Talk:Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.

Untitled

Hello Wiki community, this is Justin w/ Chevron Corporation in San Ramon, California.

After reading this wiki entry, it has come to my attention that there are a number of editorialized comments and (what we perceive to be) inaccuracies in this posting. I'm hoping that we can work together to straighten out or at least present and unbiased posting on the Bowoto vs. Chevron case. As an employee of Chevron, I have not and will not edit the article without the community's blessing. As you know, there already have been disputes about the neutrality of this article and I do not want to further contribute to that. I am, however, available to answer questions about the case and can provide links to original documents presented at the trial so that the Wikipedia community can develop an article that meets neutrality, quality and verification standards. To that, I've taken some time to compile some thoughts and potential additions/changes to this posting.

On December 1, a federal jury ruled on Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It was only the second Alien Torts Claims Act case [[1]] to go trial.

The trial is significant for both its legal findings and the implications for other such claims. The trial recently concluded but the article about the case is both outdated and incomplete. The entry has been flagged as failing to comply with quality standards and containing unverified claims. The neutrality of the article has also been disputed. The Alien Torts Claim Act article has been flagged for improvement as well.

The Bowoto case centered on an incident that occurred in the Niger Delta in 1998. An offshore oil platform and barge owned and operated by Chevron Nigeria Limited was overtaken by a group of people from the Ilaje community. The case decided whether Chevron was responsible for the actions of the Nigerian security forces that were called to end the occupation of the platform and barge.

There is a difference of opinion over the legal implications of this case. One school of thought is that the U.S. courts should not be used to litigate claims by residents of foreign countries who are complaining about the conduct of their own government. Some argue that foreign countries should address these complaints, not U.S. courts.

There are a number of news stories that summarize the outcome and implications of the Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. case that may be helpful if you are looking to improve the article:

Legal Newsline article on the outcome of the trial: [[2]]

Law.com article summarizing the case: [[3]]

National Review article on the legal implications of Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. on the application of this and other Alien Torts Claims Act cases: [[4]]

Chevron justinh (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unvarnished editorializing

The legal implications section, with its complete lack of citations, comes off as naked editorializing. If references cannot be provided to support the "claims" being made, it should be deleted immediately.74.215.219.209 (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)