Talk:Littler Mendelson

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

SPA / COI edits[edit]

A brand new WP:SPA with a suspiciously WP:COI sounding name, just inserted some blatant brochure-wear[1] that I reverted. I can only assume this is someone connected with the firm in question, or a well-meaning editor who is simply reporting stuff. Given that this is well-cited to non self-published sources I am inclined to think the former. Nevertheless, there is a lot of good stuff there that we can and should incorporate, as long as we can stay balanced and stick with stuff that is encyclopedic in relevance and tone. If nobody else does I'll come back to it when I have a chance.

For any editor associated with the firm, I suggest you use this talk page to propose changes to the article and limit yourself to minor clerical corrections and updates. Anything that makes the article sound like a business directory listing or firm website is going to be spotted quickly and reverted. Please refer to WP:COI for some hints on dealing with conflict of interest situations on Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Littler updates[edit]

I am not a marketing professional. I work for Littler in the Knowledge Management department and one of my job functions is to archive the Firm’s knowledge and information. Our intent in updating the Littler page on Wikipedia was to expand on the current limited description of the Firm, not to promote it. A team in the KM department here spent several weeks refining the copy to try to ensure the Wikipedia guidelines were followed and the information presented conveyed only facts about the Firm, such as its history, founders, practice areas, industry recognition and other factual particulars. We feel that the description of our content as "blatant brochure-ware" is inaccurate.

We researched the Wikipedia guidelines as applied to other law firms. We found listings for Skadden and Latham Watkins that, based on our understanding of the guidelines appeared too self-promotional and we made every effort to avoid this tone. We also reviewed the Sheppard Mullin listing and believe that the tone of our submitted description is no less neutral than theirs.

If you still consider our submission unacceptable, we would appreciate input regarding how best to revise the copy in order to more closely adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. Specifically, which text/references/sections would you consider unacceptable, and how can we change these to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and display the updated information while avoiding a conflict of interest? Our objective here is to add relevant information to the Littler Wikipedia listing in an acceptable (and timely) manner. We welcome any editorial assistance and/or suggestions you might be able to provide. LaborLawGuru (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the list of Littler practice areas to the page. This is purely encyclopedic content containing correct internal Wikipedia links. Please feel free to share any objections you may have to the addition of this content here. LaborLawGuru (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Hard Data and Request for Removal of Editorial Comments[edit]

I intend this update to bring the firm's page up to current in terms of number of practicing attorneys (over 800) and office locations. I would also like to remove some of the editorial comments such as "practicing exclusively in the aggressive representation of employers in labor and employment law..." The word "aggressive" is not objective in this case. Textheavy (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the Intentions of User Who Added Extremely Negative Item[edit]

As I read this "unbaised," "encyclopedic" article on Littler Mendelson, I have to wonder about the intentions of the user Lahaun who added a year-old mention of the CA Court of Appeals criticism of Littler Mendelson. While I do not suggest it is not accurate, it feels unbalanced to add such a blatantly negative piece of information to the article with nothing to balance. Littler Mendelson is often demonized by unions and other law firms because it represents management in litigation, but my experience as a contractor with this organization is that most of their energy is directed towards education and prevention to avoid litigation. Textheavy (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to Remove the Negative Reference[edit]

Based on the determination that the user Lahaun had "an ax to grind" when adding a year-old, extremely negative reference to this article, I intend to remove it. I am fully aware that there is nothing objectively inaccurate about the citation, but is is clearly not in the spirit of "encyclopedic" documentation to describe only negative incidents surrounding an organization. I would like to at least balance this article with one or more positive accomplishments of this firm, without running the risk of these additions being flagged as marketing or creating a "brochure" for the organization. Textheavy (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's interesting stuff, and possibly encyclopedic if incorporated carefully into the right article, but without context there's no indication that the disposition of a single case no matter how egregiously handled would serve to educate the reader in any constructive way about a firm of 800 attorneys. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Infobox content. Removal of negative reference that reappeared[edit]

I've just added an Infobox based on the infobox found on Skadden's article. I also removed the negative reference that had been previously removed, as it shows a high bias against the firm. Textheavy (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's just you and me here. Interesting how a huge law firm's article doesn't get as much editing traffic as a small tech startup. In any event I endorse that per the discussion immediately above. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to update article based on review of similar firms' articles[edit]

I've been asked to review the articles of firms similar in practice and size to Littler Mendelson. The intention is to bring this article in line with identified standards. I will make efforts to restrict additions to objective data. The update will likely be committed in the first week of August, 2011. Textheavy (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Updates[edit]

Updating factual data only: Number of attorneys, number of offices. Org's website used as reference. Btnummers (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to "Approx" Attorney Count, Intention to add List of Office Locations[edit]

Given the frequency of changes in number of attorneys, I will be changing the exact number of attorneys (entered by Btnummers) to an approximate number. I also intend to add a list of the locations where this firm has offices. 38.99.33.10 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (forgot to log in Textheavy (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Updating list of practice areas[edit]

While I am here, I am going to go ahead and update the list of specific practice areas based on those listed on the firm's website. Textheavy (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up references, intent to add section on firm's international expansion[edit]

I saw that there were some problems with the list of offices I added. It looks like the problems were around disambiguation. At some point I'll have to take some time to go through them again. Now I want to fix the issue with the references, and soon to add some information about the firm's international expansion into Mexico and Venezuela. Textheavy (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Littler Mendelson. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]