Jump to content

Talk:Sullivan & Cromwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

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 It was outdated and not usable anyway.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

[edit]

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]

Advert?

[edit]

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

MF Global bankruptcy

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

"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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]