Talk:Camille Vasquez/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2022/05/25/camille-vasquez-johnny-depp-lawyer-inspiring-latina-fans/9916396002/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Brown Rudnick
An attorney's firm is most often listed. It's a fact. It should not have been removed if properly sourced. Furthermore I promise when it is allowed to be reposted to use a more serious source than the previous ones, with due consideration that under this back and forth one doesn't even have two minutes.Strattonsmith (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not everything that is fact, or even verifiable, must be included in Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not everything" is one of our core principles. We use dueness as as measure for inclusion, for example. We make content decisions on an article-by-article basis, which means we generally do not compare information between articles to justify inclusion. In my opinion, the name of the law firm is a trivial factoid; the law firm itself is non-notable, naming it in prose serves no purpose at this point in time unless one has a vested interest in promoting it. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her place of employment is highly relevant. Its abundantly sourced and figures prominently in most profiles of her. I came to the article because I was curious about it and noticed it was missing. What, exactly, is the basis for your concern here? If her place of employment is excluded by "not everything" then nothing belongs in the entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really know how to respond to the last part. I guess we disagree on relevance. What seems more relevant to me is where she practices out of, not the name of the law firm. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The location of her offices is far less relevant. Attorneys switch offices quite frequently and can work out of multiple offices within a single firm. The name of the firm is of far greater significance as many firms have reputations and specializations. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where a lawyer practices out of is actually very relevant because attorneys pass something called a state bar, which permits them to practice, generally, only in the state they pass it in. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Many attorneys are admitted to the bar in multiple jurisdictions. Nor are they restricted to practicing exclusively in locations they are admitted to the bar if they submit pro hac vice, which was the case in the Depp trial. You might add where she is admitted to the bar in the entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where a lawyer practices out of is actually very relevant because attorneys pass something called a state bar, which permits them to practice, generally, only in the state they pass it in. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The location of her offices is far less relevant. Attorneys switch offices quite frequently and can work out of multiple offices within a single firm. The name of the firm is of far greater significance as many firms have reputations and specializations. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really know how to respond to the last part. I guess we disagree on relevance. What seems more relevant to me is where she practices out of, not the name of the law firm. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her place of employment is highly relevant. Its abundantly sourced and figures prominently in most profiles of her. I came to the article because I was curious about it and noticed it was missing. What, exactly, is the basis for your concern here? If her place of employment is excluded by "not everything" then nothing belongs in the entry. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Nationality
BBC says Columbian and Cuban parents. I saw several other mention of other countries being added/changed, but first source I checked didn't even verify what was changed. So leaving as this with BBC source. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Promoted
Brown Rudnick just announced CAMILLE'S promotion to partner please update 174.252.131.219 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any source or press release available? Not a profile page. WikiVirusC(talk) 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)