Talk:Big Six (law firms)

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Australia: Law Low‑importance Big Six (law firms) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Someone suggested in the AFD (linked in the box above) to rename this page to Big Six Australian law firms. I endorse this idea, but I would prefer that others make the decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. Potential to cause confusion elsewhere. They're only the big six in Australia. Murtoa (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the term, so it should be named exactly as the term is used. To put the title in context, a better idea could be

Big Six law firms (Australia). --Damiens.rf 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with Damiens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the previous claims that King & Wood Mallesons and Ashurst Australia are "big 6" law firms. This claim is not supproted by any of the cited sources, since all the sources date from before 2012.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that K&WM and Ashurst have "inherited" the "big 6" status if MSJ had simply become K&WM, or Blake Dawson had simply become Ashurst Australia. The reality is more nuanced - the new K&WM is fully merged in Hong Kong and in China. Only K&WM Australia and UK are in any sense derived directly from the old MSJ -- but even then that is only part of the old MSJ, the other parts having merged into / with King & Wood. Likewise, Blake Dawson in Asia has fully merged into Ashurst, so Ashurst Australia consists only of the Australian part of Blake Dawson.

Are MSJ and Blake Dawson, shorn of their Asian practices, still "big 6"? Perhaps, but until reliable sources come out to support that contention, such claims should be left out of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have a problem with the content under the heading 'The top tier law firms in Australia'. It appears to be wholly unsupported by sources. The TR reference describes 'big eight' firms (and doesn't seem to be the the best of sources). The AFR source appears to completely fail verification. And the 'Who's Who' source simply lists 'Most listings in WWL', and does not describe them as top tier firms. I am removing this list for now. Local Variable (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of "top-tier"

Hello The term top tier is used to indicate the position in the market (and types of clients) which those firms operate. The term is not used as a peacock term; the term indicates the reflects of the Australian market. The term is not used in the media and industry as a peacock term, rather in accordance to the said division of the legal market. It is a term widespread by various and independent sources - from recruitment websites to newspapers to blogs. Firms also describe themselves as mid tier, which does not bring the implication of a lesser firm but instead a firm with mid level specialisation and clients. I think the change should be reverted. Thanks

I have reverted the change. I don’t think it should be changed again unless sufficient reason is provided. Hate to play the majority card, but two other people than I have a similar view. I also note that your change has not added recent citations (which was why the page should be changed and was changed in the first place, presumably).

I should also mention the name of the article itself, the Big Six, by the logic of the user would be a peacock term. I don’t think the user’s view against top tier is sound.

UPDATE: Local Variable removed “top tier” from numerous law firms but retained it on rival law firm Clayton Utz. Potential manipulation to boost Clayton Utz at the expense of other firms based on flawed claim of peacock term. User should be warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianLegalRankings (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

@

promote the firm in question. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@AustralianLegalRankings: The retainment of the term on the Clayton Utz article was simply an inadvertent oversight on my part. I went through your contributions list to identify the changes, and there were many articles listed there. I have now removed it from that article as well. Local Variable (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AustralianLegalRankings:, this is getting all a bit muddled (for me anyway!). The main problem seems to be that use of the (newer) term "top-tier", the way first ALM, then you, then I, used it in this Big Six article is not really supported by the cites - well not fully, anyway. See Local Variable's points about TR, AFR, and WWL sources, up page. Even if they support the listed law firms as top-tier, they say nothing about the term being standard usage in the field, nor that it displaced "Big Six". And that's really the crux of this article. It's about the term and its usage. So we're gonna need some refs for that. (I do not doubt that it is as you say; it seems like common sense, too, but the only argument that wins on WP are sources that back up what we want to put in.)

As for using "top-tier" term in all those law firm articles, well, again, the sources need to say it, (and do), but more importantly, we need to weigh up whether using it in the LEAD - the intro of the article - over-eggs it, i.e., gives an

UNDUE weight. If I am recalling correctly, most of those articles talk about how big, global, and revenue-raking those firms are, in the first 1 or 2 paras, so we don't need to lard in extra descriptors that basically say the same: that's when it starts to look like a "peacock" term, you know "big-upping", even though that is not the intention. Might be better to include it in the body of the article, IF we get the sourcing right for it. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

BTW, I might add confusion, as my IP address seems to have changed slightly overnight. I am the same User who posted as 49.177.64.138, above. Also, I re-factored (tiny rearrangement - but nothing removed or added) ALR's comments and added a subsection heading, just for clarity (for me!). Of course, let me know if you'd prefer I change it back. Thanks, all. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

49.177.30.125 Thanks for your contributions. They are significant improvements. As you've probably seen across a few pages, I take issue with 'top-tier' in a few ways. Let me lay out my thoughts.

First, I am not opposed to referring to the concept in this article. What troubles me is how we identify what is 'in' and 'out'. Unlike 'big six' where it is apparently universally agreed, 'top-tier' seems a highly subjective measure. It would appear at first blush that

undue weight

.

Secondly, I fully agree with you that this article should not be fully rewritten in terms of 'top-tier'. 'Big six' existed at some point, and therefore we should have it in the encyclopedia for the reasons you have given. The proper way to reframe the concept would be to create a new article.

Thirdly (admittedly slightly outside the scope of this talk page, but I don't know where else to put it) - I think 'top-tier' is inappropriate in the lead section of individual articles of law firms, even if sourced, because of its

the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Local Variable (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have pretty much the same view, Local Variable. Thank you for pointing out the lack of support in the page's new cites for the use of the term "top tier" as the preeminent one.

Once you realise that, it becomes not only about keeping this Big Six article intact - rather than turning it, piecemeal, into a completely new one - but also about being cautious in using 'top tier', and which firms are listed in that category. ALR appeared to contend it's an objective fact. From my brief researches, there is nowhere near universal agreement on the term. There is also some variation in who's on the list of the most prominent, or leading firms. And without that overwhelming use of it in reliable sources, it should have a brief mention, at best. If I, or ALR, or anyone, can find cites that say, 'such-and-such is a top-tier firm', it's probably fine to say something about it, in the way you described, in the body of any law firm article.

Also, for the the reasons you give, I think it's better to have Big Six (law firms)#The top tier law firms in Australia section use another title, and say something less definite in the text. (E.g Title: "Leading firms" - "Many industry publications (e.g. RS1, RS2, RS3 ) consider the following firms to be the leading law firms in Aus. Some use this criteria: A, B, C, while these ones use x, y, z. Various labels are used, including, top-tier, band 1, global elite law firms, or international business law firms for the category.")

In regard to the individual law firm articles, for those that ALR re-reverted, I went back and again took out "top-tier", put in 'leading' or similar, where a descriptor seemed needed. The sources would support that much, as a generic - but loose - categorisation, I think. Some of those law firm articles had mentioned the firms had been known as Big Six. ALR, in later conceding that 'top tier' should not be in those articles' leads atm, may have concluded that there should not be any term describing a firm's standing, including "Big Six". Accordingly, they have reverted my attempt at a NPOV mention of it here in Clayton Utz. I think it is okay to include Big Six, as that term is widely and consistently attested, long-accepted, and sourced. What do you think?

I take ALR's point that these law firm articles could do with some more up to date sourcing, so I will try to ferret some out when I can. Thank you for your thoughts on all this, LV. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I would favour removal of the section altogether, I have edited the article to entitle the section 'Alternative terminology', and rephrased the section a bit. I won't remove it since no one else has really backed that move. Anyone should,

I note a key editor concerned in this debate has been blocked from editing for sockpuppetry on the basis of attempting to introduce a false consensus in relation to this article, and some of the changes proposed by 49.177.30.125 and I. There has, so far, been no other real opposition to the changes either of us have proposed. As the IP editor notes, it seems that 'top tier' has now effectively been removed from the lead of most of the subject articles, which I am in favour of. As for 'leading firms', while better than top-tier, it still (I think) gives rise to similar issues in relation to neutrality, or lack thereof - it still seems a bit peacocky without having some objective measure to back it. --Local Variable (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted recent reverts by User:ChilledIntentions. There are multiple issues with this version. First, as the anon user pointed out, this version cites multiple sources allegedly supporting a sweeping claim that "the" term is now "top tier law firms" and it has a settled membership. This statement is not supported by three out of the four sources. Only one source (AFR) properly, but only partially, supports this assertion: it uses the term "top tier law firms" and names some of the firms list there, but it does not set out an exhaustive list. So there is improper synthesis. Some of the other sources use other terms, some of which are clearly context-specific, and some of them list a different list of firms - they don't even support the statement. The assertion in the lead that the "Big Six" was only based on head count is also incorrect synthesis of sources, as the sources mention other characteristics that distinguish them from their competitors.

There are also other issues with this version: for example, why does it have in-line external links to the firms' websites when they have articles?

I have reverted to a better version which has fairer basis in the sources cited. The fact is, there is no grouping that is as clear as the old "Big Six" group. There are many differences in views about, eg, where HWL Ebsworth fits into the picture, or whether there are two or three subgroups at the top (eg one scheme has Allens, KWM and HSF as the top group, then CU, Minters and Ashurst as a middle group, then G+T and Corrs as a third group, while another scheme has the second and third subgroups combined). It's really a matter of opinion, and it's questionable whether any of this is even encyclopaedic. Certainly this kind of industry gossip type information shouldn't be in the article without reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please refer to the multiple independent citations listed in the edits I have made. The citations span from leading Australian legal newspapers (Lawyers Weekly), leading Australian newspapers (Australian Financial Review), etc. All of these citations are quite clear as to the composition of top tier law firms. Please don’t make edits without addressing this or providing citations to the contrary. For these reasons, I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion of industry gossip. ChilledIntentions (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Specifics of source content to support "top tier" The Fin Review source cited for this claim:

"Since the 2012 changes, the Australian legal landscape is increasingly characterised by the concept of top tier law firms"^[1]

says, in part, this [emphasis added]:

The big six firms were prevalent among the top firms for large ratios between fee earners and the partnership. More than 85 per cent of Allens' total legal headcount were non-partner fee earners, as were 82.4 per cent of Ashurst, 81.81 per cent of King & Wood Mallesons, and 79.24 per cent of Minters. (Clayton Utz was 85 per cent based on its July figure of 912 non-partner fee earners).

— naming five of the "historical" "pre-2012" big six, or their successor firms; and explicitly using the supposedly superseded term big six to describe the situation in 2019!

The second claim from our WP article of the demise of Big 6: "Following these major changes in the Australian legal scene, the Big Six term is less used, and top-tier law firms is now the descriptor more favoured for the largest, most profitable, law firms in Australia." is supported by the same Fin Review item and another from Beaton Consulting.^[1][2] The Beaton's source says, indeed, "the Big 6 moniker no long fits for this strategic group and the competitive dynamics of the market" and headlines itself as an "obituary" for the term. Nowhere does it state "top tier" will be the replacement. Instead it says:

As the Australian legal industry reaches its globalisation tipping point, the term 'Big 6' is longer an accurate way of categorising these major players in a landscape being shaped by the forces of globalisation. Increasingly, these firms will be better classified as part of the 'global elite' or the 'international business law firm' groupings.

1. Going by the sources used at present, it is not
   verifiable
   that: a) Big six is not current; or b) top tier is an industry-wide accepted replacement term
2. This WP article is about the term big six, whether current or historical, and there is no justification for including more than a passing mention of any successor term. That would belong in an article specific to that term, if it's considered notable enough to warrant one.

For those reasons, I made an adjustment to the lead, removing mention of the "top tier" firms to a footnote. On a separate but related note, the section headings are not in WP style, which should not be duplicative of the article title per

MOS:NOBACKREF

, as was "Big Six firms". Similarly, the section "Developments since 2012" belongs in another article, as does "Top tier law firms" section.

This article has been morphing into something it is not meant to be; it is suffering from sourcing which does not really support what the inserting editor intends it to support. I notice that pretty much this same argument has been ongoing for some time, but the inserter/s of the top tier information are not taking the other expressed views on board. I hope that will change and that consensus can be reached. In the meantime, I intend to make further changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Wootton, Hannah; Pelly, Michael (5 December 2019). "Worker bees keep top-tier law firms ticking over". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 4 August 2022.
2. ^ Dobrjanski, Jarek (31 October 2012). "An obituary for the term 'Big 6' law firms in Australia". Beaton Research + Consulting. Archived from the original on 7 November 2012.

RfC: Is the term "top tier" law firms

verifiable

and in scope here?

Inconclusive RfC with minimal discussion, only glancingly germane

Is the detail of the use of the term "top tier" in scope here, in an article about the term Big Six? Specifically, is top tier usage as a preeminent term for leading law firms, verifiable? If so, does detail re "top-tier" firms belong in this article? Should the article say that top tier is the industry-wide accepted term for leading law firms, on a par with the way the Big Six? has been used in Australia? If so, is detail of "top-tier" firms within the scope of the article? Diff showing different approaches. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC) original timestamp 14:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Delete? - My first glance through this article makes me think the 2008 AfD on this article should have been a delete. It's interesting to note that the only currently cited source that gives direct coverage to the term "Big Six" is "Business Review Australia". Not exactly a source indicative of stellar notability. Another indication this article is dubious is that similar articles don't seem to exist for any other country. I don't think the title should change. It seems like this may have been a term that was semi-notable at some point in the past, but is now obsolete. I think this article may essentially be a memorial for dead terminology, but we shouldn't try to revive into something new. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your reply, NickCT. You may be right about this article being outdated. The term itself is, or at least is becoming so. And that is the main driver for user ChilledIntentions' wish to include the replacement terminology instead. But I, and a few other editors, see new terms as still developing, with no RS stating CI's preferred replacement term ("top tier") as an industry-wide accepted terminology, or in as near-universal use, as Big Six once was. ChilledIntentions believes the sources do show that, though. Even if there were solid sourcing, the term should have its own new, separate article, if notable enough, not overwrite the historical usage, in my view. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] My thoughts here are basically encapsulated by WP:NOTNEO. New terms may exist, but whether they deserve articles seems highly questionable. Whether this term (i.e. "Big Six") ever deserved an article to begin with, also seems questionable. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: If editors think Big Six should be deleted, I would not have any strong opinion on that, only to note that as a term, "Big Six" crept into other industries like accounting (e.g. Big Four accounting firms § Big Six) and others (Big Six energy suppliers). Comparable law firm terms in other countries do also have articles, though: There's a list of 6 or so articles here: Magic Circle (law firms) § Related terms. Articles for Silver Circle (law firms) and Magic Circle are probably the closest to use of 'Big Six' in Australia. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Yes. Agreed. There's definitely WP:NOTNEO. I wonder if we can challenge them all at AfD at the same time. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply ] It's sorta interesting that the WP:OTHERSTUFF you've highlighted is all British/Australian. I wonder if there's something about the UK (and its oppressed colonies) that make them more apt of create pages like this. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply ] Chortle: :-) Yes, we poor oppressed lot! (Well... most of us here got the better end of the deal; a relative few of us in this place got the worst deal in the world. Anyway ...) But of course, there's also White-shoe firm, Big Four (law firms), Red Circle (law firms), Seven Sisters (law firms) (well, that one's another oppressed colony!) Seriously, though, I would not be against deletion, or at least discussing it. I didn't mention those articles for that reason: As you say, OTHERSTUFF. It was just that you mentioned "similar articles don't seem to exist for any other country". I didn't mean it as an argument for keeping this one. My current concern is that the article is attracting poorly sourced claims, that use WP:SYNTH and OR; it's been subject to gradual scope-creep over the last year or two. If it needs deletion, great; if not, it needs proper sourcing, sans the SYNTH. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply ] Fair enough. I retract. Similar articles do exist for other countries. As an American, when I say "other countries", I generally mean the only country that really matters (i.e. the US of AA - extra A added for a double dose of Awesome). It's worth noting that a lot of the other articles you pointed to were started by novice editors and/or have few actual edits. re "current concern" - Yeah understood. My feeling is that if you have a quasi-notable neologism article like this one, dodgy sourcing and SYNTH just goes with the territory. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fair point. It's only one specific editor making those additions, though, albeit with a different name when doing so pre-May 2021. If I could convince them to cease and desist ... SYNTH vanishes! AukusRuckus (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] And, ooh, yes! "Top tier" definitely a neologism; "Big Six", though: an archaism? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Sure "Big Six" might be an archaism. I guess both a neologism and an archaism can theoretically be notable, right? In this situation, we seem to be proposing the neologism replace the archaism. I think we could hypothetically have both. Though to be clear, my preference is to have neither. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Comment "Big Six" seems to be a clearly established term, and I see no reason to remove. However, "top-tier law firms" appears to be more of a colloquial expression. Despite its use, I don't believe we cite any source that treats it as a single, coherent, definable concept, rather than just a turn of phrase. DFlhb (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reversions and disputed claims

@

WP:MOS

) and many reference improvements. You deleted maintenance tags, which WP-user guidelines require are removed only when the issues are addressed or specific reasoning is given for removing them.

If you do not understand the problems editors have raised at:

• #"Top tier law firms", etc
• #Specifics of source content to support "top tier"

and earlier posts:

• #Reversion of restored article back to recently created version
• #Discussion of "top-tier"

regarding what sources seem not to support, then please ask for clarification. Please don't just ignore the discussions as if no-one has mentioned anything, and then repeat the same justification in each edit summary. WP is a collaborative project. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of maintenance tags, unwarranted removal, failed sourcing

[In addition to all the other disregarded discussion posts I have left here (#RfC top tier; #Blanket reversions and disputed claims; and #Specifics of source content to support "top tier") and on User talk:ChilledIntentions' page.]

To explain my addition of a {{cite check}}, particularly to a specific editor, @ChilledIntentions, who has expressed great concern regarding it, even going to the extreme of removing it, here is my reasoning: There are many cited sources that are reputable, well-regarded, and generally reliable in the article, as ChilledIntentions mentions in many of their edit summaries when reverting my changes. Unfortunately, the sources do not say, just to take one example, that Big Six is either

• a term "prior to 2012"
• is applied to the six largest by head count

There are currently five sources for that first short sentence ["The term Big Six law firms referred, prior to 2012, to the six largest - by lawyer head count - Australian law firms."], none of which verify either of the above claims. These are examples:

1. A 2011 Harvard Law School report The Australian Law Profession, says: "The "Big Six" are Australia's most prestigious firms: Allens Arthur Robinson, Blake Dawson, Clayton Utz, Freehills, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, and MinterEllison."
2. A 2010 Business Review Australia article, in introducing a general survey of the six firms says: "They're called the "Big Six" for a reason. Australia's most prestigious law firms are in a class of their own, advising on some of the largest mergers and acquisitions in the rapidly expanding Asia Pacific region. Business Review Australia profiles the areas of expertise for the "Big Six" law firms."
3. There's a 2007 article about the floating of Slater & Gordon in the SMH, which mentions "big six" once; the full quote is in the cite in-article.
4. Updated: How does Michael Kirby's 2002 speech, riffing on how corporatisation of law firms has changed the legal sector beyond recoginition, prove anything that's in contention in lead of this article? He mentions big six, and how firms have huge numbers. That's it.
5. Updated: The last −AFR− cite for this first sentence does not even belong here: (@ChilledIntentions: was "very concerned" when I moved it to somewhere more appropriate, however, but without, alas, explaining why.) What is this source supposed to be citing? It does not mention "top tier" or "big six", nor ranking terminology in general. It mentions "top firms" in first sentence and goes on to label (by size of staff) firms as the "big 8". It says:

   The Big 8 are MinterEllison (1113), Allens (1007), HWL Ebsworth (975), Clayton Utz (923), King & Wood Mallesons (892), Herbert Smith Freehills (873), Corrs Chambers Westgarth (749) and Ashurst (738).

   So, tick: it lists the current top firms by name; and tick: it even speaks of head count. On the fail side: it uses "Big 8", not "top tier"; it does not mention anything about "Big Six". Still, ChilledIntentions apparently thinks it should cite that first sentence. Why?

Although this is possibly not a great thing to do, I am including the text of the AFR article, [quote from source removed AukusRuckus (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)] which is used atm to source "Since the 2012 changes, and due to the expansion of other competing law firms, the Australian legal landscape is increasingly characterised by the concept of top tier law firms." here: AFR (5 December 2019) Text [quoted from source for verification purposes Long quote from source now removed. 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

From this, it can be seen that the AFR piece does not support what we currently have it citing: "...the Australian legal landscape is increasingly characterised by the concept of top tier law firms".

Although I have raised these concerns several times, applied {{failed verification}} tags, etc, all ChilledIntentions has done so far, is revert these changes, including deleting maintenance tags, assert without evidence or further comment, that it is cited, ("See the cited sources") and fail to discuss. All this is against WP policy, and I have politely asked multiple times for a discussion. What else would they like me to do? No doubt, the next thing to happen, is a complaint by some passing editor of "bludgeoning". Pfft!

If @ChilledIntentions: would be kind enough to specify their objections that they are "very concerned with" and without merely reiterating "Please refer to the sources" again (which I have done and expounded upon many times), rather than just undoing my well-explained edits (and those of other users, as well!), perhaps we can work on understanding one another and arriving at a consensus. So far, I have been ignored and reverted. Not a nice feeling.

I am restoring the hatnote, and in coming days will work on the cites, restoring all the parameters −including titles of publications and archive links− which were deleted by user talk:ChilledIntentions. There can be no justification for deleting or undoing any of these changes, and I expect to be accorded the courtesy of a discussion, in accordance with WP policy. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Updated to include points re Cites 4 & 5, above. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC) [Adjusted to remove long quote. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)][reply]

@

WP:WNTRMT) requires these not be removed without further action, as I have mentioned to you already. If I am reverted again without prior discussion, I will feel justified in seeking help from the WP Administrators. As a matter of policy, editors are expected to discuss and attempt consensus. (See: WP:Consensus) I am very open to discussion with you: Is there a reason you do not want to engage in discussion? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

About "fixing", not "tagging"

(Editing here to try to keep same topic comments together. It's less confusing for me, hoping that's so for others)

Hi @

fv

}} tagging. This I have tried to do on a few occasions:

• 17 Feb [1]
• 3 Mar [2]

(in later edits, I added the {{

FV

}} tags with detail, rather than reverting, being under the impression that's what I am supposed to do ...), as have one or two other editors (not a complete list):

• 17 July 2021 by CI
• 24 October 2021 by CI
• 25 October 2021 by @PalaceGuard008
• 1 August 2022 by IP,

always to be reverted by @ChilledIntentions and here 4 August 2022.

My detailed tags were just an attempt to avoid edit warring, in the hope they will spark a discussion that will lead to consensus: nothing doing! [And this continues to puzzle me: What is actually a good way to proceed in such a situation? One editor refuses to actually discuss, but firmly and ruthlessly removes all changes ... Yes, there's AN/I <shiver>; there's other editors who'll come by (not likely on low-trafficked articles, and they're also reverted) ... Then there's ... giving up? I certainly hope that your great edit remains unreverted, as it is a clear improvement. I have my doubts, however.]

Yes, the Harvard source does say "largest" (the only one of the five to do so), but also says "most prestigious" which, again, has always been removed by CI (even though it was a longstanding statement in the article pre-ChilledIntentions / AustralianLawMan / AustralianLegalRankings). Your edit returns both aspects, per the source, which is what I was hoping for.

Thank you for your comment in the RfC and your edit; I appreciate them very much. Any advice would be welcomed. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And really, the most important part of the claim to me, being

WP:SYNTH, is "prior to 2012" part, which none of the 5 cited sources support. How could they? All except one are pre-2012. I detailed the problems in exhaustive—and probably exhausting—detail in #Restoration of maintenance tags, unwarranted removal, failed sourcing. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, I wasn't aware of the edit-war and banned-sock history, I just waltzed in after seeing this on

cn

}} tag. The second sentence of the lead, "In 2012,", is also cited to a source published in... 2002, so I've tagged it too.

I'll try to take a closer look at the article later. DFlhb (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting discussion

Futile invitation to discuss to user who turned out to be WP:SOCK. See § September 2023: Reversion to March 2023 version by ChilledIntentions

@ChilledIntentions: I am still hopeful of having a constructive discussion with you regarding the issues I have canvassed in several sections above, your apparent objections to my edits –the reasons for which have never been clearly explained– and your continued reversions of them. I am wary of adding anything further, as so far the discussion is extremely one-sided. It's counterproductive for there to be so many large slabs of verbiage from me, as appears here, but I have no other way of encouraging you to talk with me. I am aware you mainly edit this page, and then only when you detect changes to the page (as far as I can tell), so perhaps I have not waited long enough. However, I cannot wait indefinitely to discuss what I believe to be glaring inaccuracies and violations of WP policy. Please respond as soon as you can. My edit today was to remove links in the See also section, in line with WP:NOTSEEALSO. In addition, I added links to some similar terms. My next steps will be to reintroduce the sourced material which you objected to and removed without adequate explanation, and re-apply the maintenance tags which you deleted, against policy. An appropriate timeframe for this to occur would be in around two weeks from today unless I hear from you, or other editors, in the meantime. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Update: Minor spelling AukusRuckus (talk)[reply ] @ChilledIntentions My edits today restored the lead to an earlier version and, most importantly, bundled the multiple sources into single citations. Note: NO citations have been removed. I intend to continue revising this article in line with what the sources actually say. If you have any sources which state there has been a definitive change in industry-accepted descriptor terms–NOT just mere usage of the terms–then please supply them. I am genuinely interested in a discussion, but not an edit war. I have extended every courtesy and patience to you and expect the same in return. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AukusRuckus Given two weeks and then some have passed it might be good to revert those changes and move on at this stage. There is probably some argument for top-tier/mid-tier designations becoming more salient (or even a 'big eight') but for the time being 'big six' is still regularly used to refer to the firms Allens, HFF, Minter Ellision, KWM, Ashurst, and Clayton Utz--even ten years' past the international mergers (see below, noting that 2023 AFR article uses the term in the seventh paragraph to refer to those six firms).

Sources

https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/big-six-law-firms-on-graduate-hiring-spree-20190107-h19t89 https://www.legalcheek.com/2021/06/australia-to-open-door-to-uk-junior-lawyers-in-post-brexit-trade-agreement/ https://www.law.com/international-edition/2021/07/26/australian-firm-looks-to-clayton-utz-for-new-government-partner/?slreturn=20230317002031 https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/law-firms-boost-partner-ranks-but-wary-of-2023-20221128-p5c1t6

159.196.229.87 (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input IP 159. I appreciate the links you posted. I left the notified changes for much longer than I intended, as I became increasingly downcast about the possibility of reaching any understanding. No-one seems to care overly about this backwater and other involved editor appears content to contemptuously revert the hard work of others without discussion. It's very disheartening. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of June 2023

There is already extensive discussion above about article edits and getting back to earlier versions. Relevant arguments are in several sections of this talk page, some listed here for easy reference:

• § Move page
• § Discussion of "top-tier"
• § "Top tier law firms", etc
  • § Specifics of source content to support "top tier"
• § RfC: Is the term "top tier" law firms verifiable and in scope here?
• § Restoration of maintenance tags, unwarranted removal, failed sourcing

Changes made today are in line with my previous discussion. The editor ChilledIntentions who has reverted all of my earlier attempts to keep the Big Six article about, well, the "Big Six", has not responded to any of the earlier posts. This is discouraging. I live in hope that, should they return to edit, they will do me the courtesy of directly and specifically addressing my careful reasoning, rather than reverting and using the well-worn and invalid variations on a theme, such as (edit summaries, with diffs, by @ChilledIntentions: from most recent to least):

1. I have reverted the page. I am very concerned with your changes. Please refer to the sources
2. @aukusruckus, not sure why this page continues to be heavily edited, removing information that finds considerable support from authoritative and independent sources. Please see the various sources cited supporting the information in this version. Page is being watched for future edits.
3. WP: REVERTED. Previous edit inconsistent with the numerous independent and recent citations of this version. The sources cited herein are from leading Australian newspapers and industry sources. The previous edit seems to have removed them for some inexplicable reason, preferring to rely on outdated sources which are not relevant or even accurate in recent time. Watching this page. (No sources were in fact removed, so uncertain what is meant here ... unless, as some pars were moved around, it was just an assumption?)
4. No edit summary
   1. This null ES edit reverted three of my edits, which, I thought, had given explicit and detailed reasons:

      [3] Maintenance tags: Extrapolation from sources mentioning "top tier" veers into WP:SYNTH territory, while simultaneously creating scope-creep as article's topic is shifted bit-by-bit to something else entirely. See from talk page this occurred in the face of concerns from several editors for some time, often with generic responses of "that's what sources say". In fact the sources do NOT say it's an industry-standard term at all. Mere usage in sources not enough. Headings, lead changed] [Emphasis added]

5. WP: REVERTED. Subsequent edits inconsistent with the numerous independent and recent citations of this version. (reverting another user)
6. Unsure why previous edit referred to this as subject to debate. Included another citation from legal newspaper of Australia (now overall several citations) that support the view as conclusive. (reverting a third, earlier editor)
7. various changes that continued in substance and tenor that of previous editor, also challenged, user:AustralianLegalRankings

• To similar effect as more recent ChilledIntentons edits, user AustralianLegalRankings reverting, @Local Variable:
• ... then there's yet earlier edit warring by user:AustralianLawMan, to much the same effect (i.e. detail of top tier without connecting it to Big Six–so out of scope– and unsourced claims that it is the current term du jour that displaces the title of this article).

What none of the reverters have ever addressed or seemed to understand is that appending sources which mention "top tier", however reputable and reliable the source and no matter the number of them, is not the same thing as having a source explicity saying "Top tier is what is used now in the legal industry". Without this, you're simply asserting, unsourced, that Big Six is not used and top tier has taken its place. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023: Reversion to March 2023 version by ChilledIntentions

User @Diogenhty: reverted the article to the exact version preferred by user:ChilledIntentions, who edit-warred that version into the article in March 2023. (Added: There had been 18 intervening edits by nine distinct users between Chilled and Diogenhty's edit: including new content about the history of the term, reference formatting improvements, maintenance tags, etc. All such interim edits were overridden by Diogenhty's restoration of March version.)

Diogenhty returned ChilledIntentions' claims of Big Six usage as being, baldly, "prior to 2012" and the industry now being "characterised by the concept of top tier". Sources simply to do not support either of these claims—there is, indeed, evidence to the contrary—but despite the ongoing opposition here at the talk page, Diogenhty, soon after registering their account, reinstated ChilledIntentions' version; the next day, they also reverted my restoration, without any discussion.

I would like to hear directly from Diogenhty, before they make any further reversions. We should try to reach some consensus.

(Similar discussions are in order at other law firm pages, where they are also removing material, and then reverting editors who reverted them, without commenting or leaving edit summaries: for example, at Ashurst Australia, where Diogenhty also reverted another editor, @Jeraxmoira.) Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Addition: AukusRuckus (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppeteering for top tier

Despite the fact that I am, for the most part, talking to myself here, I will just make a note for any future editors, following the blocking of Diogenhty (talk · contribs) and ChilledIntentions (talk · contribs) as socks of AustralianLawMan (talk · contribs) (as AustralianLegalRankings (talk · contribs) had been previously):

These socks are the only editors who have, over two or more years, ever advocated for the creeping replacement of the term Big Six with "Top tier". This article is a little-frequented backwater, but nevertheless, several editors have voiced opposition, or at least misgivings, about AustralianLawMan's and their socks' determined efforts to insert an undue replacement term. Their modus operandi is to leave the ES blank (or merely state variations of "please look at the multiple sources"), while reverting other editors' restorations, often undoing new work by others. They rarely post on talk pages, doing so only when (maybe, what they perceive as) someone with authority issues them a warning; even then, their posts are not responsive to any substantive issues raised.

I have struck their posts on this talk page, few as they are, to make it obvious that the source of "top tier"-insertion campaign is one person, a block-evading, socking, SPA editor. (Some sections, which include gf posts from others, are hatted, mainly for streamlining).

I expect, if they follow their established pattern, they will bide their time for a few months and be back to make the same poorly-sourced,

improper-synthesis edits, against consensus. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]