Talk:Sullivan & Cromwell

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

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

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

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyright concern

Nearly all of the text on this page seems to come from [1] , which is explicitly copyrighted. Unless there is permission this content should be deleted.

Also, this information does not seem to be objective. Essentially, it is a reprint from the firm's Web page. Is this permitted under Wikipedia's policies, even apart from the copyright issue?Masteven 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not permitted under Wikipedia policy, so it should be completely rewritten. I am deleting it from the article and placing it here if anyone cares to rewrite it. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted text removed. It was outdated and not usable anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Lawsuit

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the lawsuit filed against Sullivan by Aaron Charney. Both New York Magazine and New York Observer have done articles on it. It paints a pretty bleak picture as life as a big firm associate.--Davidwiz 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writ also ran an analysis of the suit by an employment law professor. I think there's a significant question if it qualifies for notability - thoughts, anyone? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the advert tag. --Mike Schiraldi 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MF Global bankruptcy

According to http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1377-aqHnI6CrAMp0-56PIBAQMOFCTPG4C2TQ1E13916 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is owed $596,939. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment

The abandonment section should not be a section in itself. It ought to fall under a different section, like "notable cases" or the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.227.68 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and more. In the course of this firm's very long history, that particular single court case seems unrepresentative. I've boldy deleted mention of it until some editor comes forward with a representative list. —Boruch Baum (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain Jargon

"alumni"?? I know what an alumnus of a college or university is, but I didn't know you could graduate from a law firm? Please explain this rare use of the term in the article or provide an appropriate wikilink. --BjKa (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI/Advertisement content

Unclear where COI content is located, or where advertising content is located. Original addition of the maintenance template is not discussed on the talk page. Please discuss below if necessary - but there is no justification for a COI template in the article. Andersen Polk (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"FTX" subsection

Subsection cites one source throughout paragraph -- a forthcoming (unpublished as of my comment here) law review article. Law review articles are not typically subject to the same independent peer-review standards as are scientific journal articles. After reviewing @Tinfoilhat8001's edit history, I believe it reasonable to suspect this law review article as well as the language within this subsection to constitute their own original research. Riverbanditry (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered you think I'm getting published in the Stanford Law Review, but I'm just a law student who keeps up with things. This is not my original research and I am happy to build the FTX section out with citations to other secondary sources. Although law review articles are not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, I don't see why they are entitled to any less deference than a replacement-level news article. Tinfoilhat8001 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]