Talk:Simon Greenstone Panatier
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Simon Greenstone Panatier article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Answer to the above edit
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Thanks. I may not be formatting this correctly, so please forgive me for that.
The reason for requesting the change is that one of the formerly named partners is no longer with the firm. Since her departure, the firm has changed its name, as evidenced by how it is displayed on the website, http://www.sgptrial.com/.
My conflict of interest is that I work for Androvett Legal Media & Marketing, and Simon Greenstone Panatier is a client of ours. I have tried to be completely forthcoming with regard to this, as evidenced by my correspondence dating back to 2016.
I will begin the OTRS process as you suggest.
Thank you,
Mark MarkAnnick (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have one other requested move already in the queue that I'd like to resolve before starting another one. So unless another editor would like to begin this, we can wait until you hear back from OTRS spintendo 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- What are you expecting from us at OTRS here, Spintendo? I'm not really sure what role we could play in a requested move. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: The COI editor offers as proof of the name change only the firm's website and nothing else. I did not want anyone from the firm coming back and saying "Why did you change this? This change may be on our website but its not how the firm is referred to in court proceedings, in correspondence, etc. Who authorized this?" Neither you nor I could say for certain that anyone from the firm wouldn't do that, and if I was going to act as nominator of this change, confirmation from OTRS is something I would like to have had. If OTRS is not necessary as you've implied, then the COI editor is free to make this request themselves at WP:RM. I apologize if I was WP:CLUELESS in this regard, and thank you for helping me to know better.
spintendo 21:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Given that the company's website and recent press coverage use the new name, I think that is all we need to know. It's not as if the company gets to decide what the article is called in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: The COI editor offers as proof of the name change only the firm's website and nothing else. I did not want anyone from the firm coming back and saying "Why did you change this? This change may be on our website but its not how the firm is referred to in court proceedings, in correspondence, etc. Who authorized this?" Neither you nor I could say for certain that anyone from the firm wouldn't do that, and if I was going to act as nominator of this change, confirmation from OTRS is something I would like to have had. If OTRS is not necessary as you've implied, then the COI editor is free to make this request themselves at WP:RM. I apologize if I was WP:CLUELESS in this regard, and thank you for helping me to know better.
- What are you expecting from us at OTRS here, Spintendo? I'm not really sure what role we could play in a requested move. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@MarkAnnick: I have moved the article to its new name. spintendo 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Could we please add a case? edit
This is Mark, the COI editor.
Do you think we could add material to the cases section please? The firm recently prevailed on behalf of its clients in a case involving Johnson's Baby Powder and mesothelioma. Here is the copy that we would suggest adding.
'In 2018, a California jury heard a talc-asbestos case and awarded $25.75 million to Joanne and Gary Anderson, based on a finding that Johnson & Johnson 'was negligent and did not warn consumers about possible health risks from its baby powder.' In addition, jurors asked the judge if they could 'force the company (Johnson & Johnson) to warn consumers that its Johnson's Baby Powder could be contaminated with asbestos.' The court declined.'
As cites for this, we would provide the following articles. There are others available on the web as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/health/johnson--johnson-talc-asbestos-verdict-california/index.html
Please let me know whether we can answer any questions on this.
Thank you,
Mark MarkAnnick (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)