Talk:Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Too long?
does anyone else think that this article is a bit too long? some of the information is rather irrelevant. Kiwidude 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many articles that are longer. What do you believe is irrelavant?  --Nelson Ricardo 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Using Nelson logic: There are many articles that are shorter. What do you believe is most relevant? --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 10:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now you are Wikistalking me. Just so you know, I find stalkers flattering.  How old are you?  If you are 18 or over, we should get together and argue about something that has little relevance in the grand scheme of the universe. --Nelson Ricardo 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmn, I don't understand the ad hominem reply, Nelson. Why don't you reflect upon my previous comment and form a more appropriate and logical rejoinder for your fellow editor, Kiwidude? I'm just trying to facilitate cogent dialog here, Nelson. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * People who know Latin and Greek must be more smart than I. Me should back down b4 they imbareass  I.  --Nelson Ricardo 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes! "According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Skadden was one of the top law firms contributing to federal candidates during the 2012 election cycle, donating $1.98 million, 76% to Democrats.[45] By comparison, during that same period Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld donated $2.56 million, 66% to Democrats[45] and oil conglomerate ExxonMobil donated $2.66 million, 88% to Republicans" What is up with these comparisons? Why exxonmobil and akin grum? This wiki reads a bit like a PR piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.149.116 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguous Link Repair: You can help!
Does anyone know what type of gaming this page is talking about? See Gaming for more specific types. I'm guessing this is most likely Gambling or Games of chance. --Ash211 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * fixed Nelson Ricardo 07:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo skaden.gif
Image:Logo skaden.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice Whitewash
Nice whitewash, given that there is not a single mention of any of the multitude of unethical practices cited in Skadden: Power, Money, and the Rise of a Legal Empire by Lincoln Caplan  -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203040506/http://www.skadden.com/attorneys/ to http://www.skadden.com/attorneys/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210082644/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/21/1996/LIR.jhtml?passListId=21&passYear=1996&passListType=Company&uniqueId=3083&datatype=Company to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/21/1996/LIR.jhtml?passListId=21&passYear=1996&passListType=Company&uniqueId=3083&datatype=Company
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211170930/http://www.forbes.com:80/finance/lists/21/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=21&passYear=2003&passListType=Company&uniqueId=B9G3&datatype=Company to http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/21/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=21&passYear=2003&passListType=Company&uniqueId=B9G3&datatype=Company
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061010181141/http://www.skaddenfellowships.org/sitecontent.cfm?page=about to http://www.skaddenfellowships.org/sitecontent.cfm?page=about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417185459/http://www.skadden.com/content/sitefiles/Skadden_88A4B9FB5220CF7A8BC0A1AB8E3AD10D.pdf to http://www.skadden.com/content/sitefiles/Skadden_88A4B9FB5220CF7A8BC0A1AB8E3AD10D.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/21/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=21&passYear=2003&passListType=Company&uniqueId=B9G3&datatype=Company
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226090432/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878044.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878044.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

2018 Election interference of Russian
Andrea Manafort Shand, daughter of Paul Manafort, worked with Alex Van der Zwaan.--Wikipietime (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The short name of this firm
Up until a week ago this article’s lede sentence began Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates (often shortened to Skadden Arps; Skadden; or SASM&F), founded in 1948,.... On February 23, User:Störm removed the other names and left it as “commonly known as Skadden Arps”. No reference or reason was given. I believe this was an error, and a search will show that the firm name is is generally shortened to “Skadden”. Our article here has always said “Skadden” and still does. A search of sources finds that most sources, including the New York Times and the Washington Post (the “papers of record”), use “Skadden” - Washington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg, NBC News, Financial Times, ABA Journal, law.com - although a few do use “Skadden Arps”. The clincher is that the law firm itself consistently uses “Skadden” as its short form. The logo says Skadden, as you can see on this very article. The website is at www.skadden.com. And in talking about itself at that website, it consistently calls itself Skadden: overview, News and Rankings, Diversity and Inclusion, pro bono, Professionals, Latest from Skadden. I propose to change the lede to “Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates (commonly shortened to Skadden, sometimes Skadden Arps), founded in 1948,”. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I couldn't find any place that shortens it to "SASM&F" so I left that out of my proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as said above. I also suggest moving the title to simply Skadden. Title is too long and we should follow WP:COMMONNAME.  Störm   (talk)  17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply! I will change it. I'm not so sure about changing the article title to the shortened version. From looking at Category:Law firms of the United States I get the feeling that we generally use the full formal name for our article title. "Skadden" already redirects here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 10:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom → Skadden Arps – Per WP:COMMONNAME, and as raised in talk threads for the article. I believe the proportion of reliable, third party sources that use the full name is very, very small. I recognize that many other law firm articles similarly use the full legal name in apparent contradiction to WP:COMMONNAME (which unfortunately drives page moves whenever named partners are added/removed) but I am requesting this move as a test case; if consensus is to move this one I will request moves for the other ones as well. Opinion was previously solicited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and no response was recieved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. X ain36  { talk } 08:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)  --Relisting.   SITH   (talk)   13:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, COMMONNAME is Skadden. Whether it should move to COMMONNAME I don’t have to consider here yet. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per user Frenchmalawi. There is already a redirect page from Skadden to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom which could be turned into a disambiguation page if more "Skaddens" turn up. Talk consensus is against "Skadden Arps", citing "Skadden" as the common short name. User MelanieN says, "From looking at Category:Law firms of the United States I get the feeling that we generally use the full formal name for our article title." Danielklein (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

please edit article to include 2019 DOJ FARA settlement
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/01/17/feds-punish-skadden-over-firms-unregistered-ukraine-work/

this wikipedia article has no relevance without this information being included, they are just another firm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:C580:150E:457F:CBFA:B024:C071 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   20:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom → Skadden – Renom, but with corrected target this time. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and as raised in talk threads for the article. I believe the proportion of reliable, third party sources that use the full name is very, very small. I recognize that many other law firm articles similarly use the full legal name in apparent contradiction to WP:COMMONNAME (which unfortunately drives page moves whenever named partners are added/removed) but I am requesting this move as a test case; if consensus is to move this one I will request moves for the other ones as well. Opinion was previously solicited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, and no response was recieved. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Improves Wikipedia by reducing page moves and broken incoming links at no downside. I even think that current policy supports this particular move; Common usage seems to follow the logo. Also comfortable with this being a precedent for firms commonly referred to by a short name (which in Australia is not always the first name) even if it's not the most common name (but it normally is). Redirects should of course exist from all past and current official names. Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies section
Skadden is a large firm that, as a result of it's size has been involved with many clients and issues over the years. Wouldn't it be informative to add some of the concerning issues they have been involved with to the public domain? This page as it is, is just a promotion page that lists the years in business, notable accomplishments and notable people. That could just be their website - which isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be for.


 * New Lawsuit Takes Aim At Skadden Billing Practices - Delaware Chancery issue (Dozens of news articles)
 * Ukraine and Greg Craig (Dozens of news articles)
 * TransPerfect (Many articles)
 * Skadden $4.6 fine, re - Oleksandr Tymoshenko
 * Skadden and diversity - Al Sharpton (many articles)

These were just in the past 12 months. I am not suggesting that the firm deserves a bad rap, but I am suggesting that this forum isn't for just the issues most companies want to promote their businesses with. Fairlysimple (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020
2020 - Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has paid $11 million or more to avoid a lawsuit by a former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, who blamed the firm for aiding in her political persecution. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/us/politics/skadden-ukraine-settlement-tymoshenko.html?fbclid=IwAR2ApH9xXQ6mfD2jeFTmPmc18ZW71j9JLJ00iJlnGAH4rFZ8tJcq_Upmfm4 Alexkillern1 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I need you to please state what needs to be changed. You can say "add X to section Z" or "delete Y from section Z", but you cannot just state a fact or a sourced fact without specifying where you want it to be added. Aasim 01:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate request with a reliable source. I'll see if I can come up with something. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi : I see there is a reliable source, but I cannot see where to add it to the article.  If you can find a good place, that would be wonderful :) Aasim 02:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot more to say than just this. It turns out that somebody has whitewashed the whole Ukraine scandal out of the article. I am working on a paragraph on the subject, with multiple sources, and will add it tonight or tomorrow. That was a valuable suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wrong; some of it is there, in the timeline. I will either add the missing parts or make a new paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact I may rewrite the Timeline section into a History section as is done in most articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . :)  Aasim 15:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now replaced the "Timeline" section with a text "History" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 18 May 2020
Skadden's New York headquarters changed in March 2020 from 4 Times Square to One Manhattan West, New York, NY 10001-8602.

As of January 2020, Skadden has 349 partners.

Gregory B. Craig no longer works at Skadden and should be part of the Notable Alumni section or LakersFan5 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

ECP
Is ECP still required? Firm is not in the news quite so much any more. Awbfiend (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom per nom. No such user (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Skadden → Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom – Harmonize with most other law firm articles' titles, where the full name is used.  White Whirlwind   01:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Contested because of previous request from March 2019 which moved article to shorter name because of WP:COMMONNAME policy. Happily888 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - As someone who follows a few of these law firm pages, I always thought it was odd that this page uses a colloquial version of the name rather than the full version. I support moving this page to the full name to bring it in line with other pages about big law firms (e.g., Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, etc.).DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support but keep in mind that the logo is the short name. Awbfiend (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per reason given by DocFreeman24, i.e. consistent WP naming conventions. I believe this (harmonization-related) reason is more relevant than the firm's actual logo, although it is helpful that Awbfiend noted that. --FeralOink (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 08 October 2021
The "Ukraine Work" section should be moved down to "Other Work", if not omitted entirely. It is disproportionately prominent on a Wikipedia page this short and currently displayed in the wrong section.

Requested edit 17 March 2022
The description duplicates information that is noted in the second paragraph under “History.” While it’s important info about Skadden, it is not a description of the firm, like other law firm pages are (See, White & Case or Cravath, Swaine & Moore).

Shoule be removed from the first section: “Skadden has a history of representing clients with ties to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia, such as Alfa Bank and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. The firm helped Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine who was ousted in Euromaidan, produce a report justifying the imprisonment of his pro-European rival Yulia V. Tymoshenko. In 2020, the firm paid a $4.6 million settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice for lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of a Russia-aligned Ukrainian government without disclosing so.” Hikix25 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. It's irrelevant what WP:OTHER Wikipedia articles do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How many pages repeat the same information? Again, that info is listed two paragraphs down. Why have it on top and in the history? It’s not a description of the firm. It’s not being removed from the page altogether. Hikix25 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022
Completely remove introductory paragraph reading: Skadden has a history of representing clients with ties to the Vladimir Putin regime in Russia, such as Alfa Bank and Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. The firm helped Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine who was ousted in Euromaidan, produce a report justifying the imprisonment of his pro-European rival Yulia V. Tymoshenko. In 2020, the firm paid a $4.6 million settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice for lobbying in the U.S. on behalf of a Russia-aligned Ukrainian government without disclosing so.

Current page editing restrictions intended to prevent vandalism are having the effect of protecting vandalism. This is clearly politicized propaganda and fake news. Skadden Arps disavowed the work of one rogue attorney a decade ago and has paid a hefty price for his misdeeds. Even Skadden partners disapproved of the work at the time. Skadden Arps recently effectively shut down its office in Moscow, one of the first U.S. firms to do so, and has contributed to helping Ukraine in a variety of ways. Standwithukraina (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * New to backend of wikipedia. Do not know what a consensus requires. It's obvious that this paragraph was inserted maliciously. No other law firms have something so specific in their introductions. See Cravath, Swaine & Moore page or Latham & Watkins page or Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz page or any other Big Law firm. This edit has been removed previously by other editors only to be re-added by one person. The severity of this bias amounts to a falsehood. Skadden Arps supports Ukraine and disavows any association with the events and people who instigated this unprovoked war. Standwithukraina (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment. Lindenfall (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The Russian clients look over-represented in the introduction, which does seem unbalanced. The aspect has a section for details, a briefer synopsis of which should be part of the introduction. Lindenfall (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can someone fix this? Standwithukraina (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Still makes absolutely no sense for it to be in the lead at all. Snooganssnoogans is the culprit of the vandalism. He/She/They cannot be expected to provide an adequate remedy. Needs to be completely removed because it's already explained in the "History" section. And separately, it shouldn't even be in the history section. More appropriately placed in the "other work" section, or added to a new "controversies" section. It's redundant, unbalanced, and misleads readers. Standwithukraina (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the "trimming" only made it MORE unbalanced by increasing ambiguity and replacing words with negative conclusory synonyms. The length of the lead was not the issue. The substance and its location was the issue, and still is. Inadequate revision. Just more vandalism. Analogous to covering up graffiti of a swear word with graffiti of a racial slur comprised of fewer letters and claiming it's fixed. Standwithukraina (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the lead summarizes the body per WP:LEAD and this is the most substantive part of the body. Should we ignore Wikipedia policies just because it's now inconvenient for your company that it profited on helping individuals and institutions closely tied to Putin's regime in Russia and deceived U.S. authorities about its lobbying for these clients? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't work for the company. The lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The most important content is not the temporarily topical and controversial subject of its limited work in regarding Ukraine. If it was the most important part of the article, it would've been there before you vandalized the page and added it to the lead. Additionally, your edits don't summarize it; you detail it. The sole purpose of your changes are to damage the firm's reputation because of what you subjectively and incorrectly believe is their culpability in a current event. It is not your place to say that what you added is the most important part of the article. This compromises the integrity of all Wikipedia pages. Yes, the substance of this information belongs on the page, but obviously not in the lead. See previous comments. Still needs to be fixed. Standwithukraina (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm yet again closing this as needs consensus, as it is under discussion. Suggest some alternate verbiage, come to some sort of compromise, accept where it's at, or start an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2022
For nearly three quarters of a century, Skadden has been involved in many of the most important legal matters in the world, but over the last 3 weeks, Snooganssnoogans has systematically vandalized this page to reduce mentions of its public interest and philanthropic work and make nearly the entire history section about the firm's extremely limited involvement with Russia and Ukraine. Snooganssnoogans makes speculative accusations like "Tymoshenko made plans to sue." That content is not encyclopedic and it makes no sense to frame the history of a global law firm in the context of a single decade-old matter that almost everyone at the firm disapproved of at the time. Every major law firm is involved in countless controversial matters every day. Controversy is often the reason parties hire law firms. All edits made by Snooganssnoogans should be undone and they should be prohibited from vandalizing any wikipedia pages in the future. Standwithukraina (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have just issued a WP:ARBEE alert to the OP based off of the post above. For someone who claims they have no dog in the ring you've got a monomania for this article to the point you're acting like a bog-standard partisan editor that has plagued the Eastern Europe topic area for well over a decade. I strongly suggest you retract the personal attacks.  —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 23:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not make any personal attacks. Standwithukraina (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Random accusations made in bad faith (especially of vandalism when the issue is a genuine, good-faith content dispute) without any sort of evidence are personal attacks. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 20:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * my statements were not random, they were not in bad faith, and they did contained evidence including @Snooganssnoogans's own words and edit history over time. I suspect you two are colluding with one another. This is not a good-faith content dispute because @Snooganssnoogansdid not edit the page in good faith. They deleted anything positive and wrote an essay about one negative thing to triple the size of the history section. This is obviously vandalism. Standwithukraina (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware of this subject until you made a RFPP request and the edits in question are under sanctions; why the hell would I collude with a user I've hardly ever interacted with for edits I avoid like the plague in a topic area I stay out of specifically because of the virulent partisanship? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I think the edits by User:Snooganssnoogans improved the article. I certainly support their trimming of the material about the foundation, because it was 1) WP:PUFFERY and 2) sourced only to the company itself. As for the Russia material, it could be trimmed (and in fact Snoogans did some trimming) but it needs to be there simply because that is what sources are writing about. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2022
add Eliot Spitzer (former Governor of New York) to notable alumni. Astigmatismsurvivor (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's on Eliot Spitzer's page already. Also: NYTimes: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/03/10/nyregion/20080310_SPITZER_FEATURE.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer
 * WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB-1294 Astigmatismsurvivor (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing for firm history
Much of the detail provided here about the firm's history references Skadden's own website as a source (see: https://www.skadden.com/about/overview). Given the notability of this firm and the abundance of high-quality references, I would respectfully suggest that a serious effort is made to overhaul this section using better citations. Volcom95 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Purdue Pharma
Skadden has done significant work for Purdue Pharma, makers of Oxycontin. This includes work on its bankruptcy, which was reversed by the Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. and representing Purdue in opioid litigation around the country, as well as in its plea deal with the Department of Justice.

Should this be included in the "other work" section?