Talk:Patton Boggs

After the major edits by User:Pairadox I suggest to take off the news release tag. Any objections?--Mschiffler (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it needs to be replaced with a NPOV tag.

The section on clients, the bulk of the article, is exclusively about negative perceptions. I realize they're a law firm, but even they must have some notable accomplishments that aren't mired in controversy. (Yes, that was a joke.) I could only work with the material at hand but somebody else needs to bring in some additional data. If they're as influencial as the article indicates, there should be a wealth of infomation available. For example, what was their role in "every major multilateral trade agreement considered by Congress?" Not that I'm going to looking for it :D Pairadox (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the positive aspects of their work, e.g. on trade agreements, merits to be highlighted. Still, I would not place an NPOV tag on the article, since there is both positive and negative information, even if there currently is more on the latter. The lawyers at the firm, or preferably someone else interested, should certainly be able to write about this positive work. Interestingly, the account of User:PB webmaster, most likey the webmaster of the firm, was recently blocked, apparently because he used the name of the firm to register as a user, which apparently is against Wikipedia rules.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the logic behind that a little odd. WP forces them to choose names that obscure their connections, yet COI guidelines state such associations should be disclosed. Anyway, I feel pretty strongly that the overall tone of the article fails NPOV; it's not just a matter of having both pos and neg, it's the weight and arrangement. Even the "high powered lobby shop" in the first sentence is a charged phrase given the public's perception of such. If I just randomly happened across this article, I'd tag it in a heartbeat. But isn't it kinda silly to be debating this? The very act of placing a POV tag is POV, and my POV is that the article fails NPOV. Pairadox (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Instead of discussing this, I decided to be a bit bold and edited the POV sections so that now it reads more neutral, or at least I hope. I then removed the news release tag and believe it does not need a POV tag. Hope you agree.--Mschiffler (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, I approve wholeheartedly :-). -FrankTobia (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron litigation[edit]

The Washington Post article is unclear regarding the precise allegations or the venue the matter is being litigated in, as well as, as usual in journalistic reports, the name of the case. It is particularly unclear regarding when and why Patton Boggs became a defendant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]