 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
NPOV tag edit
The article omits the litigation over the movie that demonstrated that Berlinger slanted the movie and omitted outtakes that demonstrated that the plaintiffs' lawyers were committing fraud on Chevron. THF (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- that is not a dispute over facts about the article proper ... that may be the case in the future, but not the way the article stands as it is at this point. That is NOT a NPOV violation in any matter. If you all want to add info on the matter at hand please do so with references (and yes they are there) .. but at this point it is such a rough draft of an article... Luigibob (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The tagged section with its link spam of the Chevron websites/lawyers is an obvious case. It's of course selective pov, but it's anyway outright redundant to the section before that covers the court case already. It was probably added for search engine optimisation reasons. Took it out. --Casra (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)