This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients. It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance. First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental. Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal who merely wants the article on this fine firm to be accurate and balanced. Milleri ( talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a neutral reference that may illuminate the situation: http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/156/subID/361/Consumer's-Guide-to-Legal-Malpractice-Insurance/. This reference says that "in any given year, a minimum of five to six insured lawyers out of every 100 in private practice will experience a malpractice claim". According to these data, it would be normal for a firm the size of Weil Gotshal to have over 60 claims per year, with or without merit. This is a tiny fraction of the number of matters the firm conducts each year. It seems to me that a balanced article on a firm of this type would be include issues of malpractice and misconduct in accurate proportion to its positive contributions. To the extent the material is factual, I don't object to its inclusion. It simply needs to be proportional. Milleri ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal" Is it ordinary for a lawyer of your firm to argue about the ethical practices and reputation of your firm anonymously? Wouldn't it be more ethical for a lawyer to identity himself/herself when trying to defend or promote a cause in the public domain? Particularly when that cause has to do with the reputation of your firm? For how many of the anonymous edits attempting to censor what you consider undesirable facts were you responsible?
Samiharris asked me to look at this article and give my opinion. To begin with, I think that lawsuits which are settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing are not major events, unless they have very large sums of money involved. The Bolton case is noteworthy only because a celebrity was involved. Second, very large law firms have these issues of conflict more frequently than small firms, for the obvious reason that they have more lawyers and more clients, some of whom sue each other. Third, the material includes an unrelated assertion that the firm being one of the richest in the country (that should probably be in the intro). Fourth, Law.com is probably a reliable source but it is going to cover legal firms with much more detail than the general media would. A search of their archive shows that they have 2,683 articles that mention the firm. [2] Picking out two articles, that cover a suit which was settled, does appear to give that matter excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will, thank you for joining the discussion. Please note, that the history of the edits to the misconduct section is much longer than shown here on this page. Some of the history is logged with requests for comment to many of the anon's on my talk page. Please give those comments a read, there are two sections on edits to this article, and more on another law firm which also had a misconduct section. Samiharris had a good point about the open mind, which led to his finding additional information and I concur that this firms controversies section needs additional work, possibly expansion. Like Samiharris, I was drawn to this article because of the disputed deletions of the misconduct section - and a number of other wiki editors have also reversed these section deletions. I asked the anons for support or comment, didn't get any. On my own I did some research and found out about the Michael Bolton malpractice issue, so I created that section. I wrote the Bolton topic not just because he was newsworthy, but because of the nature of malpractise claim, it was based upon conflict of interest in representing adverse parties without their knowledge or consent. Such an issue is not merely a cause to sue for malpractise, it is a glaring violation of the ABA's model code of professional conduct. In some contexts, an undisclosed conflict of interest it is also criminal. This is the same issue which led to the misconduct order against the firm. At a minimum, a report to the state Bar should have been filed by any attorney aware of the dispute and discipline administered (State Bar workings are confidential), even if not against the Weil, Gotshal firm for having the conflict, then against Bolton's firm for bringing a lawsuit that was not based upon fact. But I find it inconceivable that the firm would not have had the suit immediately dismissed if the asserted facts were false. Thus, the relevent connection between Bolton and the Judge's order is that conflict of interest is a problem for the firm, and I think there is even a quote admitting as much by one of their members. In retrospect, the article needs to point out this serious link in the controvery section. My having merely put the facts up there without explanation I see would not necessarily be enough to make the impact of the facts meaningful to the average wiki reader. Ironically, I only found the Bolton item because the string of anons, one of whom has belatedly admitted to being a member of the firm, kept trying to delete the misconduct item without discussion. Like me, Samiharris has found other facts when trying to verify the deleting editors agenda with this Refco news, which I'm going to read about. Very likely, given its size and newsworthiness, it should be mentioned in the article. As far as balance goes, we know wiki is not to be used for promotion. Wiki would be wholly unbalanced if we allow law firms to post positive things like the Recognition section while excluding things like the misconduct section. The malpractice section is newsworthy for other reasons as described. Also, I went to great lengths on my talk page to describe the logical fallacy employed by Milleri to attempt to conflate the misconduct and malpractice issues into one discussion, and then attempt to delete both items after only discussing the malpractice topic. This is clearly a dishonest tactic as the misconduct order and fine by the judge is orders of magnitude more significant than any claim of malpractice. Let's also consider Milleri's standard for "balance", are we to apply such a standard equally to baseball players, politicians, musicians, actors, organizations, and every other business? -- 69.113.18.103 ( talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy is not to trust the posting of content which is from an unverifiably source. Would the editor who added the "Public Service" and "Notable Deals" sections please come forward and identify your factual basis for these entries? Thanks. Knowsetfree ( talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User: 38.228.47.11 made a questionable edit, and I have invited him/her to comment here by leaving a comment on his/her Talk page. The user entered the following quote attributed to John Martin described as a former District Judge, in the "Controversies" section which dealt with the Leslie Fay misconduct ruling and fine:
Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner." [6]
The text as enterred by anonymous user 38.228.47.11 tends to contradict the clear message of the finding by another Federal Judge, that Weil Gotshal had engaged in misconduct related to the failure to make mandatory disclosure and corresponding false nature of each fee application wherein the firm's lawyers swore that it was "disinterested" (see conflict of interest). The entry clearly leaves the reader with the impression that reasonable minds could have disagreed as to the facts, and that a respected authority in the form John Martin did not find misconduct, or even murky conduct, but that the firm was above board. However, I checked the actual referenced source and found something very different in the actual article [1] here:
The firm went on to state that the trial testimony of one of its experts, former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin, now of counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton, established that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner."
Here we see that first of all, John Martin was not acting as a Judge reviewing the dispute. But much worse we see that John Martin was not even acting as a disinterested party. In fact, John Martin was getting paid by either Weil Gotshal, or a law firm representing Weil Gotshal. John Martin was acting as an "expert", which is to say a hired gun giving testimoney in return for money. This is far far from a ruling disputed by another member of law enforcement of the judiciary, or from being any sort of arms length analysis. It seems to me that this entry is an example dishonest discourse and an abuse use of Wikipedia. Would the anonymous editor please come forward and explain your rationale? Was it a careless mistake, was it intentional? Let me know if you believe I am not fairly describing the flaws in the edit. Knowsetfree ( talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: Misleading and false PR spin deleted. See this page for a detailed discussion. :-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.41.177 ( talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A rehash of prior arguments against the verified content by a brand anew wiki editor. User Antisoapbox: this is the page that you would comment about your argument for deleting the content before you decide on your own to censor the controversies section. I boggles the mind to to consider your argument that a $ Million dollar fine levied against a law firm is somehow out of date. Can you think of any other law firm which had to pay such a large sum? A number of proto editors, mostly anons and newly registered editors such as yourself, have already attempted to sway long standing wiki editors and failed. Your self righteous manner merely adds to the legacy of censoreship on the conflict of interest problems of Weil Gotshal. I'm not sure how much time I should give you before I just revert. And would you answer the question of whether or not you are associated or employed by Weil Gotshal. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 05:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Knowsetfree has repeatedly edited this and other articles to prominently highlight a few select, usually old, often to nonworking links, news items from the many thousands about the subject of the article. Repeatedly other editors, with varying degrees of politeness and patience, have corrected this and pointed out to Knowsetfree that such edits violate WP:NPOV among others.
On this particular discussion page, there was already a clear consensus that Knowsetfree's edits violate Wikipedia policy. Of the four other editors with signed comments on this talk page, all of them have noted in various ways that Knowsetfree's edits violate WP:NPOV, primarily because of WP:WEIGHT. Specifically,
"there may be a WP:WEIGHT problem here because of the prominence given to the misconduct and malpractice sections. Question is, does this represent the available sourcing on this law firm from WP:RS sourches? If it does not, then there is a WEIGHT problem. --Samiharris (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC) "
"My comments above still apply, as this Controversies section is approx. one third of the article, which seems somewhat large.--Samiharris (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"
"The issue, I think, is solely whether the weight given to the malpractice/misconduct issues falls afoul of WP:WEIGHT, which reads in relevant part: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In an article of such limited size, it is untoward to have half of it taken up with criticism. --Samiharris (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC) "
"First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental." Milleri (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"a balanced article on a firm of this type would be include issues of malpractice and misconduct in accurate proportion to its positive contributions. To the extent the material is factual, I don't object to its inclusion. It simply needs to be proportional." Milleri (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"it is out of proportion, given the prominence of the firm.--Samiharris (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC) "
"The issue is very simple: is the "controversies" section excessively large, in light of the WP:RS sourcing available? No one has yet made the claim that the press coverage of this firm is quite as negative as is implied in this entry, which is one-third devoted to malpractice suits and wrongdoing. --Samiharris (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"lawsuits which are settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing are not major events" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"very large law firms have these issues of conflict more frequently than small firms, for the obvious reason that they have more lawyers and more clients, some of whom sue each other. Law.com is probably a reliable source but it is going to cover legal firms with much more detail than the general media would. A search of their archive shows that they have 2,683 articles that mention the firm. Picking out two articles, that cover a suit which was settled, does appear to give that matter excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"
I agree with the editors above and I also vote with them that knowsetfree's edits violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as other WP policies, and more importantly violates the consensus and determinations of the editors on this page.
The wikipedia policies violated by Knowsetfree's attempts to prominently highlight obscure news items (often old, mere single reports, obscure trade journals, with broken links) are:
"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" WP:WEIGHT
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT
"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" WP:WEIGHT
"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_articles
WP is not for "scandal-mongering" WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP is not to broadcast your personal soapbox WP:SOAP
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper" WP:LIVE
"If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." WP:LIVE
"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." [WP:LIVE]]
WP content requires not mere facts, but facts with impact or historical significance WP:NOTGUIDE
WP is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS
"Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia" WP:NOTVAND
"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." WP:SOAP
"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic " WP:NTEMP
"Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed " WP:NPOV Antisoapbox ( talk) 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Just noting here for third opinion purposes that the above dispute is about the addition ( sample diff) and removal ( sample diff) of an approximately 3.5kb "Controversies" section with "Misconduct ruling by federal judge" and "Malpractice" subsections. — Athaenara ✉ 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A comment from an uninvolved editor: It would be surprising if a law firm of this size had not at some point had an unethical employee, but that doesn't mean that a neutrally phrased report of the company's problems is inappropriate. The first section, although it dates from 1994, appears to me relevant, significant, well sourced and neutrally phrased: especially if the comment by the firm about the rules on disclosure in bankruptcy cases can be supported by independent comment.
The second section is more problematic. The operative ruling in the first case is "subtly" and it seems to me the Judge was not certain. Although unsourced, the fact that the case was apparently settled outside court (which presumably means no admission of malpractice by Weil, Gotshal and Manges) leads me to the conclusion that it would be best not to include this case in the article.
In the second case the fact that it is ongoing strongly argues against inclusion. The mention is unbalanced because it includes only Radman's allegations, and it also makes them against named individuals which is problematic under WP:BLP. I would therefore remove mention of this case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weil, Gotshal & Manges 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients. It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance. First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental. Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal who merely wants the article on this fine firm to be accurate and balanced. Milleri ( talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a neutral reference that may illuminate the situation: http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/156/subID/361/Consumer's-Guide-to-Legal-Malpractice-Insurance/. This reference says that "in any given year, a minimum of five to six insured lawyers out of every 100 in private practice will experience a malpractice claim". According to these data, it would be normal for a firm the size of Weil Gotshal to have over 60 claims per year, with or without merit. This is a tiny fraction of the number of matters the firm conducts each year. It seems to me that a balanced article on a firm of this type would be include issues of malpractice and misconduct in accurate proportion to its positive contributions. To the extent the material is factual, I don't object to its inclusion. It simply needs to be proportional. Milleri ( talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal" Is it ordinary for a lawyer of your firm to argue about the ethical practices and reputation of your firm anonymously? Wouldn't it be more ethical for a lawyer to identity himself/herself when trying to defend or promote a cause in the public domain? Particularly when that cause has to do with the reputation of your firm? For how many of the anonymous edits attempting to censor what you consider undesirable facts were you responsible?
Samiharris asked me to look at this article and give my opinion. To begin with, I think that lawsuits which are settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing are not major events, unless they have very large sums of money involved. The Bolton case is noteworthy only because a celebrity was involved. Second, very large law firms have these issues of conflict more frequently than small firms, for the obvious reason that they have more lawyers and more clients, some of whom sue each other. Third, the material includes an unrelated assertion that the firm being one of the richest in the country (that should probably be in the intro). Fourth, Law.com is probably a reliable source but it is going to cover legal firms with much more detail than the general media would. A search of their archive shows that they have 2,683 articles that mention the firm. [2] Picking out two articles, that cover a suit which was settled, does appear to give that matter excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will, thank you for joining the discussion. Please note, that the history of the edits to the misconduct section is much longer than shown here on this page. Some of the history is logged with requests for comment to many of the anon's on my talk page. Please give those comments a read, there are two sections on edits to this article, and more on another law firm which also had a misconduct section. Samiharris had a good point about the open mind, which led to his finding additional information and I concur that this firms controversies section needs additional work, possibly expansion. Like Samiharris, I was drawn to this article because of the disputed deletions of the misconduct section - and a number of other wiki editors have also reversed these section deletions. I asked the anons for support or comment, didn't get any. On my own I did some research and found out about the Michael Bolton malpractice issue, so I created that section. I wrote the Bolton topic not just because he was newsworthy, but because of the nature of malpractise claim, it was based upon conflict of interest in representing adverse parties without their knowledge or consent. Such an issue is not merely a cause to sue for malpractise, it is a glaring violation of the ABA's model code of professional conduct. In some contexts, an undisclosed conflict of interest it is also criminal. This is the same issue which led to the misconduct order against the firm. At a minimum, a report to the state Bar should have been filed by any attorney aware of the dispute and discipline administered (State Bar workings are confidential), even if not against the Weil, Gotshal firm for having the conflict, then against Bolton's firm for bringing a lawsuit that was not based upon fact. But I find it inconceivable that the firm would not have had the suit immediately dismissed if the asserted facts were false. Thus, the relevent connection between Bolton and the Judge's order is that conflict of interest is a problem for the firm, and I think there is even a quote admitting as much by one of their members. In retrospect, the article needs to point out this serious link in the controvery section. My having merely put the facts up there without explanation I see would not necessarily be enough to make the impact of the facts meaningful to the average wiki reader. Ironically, I only found the Bolton item because the string of anons, one of whom has belatedly admitted to being a member of the firm, kept trying to delete the misconduct item without discussion. Like me, Samiharris has found other facts when trying to verify the deleting editors agenda with this Refco news, which I'm going to read about. Very likely, given its size and newsworthiness, it should be mentioned in the article. As far as balance goes, we know wiki is not to be used for promotion. Wiki would be wholly unbalanced if we allow law firms to post positive things like the Recognition section while excluding things like the misconduct section. The malpractice section is newsworthy for other reasons as described. Also, I went to great lengths on my talk page to describe the logical fallacy employed by Milleri to attempt to conflate the misconduct and malpractice issues into one discussion, and then attempt to delete both items after only discussing the malpractice topic. This is clearly a dishonest tactic as the misconduct order and fine by the judge is orders of magnitude more significant than any claim of malpractice. Let's also consider Milleri's standard for "balance", are we to apply such a standard equally to baseball players, politicians, musicians, actors, organizations, and every other business? -- 69.113.18.103 ( talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy is not to trust the posting of content which is from an unverifiably source. Would the editor who added the "Public Service" and "Notable Deals" sections please come forward and identify your factual basis for these entries? Thanks. Knowsetfree ( talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User: 38.228.47.11 made a questionable edit, and I have invited him/her to comment here by leaving a comment on his/her Talk page. The user entered the following quote attributed to John Martin described as a former District Judge, in the "Controversies" section which dealt with the Leslie Fay misconduct ruling and fine:
Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner." [6]
The text as enterred by anonymous user 38.228.47.11 tends to contradict the clear message of the finding by another Federal Judge, that Weil Gotshal had engaged in misconduct related to the failure to make mandatory disclosure and corresponding false nature of each fee application wherein the firm's lawyers swore that it was "disinterested" (see conflict of interest). The entry clearly leaves the reader with the impression that reasonable minds could have disagreed as to the facts, and that a respected authority in the form John Martin did not find misconduct, or even murky conduct, but that the firm was above board. However, I checked the actual referenced source and found something very different in the actual article [1] here:
The firm went on to state that the trial testimony of one of its experts, former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin, now of counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton, established that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner."
Here we see that first of all, John Martin was not acting as a Judge reviewing the dispute. But much worse we see that John Martin was not even acting as a disinterested party. In fact, John Martin was getting paid by either Weil Gotshal, or a law firm representing Weil Gotshal. John Martin was acting as an "expert", which is to say a hired gun giving testimoney in return for money. This is far far from a ruling disputed by another member of law enforcement of the judiciary, or from being any sort of arms length analysis. It seems to me that this entry is an example dishonest discourse and an abuse use of Wikipedia. Would the anonymous editor please come forward and explain your rationale? Was it a careless mistake, was it intentional? Let me know if you believe I am not fairly describing the flaws in the edit. Knowsetfree ( talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: Misleading and false PR spin deleted. See this page for a detailed discussion. :-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.41.177 ( talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A rehash of prior arguments against the verified content by a brand anew wiki editor. User Antisoapbox: this is the page that you would comment about your argument for deleting the content before you decide on your own to censor the controversies section. I boggles the mind to to consider your argument that a $ Million dollar fine levied against a law firm is somehow out of date. Can you think of any other law firm which had to pay such a large sum? A number of proto editors, mostly anons and newly registered editors such as yourself, have already attempted to sway long standing wiki editors and failed. Your self righteous manner merely adds to the legacy of censoreship on the conflict of interest problems of Weil Gotshal. I'm not sure how much time I should give you before I just revert. And would you answer the question of whether or not you are associated or employed by Weil Gotshal. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 05:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Knowsetfree has repeatedly edited this and other articles to prominently highlight a few select, usually old, often to nonworking links, news items from the many thousands about the subject of the article. Repeatedly other editors, with varying degrees of politeness and patience, have corrected this and pointed out to Knowsetfree that such edits violate WP:NPOV among others.
On this particular discussion page, there was already a clear consensus that Knowsetfree's edits violate Wikipedia policy. Of the four other editors with signed comments on this talk page, all of them have noted in various ways that Knowsetfree's edits violate WP:NPOV, primarily because of WP:WEIGHT. Specifically,
"there may be a WP:WEIGHT problem here because of the prominence given to the misconduct and malpractice sections. Question is, does this represent the available sourcing on this law firm from WP:RS sourches? If it does not, then there is a WEIGHT problem. --Samiharris (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC) "
"My comments above still apply, as this Controversies section is approx. one third of the article, which seems somewhat large.--Samiharris (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"
"The issue, I think, is solely whether the weight given to the malpractice/misconduct issues falls afoul of WP:WEIGHT, which reads in relevant part: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In an article of such limited size, it is untoward to have half of it taken up with criticism. --Samiharris (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC) "
"First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental." Milleri (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"a balanced article on a firm of this type would be include issues of malpractice and misconduct in accurate proportion to its positive contributions. To the extent the material is factual, I don't object to its inclusion. It simply needs to be proportional." Milleri (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"it is out of proportion, given the prominence of the firm.--Samiharris (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC) "
"The issue is very simple: is the "controversies" section excessively large, in light of the WP:RS sourcing available? No one has yet made the claim that the press coverage of this firm is quite as negative as is implied in this entry, which is one-third devoted to malpractice suits and wrongdoing. --Samiharris (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"lawsuits which are settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing are not major events" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"very large law firms have these issues of conflict more frequently than small firms, for the obvious reason that they have more lawyers and more clients, some of whom sue each other. Law.com is probably a reliable source but it is going to cover legal firms with much more detail than the general media would. A search of their archive shows that they have 2,683 articles that mention the firm. Picking out two articles, that cover a suit which was settled, does appear to give that matter excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)"
I agree with the editors above and I also vote with them that knowsetfree's edits violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as other WP policies, and more importantly violates the consensus and determinations of the editors on this page.
The wikipedia policies violated by Knowsetfree's attempts to prominently highlight obscure news items (often old, mere single reports, obscure trade journals, with broken links) are:
"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" WP:WEIGHT
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT
"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors" WP:WEIGHT
"merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_articles
WP is not for "scandal-mongering" WP:NOTSCANDAL
WP is not to broadcast your personal soapbox WP:SOAP
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper" WP:LIVE
"If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." WP:LIVE
"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." [WP:LIVE]]
WP content requires not mere facts, but facts with impact or historical significance WP:NOTGUIDE
WP is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS
"Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia" WP:NOTVAND
"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." WP:SOAP
"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic " WP:NTEMP
"Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed " WP:NPOV Antisoapbox ( talk) 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Just noting here for third opinion purposes that the above dispute is about the addition ( sample diff) and removal ( sample diff) of an approximately 3.5kb "Controversies" section with "Misconduct ruling by federal judge" and "Malpractice" subsections. — Athaenara ✉ 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A comment from an uninvolved editor: It would be surprising if a law firm of this size had not at some point had an unethical employee, but that doesn't mean that a neutrally phrased report of the company's problems is inappropriate. The first section, although it dates from 1994, appears to me relevant, significant, well sourced and neutrally phrased: especially if the comment by the firm about the rules on disclosure in bankruptcy cases can be supported by independent comment.
The second section is more problematic. The operative ruling in the first case is "subtly" and it seems to me the Judge was not certain. Although unsourced, the fact that the case was apparently settled outside court (which presumably means no admission of malpractice by Weil, Gotshal and Manges) leads me to the conclusion that it would be best not to include this case in the article.
In the second case the fact that it is ongoing strongly argues against inclusion. The mention is unbalanced because it includes only Radman's allegations, and it also makes them against named individuals which is problematic under WP:BLP. I would therefore remove mention of this case. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)