorrectly, it should be "Hessam" instead of "Heesam".FHOM90 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Delete "In July 2012, a lawsuit filed by Marcus & Millichap in Washington, D.C. against Greysteel Co. LLC, a firm started by a former broker, Ari Firoozabadi, was thrown out, with the judge noting that the firm sought to cause economic harm and ruin their opponents. Marcus & Millichap settled the lawsuit and said they “regret” the lawsuit." S. Agree with Mendaliv and Ravensfire. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue considering WP:DUE. It was not a significant or national issue. It involved a dispute between the company and a former agent. It gives undue weight and unfairly mischaracterizes the company. Companies are frequently involved in litigation, but those cases do not appear on Wikipedia. Cases that have been allowed relate to national/international matters and/or made national news (see, e.g. litigation on McDonald's wiki page). Notice that not every case filed against McDonald's is cited. The quote above would be similar to an individual adding a slip/fall or a single employee's wrongful termination case to the McDonald's page. It would rightly be deleted. The posting also uses biased language and miscites the source, e.g. source states: "The parties have resolved all their differences and have executed mutual releases." I question motives and identity of the original author. Advertising litigation wins/losses is inappropriate. 98.173.152.140 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Question: When factoring in WP:DUE, we need to discover what M&M's position is with regards to how all press releases are treated. The article as it stands now is filled with press releases published in Business Wire, Bloomberg and others. What weight should a professionally drafted press release, such as the one given regarding Firoozabadi, have — especially in light of the others that are already used? Please advise. When ready to proceed, please change the ans=yes parameter to ans=no Spintendo      20:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not know what the company's stance is on all press releases. I am not affiliated with it, so I can't answer for it. Either way, its stance is not relevant to the current issue because it is not a battle of press releases on the same issue. The other statements on the page include factual, historical information that belongs in a encyclopedia - history of the company and its founders. This type of biographical information is non-controversial and not subject to dispute. It is what Wikipedia is for. Press releases are fine sources for that. The lawsuit description is entirely different and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I agreed with the points made by prior editors who alluded to the same conclusion. The lawsuit was a local, isolated issue. More importantly, it resulted in a mutual, private settlement. The fact that both parties ageed to settle and dismiss their claims against one another really makes it improper for an encyclopedia. There is nothing noteworthy. Parties agree to settle claims all time for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Wikipedia's rules make clear that issues of minimal or local significance and biased statements don't belong. Otherwise, any litigant can publish on an adversary's page regarding any number of unimportant or isolated issues, or use it to harm another's reputation. That is what sounds like is occurring here. That is not an encyclopedia, that is Yelp. The cited article is also arguably a poor source and not cited correctly. It is not the WSJ, NY Times, or Washington Post. It provides no analysis, but reads as a biased press release on what was clearly a disputed issue. We should delete it.98.173.152.140 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)|ans=no

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

Please remove:

In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]

This information is about George Marcus personally who owns and participates in other companies. This is not about the company Marcus & Millichap and is therefore not historically accurate. Cheri Gerson (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021 (2)

Marcus & Millichap expanded into Canada with the acquisition of McGill Commercial in 2018 and Form Real Estate Advisors in 2019 Cheri Gerson (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021 (3)

Remove Joint Venture Brokerage from. The firm doesn't do that work and this is inaccurate.

Marcus & Millichap, Inc. is a United States based company that provides real estate brokerage, joint venture brokerage, mortgage brokerage, research, and advisory services in the U.S. and Canada in the field of commercial property. It popularized the practice of listing properties exclusively with one brokerage firm. Cheri Gerson (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021 (4)

Please delete: "In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]"

This is about George Marcus in his other business and is avbout the Marcus & Millichap Company based in Palo Alto https://www.mmcrealestate.com/map-and-directions. Marcus & Millichap Inc which is the basis of this page is headquartered in Calabasas, CA. 108.185.190.15 (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Change/Remove "In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]" [is not correct and should be removed. It is about George Marcus' other company that is not affiliated with Marcus & Millichap.

Change "In 2013, it became a public company via an initial public offering.[3]" Instead it should say"In 2013, Marcus & Millichap (NYSE: MMI) became a public company trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker ‘MMI’.

Add: Marcus & Millichap expanded in Canada with the acquisition of McGill Commercial in 2018 and Form Real Estate Advisors in 2019 108.185.190.15 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

108.185.190.15 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC) Cheri Gerson

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

change: "Marcus & Millichap, Inc. is a United States based company that provides real estate brokerage, joint venture brokerage, mortgage brokerage, research, and advisory services in the U.S. and Canada in the field of commercial property. It popularized the practice of listing properties exclusively with one brokerage firm."

to: Marcus & Millichap, Inc. is a United States based company that provides real estate brokerage, mortgage brokerage, research, and advisory services in the U.S. and Canada in the field of commercial property. It popularized the practice of listing properties exclusively with one brokerage firm. 108.185.190.15 (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Please use the {{Request edit}} template next time. Not all editors want to handle COI edit requests but will handle Semi-Protected Edit Requests (SPERs). Request done since it is not promotional in nature. Sennecaster (What now?) 00:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

This content refers to a company owned by Mr. Marcus that is independent of Marcus & Millichap and is headquartered in Palo Alto. In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.

"George M. Marcus is a Greek-American billionaire real estate broker, the co-founder and chairman of Marcus & Millichap, and founder and chairman of Essex Property Trust. Wikipedia"

You have his info correct so please correct for Marcus & Millichap too. Essex Property Trust is not affiliated with Marcus & Millichap. 108.185.190.15 (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Cheri Gerson

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see anything incorrect in the article as it stands right now. "In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]" has 3 sources to back it up. If there's something incorrect, tell exactly what it is and what the needed correction is, per the edit request instructions. Also use {{edit protected}} since this isn't just a regular semi-protected request; editors should be aware of issues that could arise due to the conflict of interest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

From the NYT source - "Essex Property Trust Inc., another Merrill offering that began trading in June, has been widely faulted by analysts as a company with little to offer investors. The company, which is controlled by Marcus & Millichap". Wikipedia follows what the sources say. Ravensfire (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

remove the line: In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]

It is not true. Look at the Wiki page about Essex Property Trust. It is owned my George Marcus, not Marcus & Millichap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_Property_Trust Cheri Gerson (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

​The section right above on this talk page mentions that this is what the cited sources say. Do you have any sources indicating that this is incorrect? If so please re-activate this request by changing "anwered=yes" to "answered=no" in the template. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Delete: In the early 1990s, it put together Essex Property Trust, also controlled by George M. Marcus.[6][4][7]

This statement refers directly to George Marcus, not Marcus & Millichap which had/has nothing to do with Essex Property Trust. If you read the supporting articles 6,7, and 8 that someone posted with the comment, it says just that. This statement is incorrect and misleading. Cheri Gerson (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021 (2)

add:

Marcus & Millichap expanded in Canada with the acquisition of McGill Commercial in 2018 and Form Real Estate Advisors in 2019 Cheri Gerson (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Note: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References