Talk:Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Misconduct[edit]

Is there a reason why the Misconduct section keeps getting removed? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: WP:indiscriminate, WP:weight, WP:soap. Also out of date and not encyclopedia worthy Antisoapbox (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is bad, too. The entire article is a mess. THF (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable work[edit]

Is there a reason that the additional information to this section is being removed? It comes directly from pillsburylaw.com. Pillsbury Law Firm (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear other editor(s): can you please explain to us why the information we've added keeps on getting removed? It is factually correct, neutral, and simply adds more current information to the existing sections. The source of the information is the firm's website. You can email any of the PR people at Pillsbury to discuss further, if you wish. We'd love to get your point of view, and reasons for these deletions. Thanks very much. Pillsbury Law Firm (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving the above message. Is the article now accurately reflecting what you consider to be the facts about your firm? If not then can I suggest that you leave detailed on this talk page detailing what you believe should be done and hope that someone not in the PR business will pick it up and edit the article. You may find this article on Wikipedia guidance for public relations professionals helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual update[edit]

Updating number of attorneys. Org's website as reference. Btnummers (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and removal of 'advertising' banner[edit]

I have just done a quick cleanup pass on this article. In particular, I have removed the obvious wp:peacock phrases, reworked the history section to read better and reordered the sections to give a more reasonable balance between their work and the layoffs/misconduct sections. I have also removed the 'advertising' banner. If anyone thinks that it was premature to removed the banner, then please put it back and add a note to the talk page saying what is required. PeterEastern (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual update[edit]

Added citations in the notable works and awards section and removed the "citations needed" box. Added links to relevant Wikipedia pages. Updated notable works and awards with recent content. 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper removal of Layoffs and Misconduct[edit]

These two sections have been removed multiple times. They are well cited and belong in this article. Please refrain from editing these sections out. 24.254.141.241 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. 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://archive.is/20130117130207/http://www.bankruptcymisconduct.com/site/content/view/65/89/ to http://www.bankruptcymisconduct.com/site/content/view/65/89/

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) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McDougal[edit]

Why is there nothing here about McDougal related work? Some of their work exonerated Bill Clinton. I hope someone with some knowledge around this can add some things in here. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]