Talk:Davis Polk

"Infamous" is POV

Describing John W. Davis' representation of South Carolina in the case of Brown v. Board of Education is blatant POV. It also ignores the fact that, at the time, the United States Supreme Court had decided, on at least six occasions between 1896 and 1950, that racial segregation in public facilities did not violate the United States Constitution so long as equal provision was made for both races. Nothing in the relevant text of the Constitution had changed, and there has been no change since Brown was decided, so why would one expect a different conclusion to be reached after all that time? If the Constitution's meaning can change merely because the views and personnel of the Supreme Court have changed, then we have no Constitution, and, in truth, are governed by a judicial dictatorship. John Paul Parks (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical context

Davis is a known defender of racial segregation. At a time when the discourse of naming institutions is relevant (black lives matter), why is this not a relevant?

Why is it relevant that Princeton changed the name of its public policy school, which was named after Woodrow Wilson, but it is not relevant to even note the known involvement of a named partner?

188.207.74.159 I do not think the text you are trying to insert is notable or relevant enough to be in the lead of the article, and it is deleting information that is sourced. Consider adding it within the History section - but please note that anything you add to the article will need to have a reliable source. Best, Darren-M talk 10:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Small edits

Added in opening sentence the firm is known as "Davis Polk". Fixed the firm website link in the Info box to https://www.davispolk.com, since the dpw.com link wasn't working.Bjhillis (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Davis Polk & Wardwell. 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/20120423213616/http://www.chambers-associate.com/FirmFeature/3833 to http://www.chambers-associate.com/FirmFeature/3833
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001053219/http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/davis_polk_making_bank.php to http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/davis_polk_making_bank.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dpw.com/news/financialcrisis.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130121073716/http://www.davispolk.com/Davis-Polk-Named-Americas-Law-Firm-of-the-Year-by-IFLR-03-30-2012/ to http://www.davispolk.com/Davis-Polk-Named-Americas-Law-Firm-of-the-Year-by-IFLR-03-30-2012/

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) 18:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)