Talk:ExxonMobil

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005014316/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil_glance to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil_glance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages,[3] including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dec 2015 related edits

The outcome of the above discussions was only a consensus for the inclusion of the factual elements of the MJ article. The inclusion of a list was considered to be editorial in nature and there was not an agreement for inclusion. The cited RFC [4] from another article using the same MJ article only concluded for inclusion but the closing editor noted that the method of inclusion was not settled. Springee (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

In December 2009 Mother Jones said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.

• Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015. Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.

Your personal interpretation of the noticeboard discussions, as agreeing with your personal position, is unfounded. "among the most vocal" was found, by a clear consensus of the participants in the RfC at Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:_Mother_Jones_source, to be a neutral, accurate, complete paraphrase of this source. Your preferred paraphrase is non-neutral, incomplete, and inaccurate. The consensus of an RfC is determinative. Your edit of this article to reflect your preferred paraphrase of this source is disruptive in rejecting the consensus of the RfC, please stop. Another RfC for the same paraphrase of the similar content from the same source at this article is not necessary. Hugh (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

HughD, please focus on the topic, not the editor. We have gone around on this point before. I summarized the views of the other editors on another talk page. The recent RFC only concluded on inclusion. It specifically noted that how to include was not decided. How to include would also have to factor in the RSN discussion. You are welcome to ask that it be brought back to life if you disagree with my summation. In the mean time other editors on this topic as well as the NPOV and RSN discussions do not support inclusion of the opinion aspects of the article. Please stop the disruptive editing related to the topic. If you disagree then I would suggest you start a discussion about the source that isn't on an individual article talk page. Notify those who were involved in the various discussions regarding the source and then hammer out the answer. Trying to sneak in changes that have been repeatedly rejected by other editors and aren't supported by consensus is unproductive. Springee (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no basis in policy or guideline for softening a source that says "the subject is among the most" to "the subject is a." Your preferred paraphrase is a blatant violation of our neutrality pillar. Your interpretation of the preliminary noticeboard discussions is unfounded, and in any case the RfC is determinative. Hugh (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is. Consensus is a policy. You can't cite any consensus that supports your preferred version. A number of editors have said that isn't an acceptable entry which means there is currently a consensus against your edit. You can claim my interpretation was wrong but when I asked you to offer your own summary you declined on the very article RFC you are citing. The RFC that says inclusion but the form has not been agreed upon. Again, the best option for you would be a RSN discussion to decide what can and can not be used from that article. You are welcome to start such a discussion. Springee (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I may not be completely correct as to the conclusion of the RfC, but Hugh is completely wrong. The RfC found that some statement should be included, but there was no consensus for any specific phrasing. And Hugh is banned from making adding the material, because he said it's related to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If true then he should self revert his recent additions of the material to other articles. That and his recent Watchdog.org request may be found upon by the admins. Springee (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say watchdog.org was related to the Kochs. He did say that this MJ article was related to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that my stepping in make take this out of the realm of WP:Third opinion, unless someone wants to claim that Springee and I are clones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

OOPS. The topic ban (which is apparently not an AE topic ban, in this instance), was extended to Watchdog.org on December 11. I haven't been actively watching Hugh lately, but I was correct as to the scope of the topic ban as applied to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers

Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section:

In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.

• Harkinson, Josh (December 7, 2009). "The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
• Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.

Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as the topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions WP:ARBCC.

Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions

Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [[5]]

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th [[6]] Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate support or opposition to inclusion of the above content and a brief statement use in this subsection. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection, please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments. Please adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility. Thank you.

• Support inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
• Oppose inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed

• Support inclusion Proposed content is a neutral, complete, and accurate paraphrase of a noteworthy, reliable source. A very similar paraphrase was recently endorsed by the clear consensus of a very similar request for comment at Talk:Christopher Monckton. Reliable source is attributed in text for possible bias in conformance with WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Source Mother Jones (magazine) is noteworthy for its decades-long commitment to in-depth investigative journalism on environmental issues. Noteworthiness is further clearly supported by the use of this source by others WP:USEBYOTHERS, as in:

• Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Organised Climate Change Denial" (PDF). In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. pp. 153, 159. ISBN 0199566607. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

One of the founding papers of the study of organized climate change denial within the scientific discipline of environmental sociology. It is highly significant that a 2009 mainstream media article was clearly, unambiguously cited as a reference in this 2011 academic paper before there were many academic papers on organized climate change denial to cite. Another Mother Jones article is cited as well. The record is clear that Mother Jones helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study.

• Cohen, Andrew (October 1, 2013). "What the Scopes Trial Teaches Us About Climate-Change Denial". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 28, 2015. Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers

Exclusion of this content and this source from this article would be non-neutral. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the where used claims above, please note that the Oxford reference does not mention the Mother Jones article in question by name or any list of organizations from the MJ article. It only references that others are making claims. The Oxford source is not citing MJ as a factual reference and not in a way which endorses the MJ content as reliable. This point was previously discussed as part of the RSN discussion [[7]]. Springee (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Previous NPOV and RSN as well as several related article talk page discussions reached a general consensus that the MJ article is a mix of reliable information and editorializing. The list is based on the views of MJ's editorial staff, not a reported event. No information is given as to what criteria was used to create the list other than the opinions of the author or perhaps the MJ editorial staff. A list based on the editorial opinion of the magazine might be worth including if the list itself has weight. In this case, and especially in comparison to the more significant sources talking about ExxonMobile there is no compelling evidence that inclusion on the list is in and of itself notable. Thus we have an opinion that doesn't rise to the level of a RS and we have the fact that EM was listed on a list that carries no WP:WEIGHT. I feel my view aligns with the limited consensus of the recent noticeboard discussions. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Springee and William M. Connolley. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) This sentence is an editorial opinion. Being an editorial opinion does not disqualify it per se, but taking account the fact that this is an article about the worldwide company with more than 100-years history, this opinion about one specific aspect related to the company, voiced by non-mainstream magazine, will have undue weight. It may be relevant in some other article (e.g. focused to the climate change denial financing), depending the context. Also, information about financing is already included and this subsection is already too long. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Include, obviously I'm not sure why this is even an issue. It's informative and relevant and it is well documented with suitable references and citations. Ob course it should be included. Damotclese (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  Which references and citation are you referring to? The proposed single sentence, a slight modification of the current version in the article, has only a single source which was the subject of both a RSN and NPOVN discussion. The currently the article has a very similar sentence that excludes the mention of the list (removes "most" and replaces it with something like "a"). That was based on the limited consensus of the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  Move this last comment to the threaded discussion section below as per the clear RfC instructions above. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Per HughD, Seems to be reasonably NPOV as it is attributing to the source. Cocoaguy ここがいい 20:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per the comprehensively stated arguments by Springee above. - tucoxn\^talk 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'd oppose inclusion, because its just not very useful. MJ isn't neutral in this context. However, more importantly, this is all down at the trivia level compared with giant biases like the inclusion of "These charges are consistent with a purported 1998 internal ExxonMobil strategy memo, posted by the environmental group Environmental Defense, stating: Victory will be achieved when..." which are poorly sourced and far more prominent William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - section already too long, and the phrasing as shown seems vague (what does "among the most" mean ?) and that MJ complaining at someone (let alone one of a dozen) just does not seem all that noteworthy. Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - very relevant and notable and well-sourced. SageRad (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion especially if the alternative is to not use the source at all. The Atlantic found the list helpful, so we should definitely include it per NPOV. How best to include it is unclear. I think it's better than the "A December 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine included ExxonMobil as a promulgator of climate disinformation" currently in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per above. They are fossil fuel producers, of course they will do as much as they believe is legally allowable, including encroaching on fraud, to try to protect their sales and supply chain. EllenCT (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Very notable critical analysis offering comparison within the industry. Highly appropriate and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - It's attributed, and a notable opinion, which as Ronz points out, some very high quality RS have themselves deemed worthy of mention and discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Fencesitting. I would support inclusion if used as part of a wider 'Exxon has been criticised by multiple parties for denying blah blah', but would oppose as question has framed it above - with MJ as a sole source. 'List of' sources are always going to be problematic given their inherant op-ed nature. And very few people can deny that MJ has a clear opinion on this subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. See the NPOV discussion, which did not result in consensus. By the way, I believe Springee did the right thing by notifying me and other parties. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion with condition. I think including the sentence is okay if it is followed by another sentence that starts with "However, according to" and then provides some text from another source saying a different viewpoint. As long, of course, if the source isn't Exxon Mobil itself. I'm a fan of a sort of "on one hand; but on the other hand" approach to controversial content on W. Geraldine Harris (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion for now, as the proposed line doesn't convey much useful information. Presumably, people who have read such literature as the MJ articles will understand what is being implied, but this line here is lacking specifics. "Vocal" in what way? "Most" by what quantifiable measure? What specifically are they denying? Perhaps a topic for another discussion, but the section is already filled with many such gaps. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - As per reasons stated by Hugh and others. Darknipples (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion, per HughD. Seems like a notable opinion that should be included in the article. APerson (talk!) 03:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Since this same MJ article was added by one editor to a number of WP articles it should be discussed not in an article talk page but at the RSN or other forum since it concerns more than one article at a time. Furthermore, any formal decision on this RFC should take the recent RSN and NPOVN discussions into consideration. Those discussions resulted in only a consensus that the factual content of the article (X said or did Y) not the editorializing by MJ was reliable. Since this RFC is attempting to supersede those discussions the involved editors should be notified. I would suggest that HughD notify them as the editor who created this RFC. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a valid RfC and this RfC proposes adding content to this article. You seem unclear on the roles of noticeboard discussions and requests for comment. The source is a feature article by a staff writer, not an editorial. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The Monckton RfC conclusion was that the statement should be in the article in some form; it did not find consensus for Hugh's wording. Furthermore, Hugh's claim above that the noticeboard discussions are not precedent apply even more strongly to RfCs relating to different articles. In other words, the noticeboard discussions might apply to this article; the Monckton RfC arguments cannot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Regarding "where used" claim added on Dec 29th The MJ article was cited by the peer reviewed journal above. However, it was not cited as a source of fact nor did the citation make mention of the list (ie the editorial content of the article which is the addition this RFC is trying to add). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society did not mention the article or Mother Jones by name. It was cited as an example of an article which made a claim. That is, the Oxford text simply says the MJ article exists and covers a subject. It does not say the content of the MJ article is correct, accurate etc. The Oxford authors were not relying on the MJ article as a factual reference. Given the article is almost 7 years old it does not appear to be widely cited especially as it related to ExxonMobile in particular. Springee (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC publicized at WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC) WP:VPM Hugh (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, please ping the editors involved in the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions as they were in regards to all uses of the MJ article in question, not the use in a specific article and thus discussions there would apply here. 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This message is to ping the editors who were involved with the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions incase they aren't looking for the notices added to those noticeboards. This ping list may include editors who have already commented. As this is a manual operation I apologize if anyone was accidentally left off. CypherPunkyBrewster,Fyddlestix,Koncorde,Blueboar,Brett Gasper,Peter Gulutzan,Darknipples,JzG,Binksternet,Only in death,MastCell,Ronz,Collect,Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Springee (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

HughD, why are you adding new solicitations 2 weeks after the original RfC was posted? This is looking a lot like your RfC at Americans for Prosperity where you added new solicitations after the fact when it became clear the RfC was not going the way you wished. This is yet another example, along with deleting my comments, the comments of others, moving comments and questionable articles tags, of your tendentious editing here. More importantly, this is disruptive to the talk page process. Springee (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of previous RSN and NPOVN discussions: As part of a reply to a previous discussion of this MJ source [8] I attempted to group the replies to the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Since those discussions applied the source, not the WP article in which the source was being used it seems to me they are relevant here. The following is a rough summary of the views expressed in the relevant noticeboard discussions. There are three groupings. The first is the MJ article is basically a pure opinion article and thus would need to be treated as such. The second is the MJ article is a mix of reported fact and editorial views. In this case the cited facts would be considered reliable but the views, interpretations etc of MJ would be considered editorial content. The third grouping is those who feel all aspects of the article should be treated as reliable material.

RSN[9]: The following editors seem to support treating the article as only opinion: CPB, Fds, Kon, Col, AR

RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the article as reliable fact with editorial grouping: SBHB, Spr, TFD, Rnz

RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the full contents of the article as reliable: Bin, Guy, HgD

NPOV,[10] opinion only: CPB, Fds, Blu, BrG, AR, Cap, PeG

NPOV, reliable fact, editorial grouping: Kon, Dkn (this one might belong in fully reliable), Spr, TFD, Mng

NPOV, fully reliable: Guy, Bin, MaC, Ron

I have moved a few of the replies based on those editors responses in this discussion. The overwhelming feedback was against treating the article as totally reliable. It was a more even split between those who felt the article was a mix of reliable and opinion vs those who felt the whole thing should be treated as opinion. I've included this information because I think that any uninvolved editor closing this RfC should consider the views of the two noticeboard discussions that covered this topic. Ideally, I think instead of trying the RfC we see here the noticeboard discussions should be reopened and then closed by an uninvolved editor (perhaps after a comment period) so we can avoid a series of RfCs attempting to insert the same source into multiple WP articles. Springee (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC comment

HughD, per WP guidelines you should not delete the talk page comments of other editors [11]. Your long addition to your original entry several days after the fact would be best in the thread discussion section. While I understand your wish to keep the votes and the discussions somewhat separated, the length of that material makes it a candidate for thread discussion where it is easier for people to specifically reply to it in a way that is readable for all. Also note, that the RFC guidelines do not specify the format you have specified. If you wish to move people's comments without their approval then please cite the guideline that authorizes such a move. If none exists then please leave their comments where they were placed. Springee (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose RFC closure date

Perhaps an editor who knows more about this process than I can suggest how we put a closing time on this RfC. I would suggest the 12th as that would have left the RfC open for 3 weeks. Springee (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

API attributed quote

[I've moved the below statements from the RFC to this section per HughD's correct view that the comments are not related to the RFC. I hope this is OK with all, if not feel free to revert that part of this change.]

I've removed that bit. Note also that ExxonMobil has been reported as having plans to invest up to US$100m... is poor - why is under heading of "funding skepticism"? That's pretty misleading. I suspect the entire section is poor William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page thread is for discussion of the above RfC. Please start a new thread for your other article content concerns. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

HD put it back in again, but I've re-removed it, because attributing the API to Exxon is not honest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[This is the end of the material moved from the RFC]

I removed the API material. Earlier today it was included in a quote type format but it wasn't clear that it could be supported as a quote vs a summary. Since the material is from the API vs Exxon it should not be given such weight in the article. It certainly could be seen by a reader as an Exxon policy memo vs a policy memo of a third party. Springee (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

HughD, William M. Connolley: HughD, your recent restoration of material does not address the concerns of Connolley or myself. Why devote that much space to something that was not Exxon's actions but that of a trade group? It would be better to summarize the activity rather than trying to include emotive quotes. Also, please don't cite overkill. Since you are using the citations to support a quote you should only use sources that actually support the quote. I reduced the citations to two strong sources (UCSUSA, Frontline). The front page add claim was supported by only one of the sources and didn't add to the topic so it was removed for length. I wouldn't object to removing the quote entirely and just going with a summary. Springee (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, what brought you to this article, for the first time, 20 December 2015, to revert one of my edits? This article was created 9 December 2001‎. You were reported at WP:ANI for harassing me 14 September 2015. Callanecc, an administrator of our project, asked you to cease your harassment 18 October 2015, and specifically asked you to avoid commenting on my edits. Hugh (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I again removed the citation overkill in section in question. Two RSs should be enough for the quote. Springee (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed some more text; it's dishonest. Exxon didn't create this stuff alone. The problem I think for HD is that once you write it as it should be written, its no longer clear it belongs here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on content and not editors. What is your basis in policy or guideline for your removal of this relevant, noteworthy, well-sourced content and reliable sources? What is your basis of your editorial position that this article may only include activities by Exxon alone? The content you removed does not claim or imply that Exxon did anything alone. The content is highly relevant. Exxon is a member and has a leadership role in the American Petroleum Institute, according to multiple reliable sources. Exxon helped found, funded, and lead an industry task force that developed a plan, according to multiple reliable sources. Exxon executed the plan, according to multiple reliable sources. The content is obviously due weight. What is your alternative summarization of the reliable sources you deleted? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on content and not editors? That's a bit rich, following your May I ask, what brought you to this article just above. Please stop being a hypocrite William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Exxon did not fund global climate change skepticism alone. Do you favor blanking the entire "Funding of global warming skepticism" subsection? If so, why, in terms of policy and guideline, please? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In 1998, Exxon helped create and fund the "Global Climate Science Team," comprised of industry opponents of the Kyoto Protocol, including Exxon, the Chevron Corporation, the Southern Company, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which was led by the API and which met in the API office in Washington. ExxonMobil is a leading member of the API. The task force work-shopped an eight-page strategy memo entitled "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan", which said in part "Victory will be achieved when average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom'." Exxon executed the plan; for example, running advertisements in major newspapers on themes such as "Unsettled Science."

References

Hugh (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep writing In 1998, Exxon created and funded the "Global Climate Science Team... when you know its not true? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a reasonable paraphrase summarizing across multiple reliable sources, above. What I know does not matter. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, its a quite inaccurate paraphrase. If you're unable to understand that, you need to find another article to play with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general

This section is poor; its a collection of anecdotes, not an overall story. The overall story, as I know it (though I couldn't necessarily find sources for all this) is

1. funding of research on GW in "the early (naive) period"
2. shift to denialism (Lee Raymond period, when he realised it might actually affect profits)
3. "quiet period" (maybe)
4. shift to weak acceptance (Rex Tillerson period; nominal advocacy for carbon tax)

I think if we could agree that's the right framework we could re-write the section to be more coherent. Throughout all that period there's "funding of denialists" to deal with; though note that funding is probably outweighted by the $100M William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your comment about the current state of this subsection. A lot of references are dead or have been used just one sided. E.g., the mentioning of Al Gore's Penguin Army. When the the relevant article (Al Gore's Penguin Army) provides a neutral overview, this short paragraph here makes clear allusion, that the cartoon was ordered by ExxonMobil, although the link was never proven. Even more, it misses the comment by the representative of ExxonMobil which was provided in the same source ("We, like everyone else on the planet, have seen it, but did not fund it, did not approve it, and did not know what its source was," Mr. Gardner says.). This is probably the most grotesque but not only that kind of thing. Althogh, 14 paragraphs (well, some of them quite short but still) is too for one subsection much per WP:UNDUE. Therefore, I support the rewrite as proposed above. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The torrent of investigative journalism revealing what ExxonMobil and other oil firms knew and when they knew it was perhaps one of the biggest environmental stories of the year 2015, after the Paris accords and the XL pipeline demise. Our project's coverage needs to be greatly expanded, not reduced. Exxon Mobil's funding, lobbying, and grassroots lobbying in support of climate change denial are key activities of its environmental record, they are not "criticisms" or "attitudes." The recent move of the well-documented support of climate change denial from the "Environmental record" section, to the "Criticisms" section, and the renaming of this subtopic from "Funding of global warming skepticism" to "Attitudes" is grossly non-neutral. Investigative journalism reports from news agencies are not criticisms. A criticism section is not to be used to support a blatant point of view fork. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're wrong; there is no "torrent" of investigative journalism; there's been quite a lot of noise, but precious little substance. I've attempted to rework a poor quality section to make it more coherent and encyclopaedic; naturally, if you have positive contributions to make, you're welcome to help; but just decrying change isn't helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

HD has now reverted several times the article back to an incoherent structure, away from what I thought was a rather more logical one that I created. For example, his version has a section "Support for climate change denialism" which has a subsection "Support for climate change research", containing my text From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach". This makes no sense at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you try to fix it before you bulk reverted several hours of a colleague's contributions to our project? Hugh (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

On your talk page, I asked you to come here to discuss changes, but to leave your over-emotionalism behind. Alas, you haven't. For that block, my revert was at 22:18, and your first submit at 21:46. So, that's about 1/2 an hour of work. But even before that you *knew* that the changes you were making were controversial and discussed, because I'd laready reverted them once. So, please don't play the martyr William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

From roughly 2009 until last week, our project's article ExxonMobil included a subtopic of several paragraphs entitled "Funding of global warming skepticism" in the "Environmental record" section. Last week, two editors teamed up to move the subtopic en mass to the "Criticisms" section, and re-heading it "Attitudes toward global warming." These changes were not discussed. The burden is on you to explain to the community how this move and this re-heading are justified. You may consider starting by explaining how these changes are not a blatant violation of our pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If two editors disagree with your POV, it does not mean that they are "teamed up". Therefore, I would request that you will remove your allegations per WP:AGF and WP:PA. About your question, in my edit summaries I have explained that "Funding of global warming scepticism" has nothing to do with the company's environmental record because compared to other subsections in the 'Environmental record' section it does not have environmental impact. But of course, that kind of activities may be criticized from the moral point of view, and therefore, it suits better in the criticism section. As the title of this subsection, I think that 'Attitudes toward global warming' is more neutral and covers better the actual content of this subsection. As I already mentioned above, this subsection is too long and therefore violates WP:DUE. However, you tried to remove the {{too long}} tag from this section without any comment. So, please discuss and lets try to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your justification for your undiscussed move of the "Funding of global warming scepticism" subsection from the "Environmental record" section to the "Criticisms" section, and your renaming of this subtopic to "Attitudes...", is unfounded. The subject of this article's funding of climate change skepticism is an integral component of their environmental record, it is not an "attitude," it is not a "criticism," it is not a "moral" issue. An "environmental record" section in our project is not limited to oil spills; just because greenhouse gasses are colorless and odorless doe not mean they are not pollutants, and that the multi-decade implementation of a coordinated plan to frustrate regulation is not an environmental issue. Your section move and section renaming demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the role of "criticism" sections in our project; criticism sections are not a dumping ground for content and references which you feel may be unflattering to a subject. Your section move and rename is so blatantly a violation of our pillar of neutrality that it can only be construed as pointed. Kindly self-revert your undiscussed, unjustified section move and renaming. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please present your facts correctly, otherwise it is just one more personal attacks. It is correct that I moved that subsection from 'Environmental record' section into 'Criticism' section. That was totally legal edit per WP:BOLD, seeming logical improvement and non-controversial. The title of this subsection was not changed by me, but another editor, so your accusation is already incorrect. Your edits, on the other hand, were not so simple. Reverting without discussion you should know that these edits are potentially controversial and therefore it was important to discuss. About the content, I can understand your POV, however, I disagree with your arguments. I will agree with your opinion if you could clearly demonstrate, based on neutral and reliable sources, how this funding activity has had impact to the environment. Also, limiting this section to the funding seems like cherry picking. The title introduced by William M. Connolley allows more comprehensive coverage, and therefore, it is more neutral. I really do not understand your argument that it violates neutrality. Also, you have not commented other concerns with this subsections which are discussed here. In addition, although you were asked, you so far did not remove your false accusations above. Please do it. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Would edits regarding "funding of global warming skepticism" fall under a TBan regarding conservative US politics? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

HD: Your section move and rename is so blatantly a violation of our pillar of neutrality - that's good news for you, then, because if you're right - and I presume you believe you are - then numerous people will agree with you. After all, subtle shades of POV can be missed, but blatant violations are, well, blatant. I'm sure that even now you're sitting back waiting for all the people to chime in agreement with you William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well i, for one, agree with Hugh here. I think this article's being bent against NPOV. SageRad (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Foreign business practices

This section is also poor. Currently it has two things: one, unreferenced, about Angola, whose only ref is to the companies reply, but that's a dead link. And one about a $50k fine, which is trivia for a company this size. Furthermore, the entire section is unbalanced and unencyclopaedic: it consists entirely of what people have managed to dredge up *against* Exxon, with no attempt at balance at all. Perhaps folding in stuff from a slightly lower section, like the company shut down its operations in Indonesia to distance itself from the abuses committed against the population by that country's army might help? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the section. What was there was too weak to be worth having (note: there was a commented out section that had failed its refs), and various googling's turned up nothing more exciting. Indeed, strangely few for such a large company. I did find Kazakhgate but that doesn't seem terribly exciting either William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Weight on Wikipedia is relative to weight in reliable sources, not relative to one's personal threshold of excitement or triviality. Did you investigate adding additional reliable sources to this section before section blanking? Kindly self-revert your section blanking and return to article talk to discuss this section blanking. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Weight is proportional to reliable sources but also to relative size of company; WP:UNDUE is relevant. I searched for reliable sources - as I said - and found remarkably few. You may feel free to do some leg-work yourself and see what you can find. In the context of Exxon, $50k is trivia William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Weight is ... relative size of company" What is your basis in policy or guideline for this claim? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is bleedin' obvious. I suggest you stop digging that particular hole William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

===Foreign business practices===

Investigative reporting by Forbes magazine raised questions about ExxonMobil's dealings with the leaders of oil-rich nations. ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (45,000 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.19×10⁹ m³) of crude.

In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and it, along with dozens of other companies, settled with the United States government for $50,000.

This undiscussed section blanking deleted reliable sources including Forbes and CNN. Did you try to find the Forbes citation? Did you look for other sources before you section blanked? What is your summarization of the CNN source? Are ExxonMobil's foreign business practices not noteworthy? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS are relevant aspects of the policy. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No (used) RS's from Forbes were removed. As I pointed out, some (long) commented out stuff was removed. The CNN was ref to the $50k stuff; so its RS status is irrelevant, as the matter is too trivial to report, as I've already said William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

POV hatnote

HughD tagged this article with {{NPOV}}. As the template is liked with #Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general, it seems to be logical conclusion that the assumed neutrality issue is related to that subsection, and therefore, that tag should be moved from the top to the relevant section per template's instructions. However, the edit summary of one reverts explains "article has pov problems spanning lede & multiple sections". This is confusing as the lead or other (multiple) sections are not discussed so far. Could you please explain what neutrality problems with multiple sections there are? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Split proposed

I propose to split the 'Merger' section into a separate article. This is detailed and useful, and certainly preserves to be kept but compared to other sections in this article it is too long. It is longer that all the company's history all together. Therefore, I think that it should be split into the separate article and its summary should be included in the 'History' section. At the same time, the history of the company needs more detailed coverage. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. You are proposing undoing a recent merge. The consensus at that time was that these topics are most easily handled together in one article. The article is readable prose size. The article is well short of our guideline for when length begins to become an issue. WP:SIZE Hugh (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not so recent. And consensus may changed. My concerns are based on the fact that proportion of different sections is totally out of balance. I don't buy the fact which is assumed by the current state of this article that the most important thing about this company is the merger of Exxon and Mobil. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You are proposing undoing a recent merge - pardon? The merger stuff was added in 2012 [12]. It looks to have come from Talk:Exxon Mobil merger but the discussion there is hardly full and doesn't bind us now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please explain as to why the article ExxonMobil, should not include the actual sub-section explaining the merger between Exxon and Mobile, respectfully, or otherwise be "split" into separate articles? Is it a MOS issue (being too long)? Asking because I'm reminded of WP:CFORK. Darknipples (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Information about merge should be included in the 'History' section, of course, by one or even two paragraphs. However, at the moment the problem with the current text is WP:BALASPS as the 'Merge' section is about one-third of the overall article. For one of the largest companies in the world with 145 years of history it is definitely out of the balance. It is also too detailed for this article, but could be appropriate in the special article about the merge. WP:CFORK is not a problem if WP:SS will taken into account. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Multiple neutrality issues span multiple sections and the lede.

1. Deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection and multiple associate reliable source references from the "Environmental record" section is non-neutral as per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE.
2. Inclusion of the subject of this article's well-documented, decades long campaign to frustrate environmental regulation under "Criticisms" section is non-neutral.
3. Deletion of the "Foreign business practices section" and numerous reliable sources, offering no alternative summarization, is non-neutral.

Hugh (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you not reply under the section where you were asked to explain why you used {{NPOV}} but instead started a new section? Also, the description above is incorrect and non-neutral. The subsection covering climate change funding was not deleted, this subsection was moved from one section to another. Why you should write here something which is incorrect? Also, the line between informing relevant boards and canvassing is very thin. Informing one WP as you did here without informing all other relevant WPs and notice boards usually is not acceptable code of conduct. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just revenge tagging on HD's part William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hugh; Your three bullets state your opinions as conclusions, without the slightest bit of logical reasoning, much less logical reasoning that is built upon pinpoint provisions in policy and/or pinpoint quotations from RSs. Argument-by-conclusory-opinion is not persuasive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the article wide NPOV tag has been adequately justified. It should not be restored without further review/input from others. Springee (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spent too much time looking, but what i do see indicates some serious wrangling here with editors with very different perspectives spending a lot of time tussling rather than discussing in good faith. I do see serious issue with the deletion of section headings like the deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection. I do think the "NPOV disputed" tag fits this article currently, and i urge everyone to please slow down, talk with genuinely good and honest dialogue, and decide what this article is going to say. Please, let's be honest and adult here. Let's remember that Wikipedia exists to serve the reader, not anyone's personal or corporate interests. We want to present reality in as honest a way as possible, based on the whole world of reliable sources available. If ExxonMobil funded climate change denial, then we go right ahead and say it. If they didn't then we don't. Simple as that. We're not here to serve the corporation any more than we're here to serve Greenpeace. SageRad (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, the issue has been discussed in different sections. It would be useful if you would explain why you think there is violation of NPOV. At the same time, making allusions that any edits here has been made for "personal or corporate interests" or that somebody serves the corporation more than Greenpeace is not constructive and without providing diffs supporting the claim that that kind of edits have been made, it may be considered even as personal attack. I kindly ask you to remove these allegations. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, a little touchy are we? I spoke my general reckoning and i'm not retracting it. SageRad (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the content, not editors. Beagel (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what i've done, buddy. SageRad (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If ExxonMobil funded climate change denial, then we go right ahead and say it - is it really too much to expect you to look at the article before commenting? The f*ck*ng lede says ExxonMobil has a history of lobbying for climate change denial. Please, get a clue before commenting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got many clues. Civility, man. It's about emphasis and due weight. Saying "get a clue before commenting" as your edit reason seems unnecessarily uncivil to me. Luckily I'm a tough one. SageRad (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone's time. If you can't even be bothered to read the lede before commenting, find something else to do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have explained my concern and expressed my opinion. Apparently that is inconvenient for you. Sorry, not sorry. SageRad (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In your post at 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I counted 33 words stating a conclusory opinion with no reasoning or analysis on which it is based " I do see serious issue with the deletion of section headings like the deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection. I do think the "NPOV disputed" tag fits this article currently..." and over 100 words of noise pretty much lecturing on behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I, as a seasoned editor, can come to the article and do an assessment with fresh eyes, looking at the article and the recent talk page dialogue, and offer my reckoning. That is what i did. I saw an NPOV tag well-placed and justified, and justified concerns about the deletion of a topic heading that used to offer better due weight to the climate-change-denial funding by ExxonMobil that is now gone, and i offered these opinions here, as an editor. Your reactions, seeming to want to chase me away, are not collegiate or civil, and do not lead to the best outcomes for articles based on civil dialog. Calling my original post "noise" is not civil, and an edit reason of "get a clue before you post" is not civil. Overall there is a problem of incivility here, as well as problems in point of view bias in the article. That's my reckoning as an editor here. It's telling that you seem to want to chase me away with bully tactics. I'd love to be focused more on the content, but it's hard when every single response is one that seems to want me to go away because apparently you disagree with me so my presence is inconvenient. I think this was a bad edit, and the edit reason "rv waste-o-time revenge tagging. go to the article talk page and talk, instead of vandalising the article" was uncivil. I think people here have been really mean to HughD, who seems to have been another person who had a point of view differing from those pushed by William M. Connolley and cohort. In other words, there seems to be a teaming up and bad behavior with a bias in one direction here. That doesn't lead to good NPOV article, but rather to biased articles with content that's forced by a one-sided group. I came here by a notice on the NPOV noticeboard, and i understand why that notice was placed now. Please don't chastise me for being here in service of Wikipedia, to offer a perspective based on editing experience and observation. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The tag documentation says the tag should be removed if the reason for the tag is unclear. A statement by you, or anyone, that there is a NPOV problem does not make the BASIS of your opinion clear to anybody. Hence, no tag. If you wish to provide logical reasoning based on specific text in policy and/or RSs, those concise comments would be welcome. Empty table-pounding is an unwelcome sign of disruption.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The basis of my reasoning is that i see a pattern of POV pushing bias here, and that is good reason for a tag. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• All, I don't think SageRad initially said anything that is over the top or should result in failing to AGF. I would take the subsequent discussion as misunderstandings. Let's all forgive, forget and move on. Springee (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I only said the tag requires a clear explanation and all he offered was unsupported opinion. If anyone wants to discuss Exxon's funding of climate denial via logic based on policy and RSs I'd be quite interested to hear what they have to say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the dispute here? Is it that the article is too critical of ExxonMobil on environmental issues, or that it is not critical enough? Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think we are debating the appropriate level of criticism Wikipedia should express, then please re-review our policy on WP:Neutrality with extra care. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So what are we debating? Biscuittin (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, nothing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say let's close the discussion, but I see User:HughD has been banned from editing for a week so I think it would be unfair to him. Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I see HughD has been banned for "US politics topic ban violations" which is odd. ExxonMobil is a company, not a government. Biscuittin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That block had its origins in a different article(s).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "nothing" -- it's a slow erosion of the article with bias in step by step fashion.

Here is what seems to be one critical step in that slow transformation of this article with a direction. It's not a random drift. It's not a drunken sailor's walk. It's a movement of the article slowly, over time, toward a state that is less critical of ExxonMobil, it seems on first review of the edit history. Of course it's complex, and could take a thesis to really analyze, but this is what editors do. We provide feedback and reckonings. So please don't call it nothing. The specific thing here is removal or renaming of section headings that are very direct and plain for the reader but critical of the company. I can't see into another editor's mind, but i can see actions that make the article more opaque. SageRad (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am reading the talk page section "Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general" above to see how this was discussed, and i'm not seeing a great discussion there. If there is other discussion around that edit, please let me know. It looks like there was not consensus. Looks like there were valid differing opinions on that edit. SageRad (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand that extensive edit. The edit reasons is "rv: please discuss first" but it appears to be much more than a revert of the previous edit, but a big reorganization of this article. Maybe in the editor's mind it was a revert of a series of past edits. If that's the case, please let me know that. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is a tangible proposal for maybe improving the article please restate the proposal, and then explain with logic and applicable policy/RS references why it would improve the article. Until someone reboots the discussion with such a statement, there is smoke but no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You may say there's smoke but no fire, but what i've been saying shows a lot of fire here. Anyway:

Proposal for changing a section heading

The collapsed part is a bunch of back and forth while we established the specifics for this proposal.

Tangible proposal: We bring back a section heading called "Support for climate change denialism" in the article. SageRad (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) We could add it between Genesis and Leviticus for secret reasons and citing invisible sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC) SageRad has put forward a serious proposal and you have ridiculed it. Please take this seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Opposed due to unwavering lack of explanation how it would improve the article or what RSs it is based upon.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Are you now claiming that headings need references? Biscuittin (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I'm claiming this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Wow. ... so you're accusing me of being disruptive and of not explaining reasons etc? Reason would be that a heading would make it more clear where the information is about a major aspect of this company's public interface, that's been covered significantly in the major media, and that the reader would often be looking for and want to find, which would be easier with a heading appropriately named. ... simple and I thought obvious reasons. Now may I all be here without being accused of crimes sir? SageRad (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Since "it's obvious" is nonresponsive, my opinion has not changed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC) In other words, you're telling me i do't have a right to e here and that i'm disruptive, when i'm here in dialog with you responding to your questions. This dialog is very poor. Can't we discuss the content? So, as i was saying, i think the subsection heading that actually names funding of climate change denial is a useful one, as it directly speaks to an important subtopic of this article's subject. That's simple enough, right? Please don't evade actually discussing the content. SageRad (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Oppose the proposal above and support the current section heading per WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOV. Information in this subsection has a broader scope than just the activities to support the climate change denial. Therefore, the current heading is more precise than the proposed heading which cuts off all other aspects related to the company's attitude towards climate change, and as such, violates neutrality. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC) You're assuming that's what SageRad wants to do. He merely uttered a phrase saying he wants to stick it in at some unknown place as a section heading. You seem to have assumed the details of his proposal. You might be right, but its for Sage to complete the thought (or not). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Support as proposer. If there is an obvious cluster of details about a subtopic of an article's subject, as there is in this one, then it makes sense to have an appropriately named subsection. We hopefully strive for the most direct and concise way of naming subsections, without concern about the PR image of a company or any other subject (except for having a bit of discretion in a BLP perhaps). So, i think that a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. It's a pretty large trope for this topic over the course of the past year, and there is a lot of material that would fit. We're not in the business of watering down or whitewashing images of companies here. So let's state the obvious facts plainly. SageRad (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Where, exactly? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC) What was exactly removed??? Beagel (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Indeed; please post WP:DIFF so there's no miscommunication. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC) [13] in which heading was removed/changed. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC) You wrote: a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. You clearly implied that the subsection was removed. Now you are talking about changing the title which is a different thing. I am assuming a good faith and I believe that this was not an attempt to manipulate but please, before making your comments, be sure you understand the issue and your claims are precise and correct. It would be polite to your fellow editors. Beagel (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC) I was referring to a subsection header. Sorry for your confusion. I was speaking about the way that subheadings can make a difference in the readability of an article, and how direct and honest language in subsection names is important. In the diff i just provded, there is some major changing and deletions of subheading titles. I think we need to look at this in depth and make sure the article is as clear as possible for the reader. SageRad (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Where exactly do you want to insert the section heading "Support for climate change denialism"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC) You see the section called "Attitude towards global warming" under "Criticism"? That could be changed to a subheading to the effect of "Climate change denialism" -- as that is what the criticism actually is about. SageRad (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In the collapsed section above, SageRad (talk · contribs) pointed to a diff when a section heading was changed, and now proposes that, using this version as a starting point, the section heading be changed from

Current "Attitude towards global warming", to

Proposed "Support for climate change denial"

Sage, if you are proposing something different, then please be specific.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Opposed for now, because the section, which does contain text about climate denial, also contains text that is not. If that problem is corrected, either through article edits or a revision in the proposal, I would be glad to revisitActually, I have changed my mind. I have no problem with inline attribution asserting that so characterizes Exxon's efforts as climate change denial. Indeed, in the flap over how to characterize Anthony Watts I defended the concept of inline attribution for the "denial" characterizations. Since WP:Neutrality also applies to section headings, and since inline attribution in a section heading is impossible, I favor neutral wording in all section headings. Saying in WP:WikiVoice that Exxon shows "Support of climate change denial" is not neutral. This isn't a question of my POV; just that wikivoice should not be taking sides, end of story. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support because the criticism (this is under the Criticism heading) is indeed that the company supported climate change denial. That's the criticism, and the central theme of that whole passage. Other content in that section is part of narrative supporting this central criticism. "Attitude towards global warming" is vague and off-point, in my estimation, the sort of watered down language that we at Wikipedia wish to avoid. We want to use language efficiently and as directly as possible. I think that the text of the section could use some work, made a bit briefer and to-the-point, but i see no reason why that ought to hold up changing the subheading title. We do things in parallel here. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• oppose per various threads I've contributed to already: too much of the content in that section doesn't actually fit under that heading; I like NAEG's "principle" of neutral section headings; justifying this change on the grounds that this is in a "criticism" section is dubious because the crit header is itself dubious (update: for example, compare DuPont#Controversies; update2: or indeed in this article the "Environmental record" isn't called "Criticism of the Environmental record"); and overall, because its just not necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is explicit about climate change denial, and it used to be called that until you changed it, recently. So what's necessary? Nothing is "necessary". We want articles to begood and right. What would serve the reader best? Why did you change this recently to the current generic watery language? SageRad (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying the text uses wikivoice to take sides in the controversy over Exxon's role, if any, in climate change denial. That sort of POV problem in the text hardly justifies wikivoice taking sides in the section heading. Just attribute whatever the sources say on this controversial label&topic to the sources themselves. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No that is not at all what i am saying. The text ought to use Wikivoice in a neutral way to reflect reliable sources. Having an accurate subheading is not "taking sides" -- sometimes an obscured or watery subheading is taking sides. Imagine if the article on Union Carbide had a section "Bhopal disaster" and then someone came along and changed it to "Indian operation".... how would that seem? SageRad (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Change in article project quality without discussion

The article quality class was changed today without comment or discussion.[14] Why? Springee (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted it, pending an explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I agree with HughD that this article does not satisfy B-criteria, and not only for the Climate Change task force, but also for all other WPs. B-criteria, in general, means that the article is just one step from the WP:GAN but this article has a long way to go for this. It is full of outdated information, missing information, unbalanced (mainly in the context of WP:DUE) sections, etc. So I propose to downgrade all ratings to C-class. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying this, I am not sure if this article belongs to the scope of the climate change task force at all. As the relevant WP banner was added just 2.5 months ago without any explanation, I asked for clarification about inclusion criteria on the relevant project page. Beagel (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt listing with climate change task force (or not) matters a whit, in terms of editor participation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent history (1998 to present)

I think that the recent history subsection (period after the merger), particularly the information about the last years should be rewritten to make it to be an overview of that period and not just a collection of recent news stories. As such, it may have problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Just few things what needs attention by my understanding:

• Stock price, profits etc of 2005. It seems outdated. If all these are still records, it is worth to say something like "2005 was a record year for ExxonMobil's ...". If these are not records anymore, the information should be updated.
• 2008 transitioning out of the direct-served retail market uses future tense. What ise the current status of this transition. If it was done, t should be changed into the past tense.
• FLNG. Is there any project launched? If yes, it should be mentioned when and details of the project should be provided in the 'Operations' section. If not, it should be removed.
• A dela with LINN Energy is over-detailed and should be trimmed. I am not sure if it is worth of inclusion at all.

These are just few thoughts but there may be other issues. Any comments? Beagel (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Investigative book: Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power

The current end of the lede is:

The company has also been the target of accusations of improperly dealing with human rights issues, influence on American foreign policy, and its impact on the future of nations.

That ref is to one book. There's also an entire section also about that one book, whose only refs are the book itself, and a piece in the Economist reviewing the book somewhat critically. There's also a section on "Human rights" which is essentially about Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Indonesia which is (a) not a great article, but (b) the situation itself is unclear (a lawsuit has been rumbling on for more than a decade).

This doesn't seem balanced William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you propose as an improvement? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll get to that. I was first interested to see if anyone strongly disagreed with my assessment William M. Connolley (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after your work earlier this month that article looks like a good example of WP:BLPGROUP problems that need a lot more sourcing and inline attrribution. The section about it in this article seems unbalanced with plenty of detail about the extent of the allegations, and zero detail about Exxon's motion for dismissal. Sure sign of a one-sided slant when covering litigation. Given the enormity of the company, it hardly seems like pending litigation is relevant to the lead. If they are found criminally guilty or civilly liable that might merit lead mention, but we'll have to cross that bridge when the court finally rules and appeals have concluded; we could still sumamrize the the play by play in the section as it unfolds. But the section needs as much presentation of Exxon's claims as it makes of the accusations or its a BLPGROUP attack. Naughty naughty. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) MORE... the entire "criticism" section is too long and should be split out. Once the result is polished up, the body should have a reasonable summary paragraph. Once that exists, I might be OK with the quoted sentence n the lead. On the basis of a single book reviewer's opinion of someone else's book, the sourcing is too weak. Of course, sources don't have to bve stated in the lead... that's optional. Going beyond the sentence to the section itself... we find a too long section needing to be split out and reworked. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

archiving

I've never been able to figure out the archive templates, but I note the 90 day filter is not working. Would someone please fix that, so the threads with no activity for 90+ days go to archives? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It was last archived on 12 October 2015‎. Currently, there is only one thread which is not edited during last 90 days. All other threads have been edited during last 30 days. I don't know why the bot is not archiving this one thread. It is possible it needs at least two threads to be archived. You can contact User:Σ who is the owner of Lowercase sigmabot III. At the same time, I propose that we change temporary the archiving time to 30 days instead of 90. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose to restore a section subheading

This is exactly the same proposal as just above

Proposal: We restore a section heading called "Support for climate change denialism" in the article that was recently deleted or changed. SageRad (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Support as proposer. If there is an obvious cluster of details and narrative about a subtopic of an article's subject, as there is in this one, then it makes sense to have an appropriately named subsection. We hopefully strive for the most direct and concise way of naming subsections, without concern about the PR image of a company or any other subject (except for having a bit of discretion in a BLP perhaps). So, i think that a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. It's a pretty large trope for this topic over the course of the past year, and there is a lot of material that would fit. We're not in the business of watering down or whitewashing images of companies here. So let's state the obvious facts plainly. The preexisting subheading was changed/deleted in this edit with a bunch of other changes. Imagine if the article on Union Carbide had a section "Bhopal disaster" and then someone came along and changed it to "Indian operations".... how would that seem? SageRad (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)