Talk:Latham & Watkins

message: I work for Latham & Watkins, the subject of this article. I’d like to request an independent editor review various issues with the second paragraph of the History section. The paragraph is about a self-published 2020 report created by a law student climate advocacy group. It reads:
: “The company is known for lobbying and litigating against actions to mitigate climate change. According to one scorecard of law firms, "Latham & Watkins is the only firm to be in the Top 5 Worst Firms for both transactions and litigation exacerbating climate change." 
The first sentence of this paragraph is grossly inaccurate and not verifiable. The Law.com source, concerning a self-published study by law students, does not say Latham & Watkins is “known” for any activities related to climate change. This phrasing is pure WP:Weasel, based on nothing other than L&W’s name appearing in one sentence mentioning multiple law firms named in the law-student report. “Latham & Watkins” are the only words about the firm in this Law.com article. There is no characterization of what the law firm is “known for.” The article also does not say L&W engages in lobbying (in fact, the firm does no lobbying at all.) 
The article does say L&W was one of the firms listed in the law student report. This would be an accurate replacement:
 A coalition of law students issued a scorecard saying that in 2020 Latham & Watkins was one of the firms with the worst record litigating cases that exacerbate climate change.  
The second sentence of the same paragraph shown above is solely sourced to the self-published rankings report, failing the criteria for WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV. It also contains a direct quotation with analysis, excerpted and sourced entirely from the self-published report, in complete violation of use of primary sources WP:PRIMARY WP:NOR. Because this information and quote is not found in the Law.com article, the sentence should be entirely removed. 
Finally, whatever language is included should be placed in chronological order, which would make it the last paragraph of the History section as it stands right now. History sections are laid out in chronological order as a matter of course. The structure here should resemble that of similar articles. WP:MOS
Thank you for your consideration. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Snooganssnoogans any comment? I am considering decling this request. Quetstar (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a reason for removing the RS content (law.com) and an attributed POV from the group that maintains the climate change scorecard. I'd keep the current version unless other non-COI editors have problems with the text. 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done:  Denied per Snooganssnoogans. Quetstar (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Edit Mar. 2022

message: I have removed the time limit on auto-archive 
As noted here, a bot was automatically removing active Request Edit templates from the official queue by archiving them after 20 days – a timeframe which, given that the official queue is months long and an RfC lasts 30 days, essentially making a Request Edit or a RfC impossible. I have a COI, which I disclosed above, so I must use Request Edits to address Wikipedia violations on this page.
Previously, User:Quetstar reverted my change of the bot to 365 days, to allow for a RE to proceed, back to 20 days. After a complaint on Talk, Questar allowed the bot to go back to several months without further reversals.  beyond twenty days. 
However, following the posting of a new Request Edit in March 2022, Questar [diff|reverted] the auto-archiving bot timeframe to twenty days again. They then began their own response to the RE -  a response which will be beyond discussion in about a week because of the 20-day bot. 
Unless there was an actual consensus to “set it up” reached on the Talk page, this bot must be removed as per WP:AUTOARCHIVE. (Need consensus to set up an auto-archive bot.)  I have looked through every Talk page discussion in the archives and none discuss an auto-archive bot. All I can find was the unilateral imposition of the bot by a now-retired user Balph Eubank on May 19, 2010, as you can see here. 
Since  Balph Eubank unilaterally imposed it on the page without getting a consensus in the first place, I brought back the auto-archive back to what is Default (i.e., blank). Anyone who wishes to change this would be required to get a consensus first, as per WP:AUTOARCHIVE. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot was placed on this page 12 years ago, and Wikipedia's policies have long evolved since then. Also, you do not make changes to a bot without the necessary consensus, so i have restored the time limit. Furthermore, this is now moot since your request has been declined. Quetstar (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: This is overblown, I am going to remove this from the RfC lists because this is totally unnecessary right now. Quetstar (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive Auto-archiving is Terminating Ongoing Discussions, Part 2

message: Should an auto-archive bot, which archives Talk discussions after there has been no comment for 20-days at Talk:Latham & Watkins be kept, removed or changed? DigitalMedia11 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is overblown, I am going to remove this from the RfC lists because this is totally unnecessary right now. Quetstar (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto-archive Bot RfC

message: Does the fifth and final paragraph of the History section concerning Russian clients of this law firm need to be revised or removed?
*The paragraph should be revised.
*The paragraph should remain unchanged.
*The paragraph should be removed.
DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: History section regarding Russian clients 

message: *Revise.  COI disclosed above. The paragraph is bloated with excessive details about L&W’s former Russian clients. WP:UNDUE. Until this paragraph was added, this short article did not name a single other client in the 88-year history of the law firm, one of the largest in the world, with almost 3,000 attorneys. Given  the brevity of the article, the personal reference mentioned in 2011 is not relevant, nor is their former representation of two state-owned Russian companies. The many thousands of attorneys who have worked for L&W have represented countless prominent companies and individuals that could be documented with tens of thousands of WP:RS over almost 90 years.  But the format of this article does not allow for this level of detail. 
The unspoken justification is 20/20 hindsight based on the Ukraine War. It’s a form of WP: Recentism. But L&W began to wind down working with all Russian companies in March 2022, according to , immediately following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 
There are also instances of coatracking in the paragraph. The fourth sentence, for example, barely mentions the firm before pivoting to the questionable activities of a possible client “linked to” a sanctioned Russian oligarch.WP:NOTNEWS).
Given this is a short article, the possibly relevant info from this paragraph is a mention that L&W opened a Moscow office in 1992 and that in March 2022, it began winding down operations with Russians, immediately following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, condemning the invasion. The last sentence is inaccurate by the way. The law.com source actually reports L&W said in March 2022 it would begin an “orderly transition to wind down” Russian operations following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that the firm condemned the invasion. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion