Talk:Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.

Comments

Reasons for maintaining article status:

1. This article is merely a summary of four judicial opinions.

2. It is not clear why a summary of one judicial opinion, with discussion of the procedural history would be acceptable, but a discussion of four related opinions would violate wikipedia.

3. The only original sources quoted are case law. I also quote a newspaper article, that has, to my knowledge, been quoted twice by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsmyth (talk • contribs)

This article needs to be cleaned up

First of all the "summary" is too long. We need a summary of the summary, preferably outlining the main points. Secondly the pictures don't seem to have much to do with the actual case. Adding in a picture of the different courts of appeals in the US should be removed for something more pivotal to this case. Also Jimmy Carter shouldn't have his picture in there just for "getting involved". This article is very poorly done as of right now. Fatrb38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

NPOV Check

A trial litigation should involve the information for the both sides. However, this article is not giving much information about the Pfizer side of the lawsuit.--Gultepe.e (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason for that I would assume to be the fact that Pfizer never responded to the allegations found within the lawsuit. (other than your standard boiler plate denials). All Pfizer did was file various motions for dismissal of the case based upon lack of juristiction and other such legal moves. The factual allegations were never addressed by Pfizer so it appears that we do not have their side to tell here at the moment.

As the article notes in response to Plaintiffs’ allegations, Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court denied this motion. Then Pfizer attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens which the court granted provided Pfizer consented to suit and acceptance of process in Nigeria. However the Court of Appeals vacated this dismissal and remanded the case back to the District Court after the plaintiffs could not prove that the alternative forum (Nigeria Court System) was corrupted. As such at this point in time Pfizer has yet to respond to the allegations found within the lawsuit proper. So we simply do not have their side to tell. Additionally they settled one case out of court in Nigeria recently; so again their responses remain hidden.

So this really would not be a NPOV issue as there is simply no other side to present. The article does not address the allegations raised within the lawsuit, but only Pfizer’s legal maneuvers to have it dismissed and the various actions taken by the courts. All the relevant facts are stated within the article in that regard. Indeed the article does need extensive editing, but not to comply with a NPOV standard but to reduce the amount of quoted text used and to make it more readable.96.254.92.203 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Davidtfull (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This page's subject become a section of the 1996 incident?

Is the 1996 incident notable enough to warrant a wikipaedia page of its own. If it is then the ongoing litigation could become a section in that new page. Litigation as a page in itself seems unusual.