Talk:Steven Donziger

Contested deletion

Retain article. This page should not be speedily deleted because... it should exist on Wikipedia and clearly meets notability requirements. Steven Donziger was the subject of an article in The Guardian today. Given the content of the article, that one article alone and the leads within would be sufficient. --RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Terrible article

This reads like it was written by Donziger's PR firm; it's embarrassing. I'm removing the blatant editorialization from the beginning but someone needs to go through it with a power washer. 98.237.242.206 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Donziger has a PR firm. And who are you anyway? ---Dagme (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone who's either a fan of Chevron et al or maybe even paid by them. jae (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs Updating

In light of https://iadllaw.org/2020/09/more-than-200-lawyers-file-judicial-complaint-against-judge-lewis-a-kaplan-over-abusive-targeting-of-human-rights-advocate-steven-donziger/ Marbux (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Marbux Is there a secondary source that discusses it? As an NGO, I'm not sure that source has weight. Jlevi (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Copied to Loretta Preska's page

I have copied the following text to Loretta Preska's page:

Preska was chosen by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to preside over Steven Donziger's trial for criminal contempt. This was unusual as judge's are usually selected randomly. In August 2019, Preska sentenced Donziger to home detention while awaiting trial and ordered the seizure of his passport. He was required to wear a GPS-equipped ankle bracelet. Preska ordered Donziger to post a bail bond of $800,000, which is a record for a misdemeanour case in the US. In May 2020, Preska ruled that Donziger's case would not be heard by a jury, which Donziger had requested. In August 2020, after two other attorney's were unable to appear in the trial, Preska ordered Andrew Frisch, Donziger's former lead defence attorney, to represent him. Martin Garbus, who also represents Donziger but was unable to attend the trial, said a trial with Frisch would not be "a constitutionally protected case" and that "Donziger is being forced to go to trial with a lawyer who doesn't want to be in the case, who doesn't get along with Donziger, and claims that before Donziger goes ahead with the trial he should pay him additional moneys". Donziger's contempt charge and house arrest have been harshly condemned by legal advocates. Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries.

Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

November 2020 Nobel laureates statement

The second statement by Nobel laureates seem not to have been picked up by the press. As such, it's most likely undue in the lede. Could you make sure everything in the lede is also cited in the body? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Slowly working through some references to extract as much info as possible about Donziger's early and personal lives. So far there is not a lot. I think I may need to look through Donziger's twitter feed (@SDonziger) to see if there is anything useable (wp:twitter). Burrobert (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been through all references used on the page and extracted as much info as possible about Donziger's early life. The next step is to examine his social media accounts. Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Great. If I were a reviewer, I'd probably be happy now and skeptical of social media. I think it's time to improve the lede :). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening Femkemilene. I have removed the later statement by the Nobel laureates from the lead. I have also expanded and rewritten the lead. What do you think? Some questions:

• Is the paragraphing style in the lead acceptable?
• Should the page's infobox be expanded to include other information? I had a look at Erin Brockovich's page as a guide since there is some similarity between the two. Her infobox includes spouse and child info and a nice photo.

Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

For balance, I think some mention should be made of the fact that some (tbf sketchy) judge found him guilty of a couple of things. You could add his spouse of course; I don't think it's very valuable. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now added Kaplan's decision and the disbarring. We don't know much about his family so I wont add these to the infobox. I couldnt find a photo of Kaplan on Wikimedia Commons. Burrobert (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

GA nomination has now been done. It is a pity about the lack of photos as that is one of the criteria for a good article. Burrobert (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately it's not :). The criteria simply say Illustrated, if possible. In this case, it wasn't possible to have an image. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Guerra's retraction

That Guerra retracted important parts of his testimony has been questioned. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-29/chevron-oil-pollution-and-the-case-of-the-tainted-witness Paul Barrett is clearly anti-Donzinger but seems hardly on Chevron's payroll, and Bloomberg is considered a reliable source. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what we have in the article related to Guerra’s testimony to an international tribunal:

"In 2015, Guerra testified to an international tribunal that he had lied and changed his story multiple times in the RICO trial. Guerra admitted that there was no evidence supporting the allegation that Donziger bribed him or paid him for a ghostwritten judgment, and that large parts Guerra's testimony in the RICO case were either exaggerated or untrue".

• Our statement that "In 2015, Guerra testified to an international tribunal that he had lied and changed his story multiple times in the RICO trial" perhaps should be amended as it does not quite summarise the source.
• The other two sentences do not conflict with the Bloomberg article. The Bloomberg article does not claim that there is evidence that Donziger bribed Guerra or paid him for a ghostwritten judgment. The Bloomberg article does not claim that Guerra did not lie or exaggerate in the RICO trial.
• The Bloomberg article does state that "Guerra did not recant the core testimony he gave in the racketeering trial". However, it does not explain what it means by core other than to say "But he has also testified consistently that years ago he took cash in unmarked envelopes from the plaintiffs' team as part of a scheme to fix the case against Chevron".

In summary, I don't think we need to change what is in our article other than to amend the first sentence. Whether we should also incorporate Bloomberg into our article can be discussed. Do you have a suggestion?

Burrobert (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the key line in the Bloomberg is "But his recollections—including his account of trying to get the two sides in the controversy to bid against each other for his services—are consistent with testimony from other witnesses in a case polluted by fraud and phony scientific evidence.". Presently the article implies that with Guerra's testimony Chevron would have no case. This is obviously not the best source because of its lack of details, but it is perhaps worth looking into. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

We do say “The case relied in large part on the testimony of Alberto Guerra” which seems to be a fair summary of the sources I have seen. Some of the sources said that, without Guerra’s evidence, Chevron’s case would be lost but we don’t say that explicitly. We can add other evidence put by Chevron if you can find sources. When Bloomberg says “a case polluted by fraud and phony scientific evidence”, it does not explain whose fraud and whose phony scientific evidence (both parties submitted scientific reports) it is describing and how it reached that conclusion. Burrobert (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Burrobert! I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia but I wanted to chime in here to add some info this discussion before I just go in and edit things. I believe the section on Guerra needs to be updated in light of the tribunal's decision and the conclusions contained within it. I noticed that the Guerra paragraph relies heavily on a Vice News article from 2015 as a source. Vice News has no consensus of reliability from editors per the reliable sources list at WP:RSP. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to contest some of the article's claims based upon new primary sources. One of the key problems I have with this section of the Wiki article is this claim: "Guerra admitted that there was no evidence supporting the allegation that Donziger bribed him or paid him for delivering a ghostwritten judgment, and that large parts Guerra's testimony in the RICO case were either exaggerated or untrue." I believe that this claim lacks context and makes it seem as if, because Guerra is unreliable, that the alleged ghostwriting by Donziger did not occur, when the same tribunal where Guerra testified concluded that ghostwriting did occur by Donziger himself. The tribunal where Guerra recanted is the same one that ruled in favor of Chevron in 2018. More importantly, however, in the ruling issued by the tribunal on the pdf page 337, where the tribunal's conclusions are laid out, they state:

"Based on the circumstantial evidence, the Tribunal finds that Judge Zambrano did not draft the entirety of the Lago Agrio Judgment by himself, as he falsely testified on oath in the RICO Litigation. The Tribunal finds that Judge Zambrano, in return for his promised reward, allowed certain of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ representatives, corruptly, to ‘ghostwrite’ at least material parts of the Lago Agrio Judgment (with its Clarification). These representatives included Mr Fajardo and Mr Donziger."

The tribunal did not consider Guerra's testimony as core to their conclusion about the judgement, as Guerra for was cut out of discussions between Judge Zambrano and Donziger to ghostwrite the ruling. The tribunal states on the same page that "Dr Guerra was largely excluded from this ‘ghostwriting’ exercise at the time; and his knowledge is limited."

I wonder if we could add a line like this after the claim sourced from Vice News to add new context: "However, the international tribunal concluded in its 2018 ruling that, despite Guerra's recanted claims, Donziger did partly ghostwrite the judgement, stating: 'Judge Zambrano, in return for his promised reward, allowed certain of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ representatives, corruptly, to ‘ghostwrite’ at least material parts of the Lago Agrio Judgment' and that 'These representatives included Mr Fajardo and Mr Donziger'". Or something along those lines? What do you think? Multisupermono (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"reliable" is such a stupid term, in general and for articles like this one in particular. Reliable doesn't mean unbiased, or that the information there is even actually reliable. "Reputable" would be better. Ah yes, reliable source check their facts. Or so the thinking goes. Which is bollocks, most newspapers or news magazines don't check all the facts in articles thoroughly (One word: Relotius). At least not as long as there isn't a powerful figure or company that could get "annoyed" at the reporting.

Bloomberg, as a news site/source that serves businesses, is certainly not a neutral, but a pretty biased source (that would be an important distinction that WP:RS only mentions in passing). jae (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Multisupermono and thanks for being polite and going through the talk page (it is also fine to be bold and simply edit the article). Here are my thoughts on your proposal:

• I am satisfied that what we have in the article at the moment is a fair summary of the sources used including Guerra’s testimony at the international tribunal. The judgement of that tribunal is included in the section “Class action lawsuit against Chevron” because it relates to that case and not the counter-litigation against Donziger:

"In 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador was marked by fraud and corruption and "should not be recognised or enforced by the courts of other States." "

• As far as I can tell, the importance of Guerra’s recantation is that Chevron’s case before Kaplan was largely based on his testimony. Presumably the international tribunal’s decision was based on information not provided in the case before Kaplan.
• There is room to flesh out the tribunal’s decision by mentioning its reasoning regarding the ghostwriting of the Ecuadorian judgement. Your proposed wording could be along the right lines except that it would be best to use a secondary source. It is too easy to misuse a primary source and choosing one or two sentences from a 400 page primary document involves too much editorial input.

In summary, I agree that we can add the tribunal’s decision about the ghostwriting, but see if you can find a secondary source. Perhaps, one of the sources we are already using may provide the necessary wording. One other small point, avoid words such as “however” and “despite” if you can, as they generally involve an editorial judgement. Burrobert (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What are the wikipedia rules if the source that is cited in the wikipedia article contradicts the actual primary source? The VICE article that much of the paragraph starting with "The case relied in large part on the testimony of Alberto Guerra..." is pretty wrong about the RICO case based on the actual ruling. It makes claims that I believe to be clearly contradictory with the ruling and actually cites something that was literally in the RICO case ruling.

First the VICE article uses this quoted section about Guerra lying :

"And among the ways you tried to leverage your position was to falsely tell the Chevron representatives that the Plaintiffs had offered you $300,000; isn't that right?" Bloom asked.

"Yes, sir. I lied there," Guerra responded. "I recognize it."''

But that is literally acknowledged in the RICO case ruling.

“• Admittedly lied to the Chevron investigators in claiming that the LAPs had offered him $300,000, a lie that he explained at trial by saying that he had been trying to exaggerate his own importance. ” Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 974 F. Supp. 2d 362, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-8

Wouldn't it be better to use the actual testimony being mentioned instead of this article? Because based on that I don't have a clear idea what Guerra actually admitted to lying about.

Secondly, I sincerely don't understand how anyone can read the RICO case ruling, which is nicely summarized by the Second Circuit of Appeals ruling affirming the District Court's ruling, and come away with the same conclusion as the VICE article and the wikipedia article that cites it, to say "The case relied in large part on the testimony of Alberto Guerra..."

From my reading, Guerra's testimony only related to the issue of the Judgment being "ghostwritten" and the Judge who issued the Judgment being bribed for it. The rest of the case has serious allegations of wrongdoing by Donziger including coercing a Judge and submitting fraudulent evidence, didn't rely on Guerra at all:

• "submitt[ing] fraudulent evidence,"

• "coerc[ing] one judge" to use a single, "supposedly impartial, `global expert' to make an overall damages assessment" for the judge,

• "hand-pick[ing]" and illegally "pa[ying]" an expert who would "`totally play ball' with the LAPs" in making such a damages assessment for the judge,

• coercing that judge to appoint Donziger's "hand-picked" expert as the court's "`global expert,'"

• "pa[ying] a Colorado consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert's report,"

• "falsely present[ing] the report as the work of the court-appointed and supposedly impartial expert,"

• fraudulently having the Colorado firm write supposed criticisms by the LAPs of the expert's report that that firm had written for the LAPs, to cause it to appear that the expert was impartial and his report neutral, rather than, as in fact it was, written by agents of the LAPs,

• telling "half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing,"

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2244440503456121877#p117

All those allegations were made in the RICO case ruling without a connection to Guerra at all. It is subjective to say how much the "case relied in large part", but I don't believe that is an accurate description of how much wrongdoing Donziger was alleged of doing.

And as your own sentence says "As far as I can tell, the importance of Guerra’s recantation is that Chevron’s case before Kaplan was largely based on his testimony", it is pretty misleading in my view.

So is it correct for the wikipedia article to use that VICE article as a source?

What is the appropriate thing to do here? Why not directly link the relevant case texts? Doggomandatory (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy discourages the use of Primary documents "because it is easy to misuse them". "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So, if we were to link to the case texts, we would need to use a direct quote without any commentary and would need to decide what parts of a large document to include. Secondary sources are preferred. See WP:Primary. If the secondary sources are inaccurate then we should not use them of course. I will see if I can find time to look at the points you mention above in relation to the Vice article. Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Some comments:

- Firstly, the Vice article is reporting on what Guerra said before an international tribunal after Kaplan had already ruled in the Chevron case.

- Regarding Kaplan’s assessment of Guerra’s testimony, we have stated that Kaplan accepted Guerra's testimony about the bribe and the ghostwriting of the Ecuador judgement. We have also included Kaplan’s statement about the unreliability of Guerra’s testimony. We have quoted the The Vice article saying:

In his judgment, Kaplan wrote that "Guerra on many occasions has acted deceitfully and broken the law ... but that does not necessarily mean that it should be disregarded wholesale". He found that the "evidence leads to one conclusion: Guerra told the truth regarding the bribe and the essential fact as to who wrote the Judgment."

- We have provided some specifics about what Guerra lied about, based on his testimony before the international tribunal. It appears to conflict with Kaplan's decision to accept Guerra's testimony about the bribe. Both can be true though - there may be no evidence for the bribe allegation but Kaplan may still have accepted it as truthful:

Guerra admitted that there was no evidence supporting the allegation that Donziger bribed him or paid him for delivering a ghostwritten judgment, and that large parts of Guerra's testimony in the RICO case were either exaggerated or untrue.

- Given our policy and the size of the judgement, I can’t see any way of neutrally including references to the primary source in the bio. I think we need to rely on secondary sources for an analysis of the judgement. If you think the Vice’s analysis is wrong, look for another secondary source.

Burrobert (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both of Burrobert's comments above: "Given our policy and the size of the judgement, I can’t see any way of neutrally including references to the primary source in the bio. I think we need to rely on secondary sources for an analysis of the judgement. If you think the Vice’s analysis is wrong, look for another secondary source." and "Wikipedia policy discourages the use of Primary documents "because it is easy to misuse them"."

What would be best would be a legal expert (law professor type)'s assessment/analysis of the judgement, since non-experts like us could easily mis-interpret something, even without intended bias. This is why Wikipedia requires secondary sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, that makes sense, it is quite a huge document and it might not work under that section. I also see what you mean about 'however' and 'despite' too. I appreciate the feedback and I'll see what I can find in the article, if anything, to change based on it. I thought I'd ask before editing anything because I'm very inexperienced and want to make sure I learn more first. Multisupermono (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with the search. I should have given you a reference for my comment about "despite" and "however". They are called "words to watch" and you can read all about them and others at WP:Words_to_watch. Burrobert (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Multisupermono (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This WSJ source is behind a paywall, but since I have a subscription, I thought I'd look to see whether it can help in this case, but it only mentions ghostwriting as part of the 2014 NY trial, not relating to the Hague tribunal's decision, so we'd need a different secondary source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Avatar317. Burrobert (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steven Donziger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Add alt text and "upright" to every image.
• "18 May 2020" → "May 18, 2020" (consistency; American English)
• Add a serial comma after "Toronto Star".
• Remove the comma after "law school in 1991".
• "which produced" → "that produced"
• "Washington, D.C.." → "Washington, D.C."
• "his visit to" → "he visited"
• "In order to avoid" → "To avoid"
• Add a serial comma after the first use of "Brazil".
• Wall Street Journal → The Wall Street Journal (every time)
• "judgement" → "judgment" (both times; American English)
• Add commas after "against it", "witness tampering", "phones"
• "defences" → "defenses" (American English)
• "a payment" - is the "a" necessary?
• "attorney–client" → "attorney-client" (WP:DASH)
• "misdemeanour" → "misdemeanor" (American English)
• "additional moneys" - typo?
• "concerns about coronavirus" → "coronavirus concerns"
• "coronavirus" - you mean the COVID-19 pandemic, right?
• Add a hyphen between "six month".
• Add a serial comma after "GQ magazine".
• "which has" → "that has"
• Add a comma after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
• "favoured" → "favored" (American English)
• Try avoiding having every paragraph start with "In [Year], this happened..."
• The last sentence in #In_popular_culture needs a source.
• I suggest merging #Personal_life and #In_popular_culture.
• Add this date template to fix references.
• Wikilink websites in prose and in references.
• Archive sources manually or using this tool.
• FAIR → Fair
• Citation #5 is missing a date.
• Citation #30 is missing a website.
• Citation #31 is missing an access-date.
• Citation #42 should be properly cited.
• Wikilink Jonathan Watts and Alexander Zaitchik.
• Every reference should use the "last, first" name template (see #16).
• Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from Wall Street Journal with "|url-access=subcription".

Good evening Some Dude From North Carolina. I have been through the list of comments and, in most cases, made the recommended changes. I still need to rewrite the article to reduce the instances of "In [Year], this happened...". I have a few questions about the comments:

• Changing Wall Street Journal to The Wall Street Journal: In one instance I changed the sentence structure to avoid saying "A The Wall Street Journal editorial ..." which would have sounded odd.

Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• additional moneys : The source does use that expression. Merriam-Webster says "in some scenarios, especially when it refers to discrete sums of money obtained from a particular source or allocated to a particular cause, money can be pluralized as moneys or monies, with the latter being the more common spelling".

Thanks for the explanation. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilinking Jonathan Watts and Alexander Zaitchik. These only appear in references. The solution I used for wikilinking them may not be appropriate. Are you able to check please?

 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• I changed FAIR to Fair. However, the name is an acronym and is capitalised in our article on the organisation as well as in its own literature. Is there a reason why you wanted the capitalisation removed?

WP:ALLCAPS Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but WP:ALLCAPS says that acronyms should (generally) be capitalized. Colin M (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

SLAPP

The following text was recently removed from the lead of the article:

In 2020 twenty-nine Nobel laureates described the actions taken by Chevron against Donziger as "judicial harassment" and human rights campaigners have described Chevron's actions as an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). In April 2021, six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus demanded that the Department of Justice review Donziger's case.

The description of Chevron's actions as a SLAPP appears in the article body. I can't make much sense of the reason for the removal. Does anyone have any opinions about the relevance of this text to the article? Burrobert (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't make any sense of the explanation either other than NoonIcarus saying "undue", which I sort of agree with...we should have a summary of the "Reactions" section, but not only emphasize one or two in the lead.

The lead should summarize the article, and include its most important points: I would like the lead improved by having a small sentence about the 2018 International Tribunal finding, (important point, in my opinion-actual legal outcome-) and then probably two sentences to summarize the "Reactions" section. Would you like to write it? You probably have more knowledge on this subject than I. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a constructive suggestion. I will post a suggested addition here to get feedback before making any changes. Burrobert (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Steven Donziger Interview.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Shouldn't "arranging for expert's reports to be ghostwritten" be "arranging for experts' reports to be ghostwritten"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You are right to point out that the structure of the sentence is grammatically wrong. The point that is important is the number of experts involved. If there were more than one, then your correction would be valid. The WSJ article states "In a 485-page decision, Judge Kaplan rebuked Mr. Donziger for engaging in judicial bribery, coercion, witness tampering and hiring of an American consulting firm to ghostwrite an expert’s reports". So, it appears there was only one expert involved. The sentence is incorrect as it stands and can be fixed by adding an "an" between the words "for" and "expert's". Burrobert (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Slate, The American Prospect and Amazon Watch

Some text was recently removed from the article with an edit summary:

"Removed NON-Reliably Sourced sourced statement: both of these sources: "prospect.org" - not Reliable in itself; and "slate.com" - usually Reliable, link to "amazonwatch.org" - which is Donziger's organization - as the source for their statements".

Some points:

• The American Prospect is not listed at the Perennial sources list and afaict its reliability has never been assessed. It has been used over 900 times within Wikipedia.
• Afaict, Amazon Watch has no official ties with Donziger. He is not listed as a member of its staff or board. His name does not appear in Amazon Watch's wiki and Amazon Watch does not appear in Donziger's wiki. Amazon Watch has supported Donziger's law suit on behalf of the Ecuadorians but has also done other work related to the protection of the Amazon.
• It is correct that the claims in Slate and The American Prospect are sourced from an article on Amazon Watch. However, each publication is responsible for claims that it publishes.
• One of the points that Donziger raised in 2014 after Kaplan's ruling was that Kaplan held investments in three mutual funds which in turn held Chevron shares and that he failed to disclose these investments. "In a press release issued Oct. 30, Donziger says that three mutual funds in which Kaplan has disclosed investments owned shares of Chevron". The point was not disputed by the judge but Bloomberg cited a legal expert stating that investing in mutual funds was, "along with government securities, viewed as the surest way for a judge to invest without a risk of recusal". The expert did not address the issue of whether Kaplan should still have disclosed the investments.
• The issue has been mentioned by other sources. A 2020 letter from the International Association of Democratic Lawyers referred to the issue: "At the time of his decision, Judge Kaplan had undisclosed financial ties to Chevron that would have provided grounds for Ecuadorian plaintiffs and Donziger to seek his recusal".

Burrobert (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the statement "Several sources reported that Kaplan held investments in Chevron while hearing the case." is that (because it was/is sourced to left-wing, not really Reliable Sources you list here: jacobinmag.com, commondreams.org, truthout.org) it LEADS the reader to the conclusion Donziger and his allies want, while the Bloomberg source (Reliable Source) paints an almost completely opposite picture:

"Because it’s based on a fundamental distortion of the rules governing judicial financial disclosures and conflicts of interest, the ethics charge isn’t likely to be taken seriously. Moreover, the lawyer representing Donziger in a separate appeal of Kaplan’s verdict declines to endorse or associate himself with his client’s risky attack on Kaplan’s ethics."

"Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, says Donziger misconstrued the rules on disclosure and recusal. “Under the federal recusal statute and the Code of Conduct counterpart, a federal judge must recuse himself if he has a ‘financial interest’ in a party,” Gillers explains via email. Ownership of a mutual fund that, in turn, holds securities in a party to a lawsuit is not considered a “financial interest,” Gillers says. “Kaplan’s ownership of shares in mutual funds that have shares of Chevron is not a ‘financial interest’ in Chevron. Mutual funds are, along with government securities, viewed as the surest way for a judge to invest without a risk of recusal.”

And the Bloomberg article also says: "...Paul Paz y Mino, director of outreach for Amazon Watch, a nonprofit allied with Donziger, ..."

I'd be ok with a FULL explanation like this: "Donziger maintains that because Judge Kaplan held shares in three mutual funds, which in turn held shares in Chevron at the time of the ruling, this should have required Kaplan to recuse himself, though a legal expert stated: “Kaplan’s ownership of shares in mutual funds that have shares of Chevron is not a ‘financial interest’ in Chevron. Mutual funds are, along with government securities, viewed as the surest way for a judge to invest without a risk of recusal.” sourced to the Bloomberg source.

This is generally the problem I find with both left-wing and right-wing sources; they like to only tell the HALF of the story, to make their case compelling, while the WHOLE truth is often more complicated and less black-and-white.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Steven Donziger/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Though this was reviewed just this year for GA, I am somewhat surprised it passed and identify a number of problems with the GA review. I mean no disrespect to Some Dude From North Carolina, but a GA is about more than just copyedits. Fundamental concerns such as neutrality and completeness must be weighed as well. With that in mind, below are my GA comments.

General

• I don't think this article is close to "broad in its coverage" without citing at least one book about the topic. I suggest "Law of the Jungle: The $19 Billion Legal Battle Over Oil in the Rain Forest and the Lawyer Who'd Stop at Nothing to Win" ISBN 0770436366 by Paul M. Barret. Alternatively, "Crude Awakening" by Michael D. Goldhaber, which is newer and cheaper, though shorter.
• That he played basketball with Obama seems like trivia, I question how important that really is, but I don't feel very strongly.
• "by offering investors" wait, who are the investors?
• I am not a fan of the quote box where Donziger protests the prison term. Of course he'd protest. And I would not say he is a reliable source to claim that such detention is in fact uncommon. Quotes should be used sparingly on Wikipedia.
• That he was on the daily show is trivia and should be removed.
• I have a lot of problems with the reactions section. It is both poorly written and not neutral. Its just a bunch of reviews slapped down without any real sense of organization. Chronological is not generally a good format for reception sections. As I see it from the sources, there are two camps of thought. One, the courts got it wrong, and this is a big boondoggle/miscarriage of justice. Two, the courts got it right, and Donziger is a slimeball who had it coming. We of course don't take a side, but I think the section could be organized into reactions for/against him. The dates of feedback are not very important, rather their content and origin. Re: neutrality, I have just gone and looked up a bunch of sources, and I think the reception section does not at all match the range of opinions in the press. As written, it is almost entirely pro-Donziger, which ignores the fairly large anti-Donziger camp.
• In line with the previous, I don't think the lead does a good job summarizing the disparate viewpoints. The lead seems very pro-Donziger.
• I've made some general copyedits, please let me know if I made any errors.
• Amazonwatch is Donziger's own website, I very much question if it should be cited at all. With so many other sources, surely the info could be found elsewhere?
• While I see that there is a "see also" for the initial class action suit, that link isn't actually all that useful since the target page does a pretty poor job covering it. I think the class action section needs more details by far. Its the centerpoint of Donziger's life and gets just a summary treatment.
• How is the photo of Donziger appropriately licensed? It looks to be a screen grab from a YouTube video, which would definitely not be free. on closer inspection, it does actually look to be CC liscensed at the video itself
• Speaking of images, it probably wouldn't be that hard to get a picture of Judge Kaplan either.
• The use of tweets as sources should almost always be avoided, with the exception of the tweet for his birthday.
• Why is "Donzigerdefense.com" an external link? Not sure what that brings to the article.
• "Kaplan appointed a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Donziger after the Southern District Court of New York declined to do so." wait, how could that be? Kaplan is a SDNY judge

In summary, I have concerns over GA criteria 1b(lead), 2b(source use), 3a&b(broad coverage), 4(NPOV), and 6(Illustrated), among other general errors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• The suggestion about removing trivia are fine with me. Or perhaps placing it under Personal Life if appropriate. Does Wikipedia have a policy about not including trivia in Good Articles?

• I am unclear on why citing books would broaden the coverage. Is there something the books have covered that the current sources have not? I have not read either suggestion. One was mentioned in a FAIR article: "The last story that the Times published on the subject was an opinion piece by business columnist Joe Nocera, who explored the “darker narrative about Donziger” (9/22/14)—a narrative that Bloomberg business writer Paul Barrett laid out in his book Law of the Jungle. Like Barrett, Nocera depicted Donziger as a “rogue lawyer willing to do virtually anything to win".

• "by offering investors" : investors are people who invest. It seems fairly clear. The source says “Donziger and his team, with FDA support, devised an innovative solution to fund the case, offering investors a tiny portion of any eventual settlement".

• Quote box: happy for the quote to be moved to a suitable place in the body. He may not be a reliable source for the claim about detention being unusual, but his comment is notable within his own bio. His comment is consistent with other comments about his detention provided in the Reactions sections. Elsewhere we mention the maximum sentence for his offence is six months so readers should be able to draw their own conclusions (“Lawyer's Rights Watch Canada points out that Donziger has been under house arrest for longer than the six–month maximum sentence that contempt of court carries” etc.).

• “the reception section does not at all match the range of opinions in the press. As written, it is almost entirely pro-Donziger, which ignores the fairly large anti-Donziger camp” : If you provide the references, the content can be added. As noted by FAIR, there has been a general media silence about the case, so sources covering Chevron’s viewpoint may be hard to find outside the WSJ, from which we have used four separate Chevron-friendly articles.

• Reactions section : the chap from North Carolina suggested rewriting this section to remove excessive use of the phraseology “In July 2020 …” etc. This has not been done yet and would improve the readability. We could also try gluing the various reactions together with some linking text.

• “The lead seems very pro-Donziger”. You are probably referring to the final part of the lead which gives various reactions, all favourable to Donziger. I agree this is excessive and could be reduced to a few sentences, one summarising support positions and one summarising support for Chevron.

• "I’ve made some general copyedits”: The copy edits are fine with me except that “released of liability” perhaps should be “released from liability”.

• “Amazonwatch is Donziger's own website”: Amazon Watch has not been used as a source in the article. Afaict there is no official connection between Donziger and Amazon Watch. This is my comment on the talk page: “[Donziger] is not listed as a member of its staff or board. His name does not appear in Amazon Watch's wiki and Amazon Watch does not appear in Donziger's wiki. Amazon Watch has supported Donziger's law suit on behalf of the Ecuadorians but has also done other work related to the protection of the Amazon”. An editor did quote one source as saying the two were “allied” without an explanation of what that means. Amazon watch is certainly supportive of Donziger’s lawsuit so is not a neutral observer.

• Class action against Chevron: The article Lago Agrio oil field has detailed info about the lawsuit. However, expanding the section would be fine.

• “on closer inspection, it does actually look to be CC liscensed at the video itself”: what do you mean? Is there a problem with the licensing of the photo?

• “it probably wouldn't be that hard to get a picture of Judge Kaplan either”: Rightho, although his wiki does not contain an image. I looked for images related to Donziger in the Commons but could not find anything unfortunately.

• “The use of tweets as sources should almost always be avoided, with the exception of the tweet for his birthday”: Agree.

• “Why is "Donzigerdefense.com" an external link?”: It is obviously relevant,. It is also partisan. What is the problem? Do you suggest removing it or maybe adding an equivalent link to Chevron’s defence website?

• “wait, how could that be? Kaplan is a SDNY judge”: That is not a mistake. It is apparently allowed and is one of the odd things about the case. It is mentioned in a number of sources.

Burrobert (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is a policy against trivia in general, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections
• Books provide a more in-depth overview of most subjects, but I guess they are not mandatory so long as the article is brought up to par with other sources
• I've fixed the investors wording
• I stand by that Donziger's own quote about himself is inappropriate, or at least definitely the last sentence.
• https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/joe-nocera-behind-the-chevron-case.html?searchResultPosition=4, the most relevant section reads "What’s worse is that the Ecuadorians who live in the affected areas have still not seen any help, 20 years later. A lawyer with a more realistic view of the case might have been able to get a reasonable settlement early on. A lawyer who had played by the rules might have even won a judgment that would now be enforceable in an American court. “Donziger disserved his clients and his cause” by the way he conducted himself during the trial, Cassel now says." that being Doug Cassel, Notre Dame law prof.
• I would also use the currently used Forbes source in the reception. I would also suggest reading some of Forbe's other treatments of the subject, of which there are at least 4 others.
• My bad, instead of AmazonWatch I actually meant the "FreeDonziger" website, which I doubt has editorial oversight to make it a Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Re: the image. There doesn't appear to be an issue with licensing after all, since the YouTube video is Creative commons licensed.

I should note that technically I am not required to make any changes to the article. I am more than willing to help out to some degree, but as the editor who wants this article to be a GA, the bulk of the work is on you or others willing to help you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another uninvolved comment, by an admittedly ill-educated editor: with respect to neutrality, I see no reason why "Donziger is a sleazeball" and "Donziger was convicted in a kangaroo court" are mutually exclusive views, nor of equal importance (surely show trials occurring in the U.S. are a bigger story than a crook attorney). That's not to say both opinions necessarily have merit. But at a first glance, the article appear to me, if anything, to understate the weight of criticisms of Chevron.
  A confounding factor in reporting U.S. media response is the substantiated claims of U.S. media reporting on the topic being directly interfered with by Chevron. It seems to me that a slight restructuring in "Reactions" could more clearly present the following narrative: a summary of what media coverage said regarding the situation (the 2018 WSJ editorial already there could be an example, but not presented as defining, and we're better getting independent sources that summarize U.S. coverage as a whole, perhaps even saying things like how it changed over time). This must be followed by the commentary on the media coverage (such as Hedges' writing). Then, present the content of: U.S. politicians' response; international response by lawyers; international response by organizations like the EU and UN.
  Additionally, in the lead of the article, unless I'm missing it somehow I think Seward & Kissel are absent. It should be mentioned that Donziger was prosecuted by a private law firm who had Chevron as a client, and convicted by a judge with a financial conflict of interest; then, material like the Nobel laureate, human rights activist, Congressional Progressive Caucus and U.N. response could be summarized into just a sentence or two. — Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Below is a summary of what action has been taken regarding the points raised in the request for a GA2 review. In my opinion, some of the issues raised are "in the eye of the beholder" so would be best discussed on the article's talk page as they don't necessarily relate to article quality.

• The basketball game with Obama and the appearance on the Daily Show have been removed as trivia. Note that the Daily Show item was added to the article after the GA2 assessment was completed.

• The quote box has been removed and a shortened version of the quote placed in an appropriate place in the text. The article talk page is the best place to discuss whether the quote by Donziger is appropriate. It does not appear to be an issue related to article quality.

• The reactions section would benefit from some rewriting to improve readability. Two suggestions are to remove some of the phrases such as “In February 2021 … “ and to gather together items that are related.

• The part of the lead which summarises reactions could be rewritten. I think this is best discussed on the article talk page rather than a GA2 review.

• The class action section; The suggestion was to expand this section. Can’t give an opinion on this until we know what is missing. Something that is best discussed on the articles’ talk page or by adding any missing information.

• The tweets have been replaced with appropriate references. Note that these were added to the page after the GA2 assessment was completed.

• External link to Donzigerdefense.com”. The policy page on external links says “Wikipedia articles about any organisation, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any”.

Burrobert (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert You are more than welcome to open talk page discussion on the issues you think should be discussed. But at the end of the day, they do need to be reworked in some way. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since there has been no activity for weeks and none seems forthcoming, the result is  Delisted CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

There are several of Donziger's tweets about his incarceration and house-arrest that are used as references in the article. To my eyes this a clear breach of policies about using first party sources. Additionally, there is a YouTube interview used as a reference which is also not considered a reliable source. I'm on mobile at the moment so I don't have the faculties to properly find better third party sources so I hope someone can take on the task of correcting and updating the article. Cheers, IrishStephen (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Affiliations and motives of Judge Kaplan

I may have failed to cite the source correctly. And if that's the case I could use some advice on how to do that. But if Judge Kaplan's close relationship with Chevron and membership in the Federalist Society is not mentioned, then there is no story here. It's just a regular case. No problems or issues. Nothing to see here. If he's just a hard working judge serving the people in good faith, then there is no reason to even have this page exist. But everyone knows the guy is as dirty as they come and so is the judge he handpicked to sentence Donziger. This trial is pure Fascism and should be in the news every single day. It's corruption of the highest order. Anyone who says otherwise is just gaslighting us. It's more than a travesty of justice, it's a complete perversion of our government. The article leaves out so much that it is thoroughly sanitized and one would think nothing is out of the ordinary about the case. Also if any editor has any affiliation with the oil industry, the arms industry, or the Federalist Society or if they work for the courts they need to be forthcoming about those conflicts of interest. Zengalileo (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Forbes Source Unreliable???

Hello,

Upon review of this article, the included reference of https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justice-delayed-but-not-denied-corrupt-ecuadorean-process-fails-in-international-arbitration/ seem to be a poor NPOV source. Straight out, from the beginning of the article, it is written in an opinionated form from the columnist. Following the source, despite listing referenced areas for quotes and such, the artcile seems in poor taste or at least serving a pointed viewpoint against Steven Donziger.

Following the columnist further, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/, his repeated column articles are staunchly NPOV in favor of corporations and their ethics over a NPOV of ethic cases and such ChemicalBear (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says that it doesn't matter what YOUR OPINION of his POV is, he: Michael I. Krauss is notable in the field of law and so even if this was published on his own blog it could be included, per WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Except this wasn't attributed to him as an expert, it was cited without attribution for plain statements of fact. The use of an unreliable source needs attribution, and we need a specific reason to cite blogs and similar. Using a blog to summarize a complicated legal issue is not really the way to handle this. It should be up to reliable, non-opinion sources to determine which details are important, otherwise this is editorializing-by-proxy. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

1. Im glad you can know what I personally think of a columnist and know the interworkings of every opinion I have. However, this was not a part of the topic at hand. The talk page is meant for discussion of things, such as source reliability. Per WP:EPTALK and WP:EQ, you should assume good faith, be respectful, and respect the effort to discuss the topic on the talk page before ripping the source out with no justification
2. Per your own desires, WP:QUESTIONABLE denotes "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". When referring to the article at hand, Mr. Krauss blatantly (besides his rambling in the beginning) places his weighted personal opinions in the article in the second paragraph: "Well, folks, the book is closing on this massive conspiracy, and I [sic] for one am glad that Chevron didn't cave, didn't agree to settle, and never "bought the peace" from attorneys Donziger and Fajardo".

While there are facts included in this article, and despite him being well known in corporate policy, that doesnt just get to excuse WP:QUESTIONABLE's guidelines. Not all experts are free of bias, nor should all their work be regarded as unbiased, wholly truthful statements.

Other statement for your review,

" TexPet spent approximately $40 million on environmental remediation and community development in Ecuador under various settlement agreements and releases before leaving Ecuador in 1995, after which PetroEcuador continued to exploit the oil deposits in Lago Agrio. (¶ 4.68) " from Mr. Krauss; However, in actual cited case literature (which is hosted by Chevron/linked to in the original article), the actual paragraph reads "In all, TexPet spent approximately US$ 40 million on environmental remediation and community development in Ecuador under the 1995 Settlement Agreement and the Remedial Action Plan (together with the 1996 Municipal and Provincial Releases)." (pg. 147 ¶4.68) The bolded section represents interjected opininated statements from Mr. Krauss into case literature, which he repesents as "...which I have asserted over years of reporting on this scandal" in the paragraph before cited case literature.

I could find no other factual derivements from Mr. Krauss' writings, however, as @Grayfell points out, one should not use a blog or overtly-simplified article to summarize a complicated legal issue.

A more appropriate thing to do, in MY opinion (once others have had time to crosscheck and review associated case literature), is to remove the Forbes article and instead consider the inclusion of the Chevron case literature (if not already included). This would bring up another point of contention, as the source of case literature is held/published by the plantiff. Besides that, the tribunal (see here) is not a governing body, nor a UN-backed court, but rather an established court for arbitration matters (such as territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade). ChemicalBear (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"if not already included"? Please read the article before making suggestions. I have already removed the Forbes source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for complicated legal documents. WP:PRIMARY court documents are usually reliable, but Wikipedia editors are not presumed to be qualified to summarize those documents. To put it another way, we need an independent source to explain it for us. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but I was responding directly to the commenter. I understand your position and agree that I should've verified article status before finalizing content! Thanks for your help anyways ChemicalBear (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)