Talk:ExxonMobil

Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers

The strongest arguments made here were for support of a statement from a statement that ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers. There was support for inclusion of the statement "In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers." However there was also enough talk about the exact wording, that it would be worthwhile to discuss the exact wording more. as it could vary from the proposal. Opposers stated that the information was not useful and not neutral. Supports claimed that omitting the statement would be non-neutral. So the neutrality argument seems to apply to both point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As a request for comment is our project's primary mechanism for assessing community consensus, interpolating unsigned comments into the head of an RfC, days before its close, after numerous of your colleagues have contributed to the discussion, is a particularly onerous form of disruptive editing. A reminder, this topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions by the arbitration committee of our proect WP:ARBCC. Exemplary talk page behaviour is required. Please stop disrupting this RfC. A reminder, you have a survey section and a threaded discussion section available to you below to express your views on this RFC, including your recommendations to the closer regarding what you believe are important aspects of the RfC question. Move your comment. Hugh (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC question

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.

Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as the topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions WP:ARBCC. Hugh (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

End of RfC question

• Note: Per noticeboard discussions below, article currently includes the Mother Jones reference as follows:

"A December 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine included ExxonMobil as a promulgator of climate disinformation."

• Note: although the RFC when started pertained to this page, it has been overtaken by events; the relevant text is now at ExxonMobil climate change controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions

Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [[3]]

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th [[4]] 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 [[5]]. 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)
• Support inclusion, the phrase is accurate (Mother Jones said ExxonMobil was a climate change denier) and relevant. Whether Mother Jones' accusation is truth or false, whether it's positive or negative, it shouldn't be a concern for us. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Rereading the RfC it is a bit confusing. The article already contains basically what you said. The RfC came about because the originating editor was unhappy with the current including sentence. It's late but I've added the current statement to the RfC opening. Springee (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, or more specifically, I oppose exclusion on the grounds it is not neutral. Several sources list Exxon among a very short list of organizations supporting climate change denial, so this isn't an outlandish claim. The proposal also attributes the author, so I can't see any neutrality issue. I don't know if this is the best source for the claim, or if this is the best wording for the content, but I don't see a policy-based rationale for exclusion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The policy based reasons were discussed in the RSN and NPOV discussions about the same MJ article. It came down to people seemed to agree that MJ was reliable in terms of facts (Exxon did X on such and such a date) but questioned the overall tone of the article as editorial and noted that the article didn't offer a method by which they decided an entitiy should be on the list. Furthermore, the list in and of itself wasn't notable and thus the list was editorial content. Thus the rough consensus of the NPOV and RSN discussions was that the facts reported by the article were reliable but the list and the editorial opinion of MJ was just that, opinion and would have to be reported as such. For some of the target organizations it might be WP:DUE to mention that MJ thinks they have spread climate change misinformation, for one the size of ExxonMobil there are certainly higher quality sources that say the same thing. If you read the actual MJ article (the RfC makes it look like two articles but it is in fact just one) it is very emotional (editorial opinion) in its presentation of the material. This was also noted in the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. So "Mother Jones listed Exxon..." represents it as an opinion of MJ. I agree with you that we should have higher quality sources to use, and I'd prefer those. But editor time is a finite resource, and if no one wants to track down those better sources right at this moment, I don't see a problem with using MJ in the meantime. When they arrive, we can replace this sentence, or use MJ as a 2nd cite, or whatever else seems reasonable at that time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing. Currently the article says something like "MJ says EM promotes disinformation". That was, based on earlier discussions, considered to be factual. The "one of the dirty dozen" or "twelve most" or basically anything where MJ's opinion is used to imply a ranking was considered to be editorial opinion and thus not included. This RfC was phrased in such a way that it reads like the MJ article wasn't mentioned at all and the sentence was just a natural way to summarize the article. In fact the objection was over inclusion of the editorial portion of the article. You are right about editor time and the like. However, as the article stands, I think the MJ reference is already redundant since quite a few sources are saying the same thing. MJ is just one more voice saying EM was fighting a disinformation campaign. Even though I think the whole reference is redundant in this article (less so in some of the other 11 entities mentioned by MJ), I didn't think it was worth trying to fight that when others want inclusion and honestly I think WP should err on the side of inclusion when in doubt. The RfC here probably exists not so much to get the editorial content in here but as a springboard to create the precedent for the editorial content to be added to the other eleven subjects even if that runs contrary to the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support with reservations I think the information is relevant and should be included. I am not certain which is the change however, and I feel that "promulgating" and "disinformation" have an emotional tone that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. My ideal in this situation would be something like EM in the (time period) took the position that (summary) according to sources one two and three... I think Mother Jones is a credible source and its proclivities are known and unlikely to surprise the average reader, but also that there are likely to be other sources aout there and the statement wuld be stronger if they were included as well. Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, As the subsection under question was split out into a separate article ExxonMobil climate change controversy, this RfC here does not have meaning anymore. I propose to close it. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 15 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 [6] 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[7]: 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,[8] 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 [9]. 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)

I think that this edit which unilaterally extends the RfC period is disruptive and should be undone. The standard period for RfC is 30 days and the time expired on 21 January. The RfC may be extended if there is a consensus for this but this was never discussed, not talking about that there is a consensus on it. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; done. The edit summary was either deliberately or accidentally deceptive too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice about RfC

Unsigned editing the head of an RfC, days before its close, after numerous of your colleagues have contributed to the discussion, is highly disruptive. A reminder, this topic is under active discretionary sanctions and best talk page behaviour is expected. Please stop disrupting this RfC. A reminder, you have a survey section and a threaded discussion section available to you to express your views. Move your comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom. Everyone is of course entitled to contribute, but we shouldn't unilaterally modify the RfC after its already been running for a full month.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This notice is not modifying RfC in any way. RfC is ended and waits its formal closure. The notice is not disruptive but neutral. On the other hand, attempts to conceal the fact that the section which was commented is not the same which is included currently in the article may be called unhelpful. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This request for comment is not over. All are welcome to contribute to the survey and threaded discussion subsections. Please stop disrupting this RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The standard RfC runs for 30 days. The participants may agree to close the discussion earlier or prolong it, but there is no such agreement for this RfC. The RfC template was removed by this edit with an edit summary Removing expired RFC template. So, the RfC is expired. You yourself requested a formal admin closure by this edit. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, I don't think you should be lecturing others about proper RfC behavior. Despite the fact that you created this RfC you made the disputed change to the split article without so much as a peep on the talk page.[[10]] Springee (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 for Merger section

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 [11]. 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)

"too detailed" The merger section is too detailed, at times devolving to a day-by-day account of the merger negotiations, but too detailed is just one of many serious problems with the merger section, none of which problems the solution is splitting. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It solves the WP:BALASPS problem here. Beagel (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Splitting this section does not solve any problem, maybe it makes it some one else's problem. The merger section does not need splitting; it needs good old fashioned editing. Please note there is no consensus here for a split; please do not boldly split without consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Our balance policy refers to balance between our article content and reliable sources. We know there are many, many reliable secondary sources available on the merger, not used in this article. The sourcing of the merger section is so pathetic that it is impossible to form a judgement regarding the due weight of this subtopic within this article. If this subtopic were better sourced, we might agree it is too short! Again, this section needs work on sourcing and balance and encyclopedic style and level of detail, but not a split. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BALASPS: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand your application of WP:BALASPS to support your suggestion of a section split. I find no mention of splitting as a remedy at WP:BALASPS. Please clarify. Is the merger an isolated event? If this section is disproportionally long is not the appropriate approach to shorten it? How do you get to split from WP:BALASPS? Hugh (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darknipples: asked, "Is it a MOS issue (being too long)?" No, the article is not too long. The article is well within article length guidelines WP:SIZE. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The section on the Exxon-Mobil merger in this article has severe editorial problems, including a much too heavy reliance on one source, the subject of this article's proxy statement, and too heavy reliance on sources too close to the subject of the article. The problems are such that the section is sadly ineligible for consideration as a stand-alone article. The neutrality and due weight of the subtopic of the merger in this article is difficult to evaluate from the currently deficient reliable sources in this section. The Exxon-Mobil merger was widely covered in noteworthy neutral independent reliable sources, including the business and general press, not included here. This subtopic needs significant editorial effort. A shortening of the current content in this subtopic is warranted by consideration of the sourcing issues. We should oppose a split until many new independent secondary reliable sources are added and the weight becomes unwieldy here. Hugh (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V applies to all information in Wikipedia notwithstanding if it is included in the separate article or in the section of the more general article. The same principle is also included in WP:SS. Therefore, split of this sections will not change the sourcing requirements. Therefore I cant understand how the problem raised by you is an obstacle for the split. Beagel (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The merger section relies on very few sources, when it is sourced, and the most heavily used source is the subject of this article's own proxy statement. The merger section is non-neutral in that it largely tells only Exxon's version of the merger. The section is so bad on so many fronts that it has no chance as an article. A split absent significant editor attention is tantamount to section blanking. If the split were done, this article would still have a summary; why not trim this section and add secondary reliable sources? it would be an improvement. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome to trim and source this section. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you believe the merger section is sufficiently conformant to policy and guideline, including well-sourced, neutrality, balance, level of detail, and encyclopedic style, such that it is minimally acceptable as an article? If you do not, I would respectfully suggest it may be irresponsible to fork it just to get it out of here. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I currently have no opinion on the question of a split but does HughD's question really impact the question as to if the topic should be split off? Basically, is the current state of the article impact if it should be stand alone? I would tend to say no. If we judge that there is enough information available then I don't see how the current state of the article would be important. However, that does assume that someone is going to immediately try to fix the article if it is spun off. I do see merit to the idea that it is better to fix it here before spinning it off but I don't see it as a requirement which would seem to be HughD's implication. Springee (talk) 21:03, 21 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) [12] 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)

• oppose but... I don't like the idea of a subsection that specifically says denial because that limits the section to only information about denial activity and also implies the denials are not based in reason. That said, I don't like the higher level change where a "criticism" section was created. As I recall "criticism" is generally a frowned upon section title. Basically I'm not convinced the new is much better than the old. I think the best bet would be to try again. Springee (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I too don't much like the crit, but note that its not newly created; it was there back in 2014 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, since I looked, the section whose title we're discussing was created by this William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Change in article project quality without discussion

The article quality class was changed today without comment or discussion.[13] 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)

As the talk page is growing too long, I change temporary the archiving time to two weeks. Will change back for a longer period when the page is more static. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed the archiving time temporary for two weeks to avoid this talk page growing too long. It was changed back without explanation. I will not undue this at the moment but I still think that for a time being we need a shorter archiving time. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming impossible to navigate. Could we please to shorten the archiving time temporary to 14 days of no edits, and increase it gradually back to 90 days if the discussion is becoming less active? Beagel (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I shorten the archiving time temporarily 14 days to get the talk page shorter. Would be changed back later. Beagel (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose to restore a section subheading

Same as section "Proposal for changing a section heading" 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) There is also discussion on this above, but i opened a new section to make it very simple and direct, here, on the talk page. Some people didn't like that but i think it's better to have a simple discussion in new section. Note also, this is not an RfC and it's not a vote. I wrote my comment in a vote format but it's not s voting discussion. We are here to work on finding consensus through discussion. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Comment, use the existing section above: To avoid fragmenting the discussion lets use the section above. Springee (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I purposefully opened this new section to simplify it and bring it away from a longer section on neutrality in general. Your comment here kinda derails that. Now i'll propose we do an actual RfC on whether to restore the heading about climate change denial. I think this is important and it'll be important to get fresh eyes, so i'll say let's not use this section or the above section. Let's call a real RfC. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I don't disagree with fresh eyes but the problem I see is that we don't have a good choice. I don't really like any of the above. Please don't take what I'm about to say as anything against you or your concerns, I'm only speaking from things I've seen in the past. Often, and I think HughD does this quite a bit, when the group isn't agreeing with the views of an editor it is easy to run to the official RcF plan. We still have one open above. If you want to use the RfC to get the views of others and suggestions, then I'm all for it. However, if, like our current open RfC above, you wish to provide outside parties with a binary choice then I'm opposed because I suspect the best answer has yet to be proposed here. So I think other views would be good but let's focus on the comments, not on the "vote for my idea" as we had with the petty MJ RfC above. Springee (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I can appreciate that, Springee. Perhaps there is another option that some previously uninvolved editor will propose. That is a good thing to hope for. Meanwhile, i think fresh eyes are useful. I originally came to this article by way of Legobot from an RfC. I made an RfC and there is a simple question proposed, but editors are free to comment in any way, and propose alternatives... hopefully the collective mind will find the right way to structure the article. SageRad (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I would ask that you change the RfC to state what it was, what you would suggest but also make it clear that we are open to other suggestions. I would also make sure you include a pointer to the above discussion since it is relevant. This shouldn't be a voting type RfC but a comment type. I would ask that, as the originator, you make the changes. Springee (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Sounds like a decent idea. I did add a comment to the RfC below to express these things. I hope it makes sense to you. If you wish to add another comment there, be my guest of course. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC) I think it's time for an actual RfC. Need random sampling of editors. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?

This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?

Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section.

SageRad (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• oppose Waste of time; please use the section "Proposal for changing a section heading" above. Please stop disruptively starting more and more discussions in a desperate attempt to get your view rammed through William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I will just let that stand, as your opinion. I think that some fresh eyes are needed. I ask you to refrain from framing my presence here in the rather nasty way you just did. I'm simply seeking more eyes for an NPOV article. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Lets agree that more important from the fact who is commenting is the fact if and how their arguments are based on the Wikipedia policies, fresh eyes or not (and probably editors who have actively participated in climate change disputes and have certain bias, in one way or another, are not "fresh eyes" even if they have not participated in the discussion on this article talk page before). Beagel (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: It's a simple case of "if the shoe fits". The heading was created in 2011 here and has remained until a week ago. It makes sense, and it's the simplest way to name the topic for what it is. No reason to water down a section heading. It doesn't serve the reader. Reliable sources report the reality that we must reflect:

• Exxon Mobil on Hot Seat for Global Warming Denial (U.S. News)
• ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite pledge (The Guardian)
• Union of Concerned Scientists: "ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations."
• "Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort (Scientific American) "From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts."
• Researchers: Exxon, Koch Family Have Powered the Climate-Denial Machine for Decades (Slate.com)

So, this happened, according to reliable sources. If we don't report it honestly, then we're in violation of WP:NPOV -- it's not neutral to water it down when it's a huge story in so many reliable sources, using exactly those word. They funded climate change denialism. That is what happened. Wikipedia reports what happened. Period. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not in as many words - (EDIT: I came here from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology‎) As I understand the existing arguments above, there are two main camps - 1) Section headings should be neutrally worded in accordance with WP:NPOV, and 2) Exxon's conduct has been so manifestly unethical that a neutrally worded section heading is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. With respect, the editors in camp #2 misunderstand NPOV. It does not matter how manifestly unethical a topic may be, WP still presents the topic in neutral point of view. A classic example is the question of whether to describe Adolf Hitler as "evil" - regardless of your views on the topic, Wikipedia should merely state the facts of what the man did, which leaves the reader quite capable of judging for themselves whether or not he was "evil". In this case, "support for climate change denialism" is clearly a NPOV violation, particularly the word "denialism". What exactly do you object to about a neutrally worded heading such as "Climate change debate", and allowing the facts presented within to speak for themselves? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral" means following the reliable sources. It's got a special meaning within Wikipedia. Not following sources and watering down language is the opposite of neutral in this regard. Also please don't think there are "camps" here but just comment on the content please. It's not about groups or numbers but rather the evidence in the form of reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, following reliable sources is WP:RS and WP:V, not WP:NPOV, which is summarised: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The "holocaust denial" argument is used as an example. Having a section heading "Support for climate change denialism" means Wikipedia is endorsing the view that Exxon does this. Exxon and others deny this is the case. Whether Exxon actually does this or not is beside the point. Wikipedia should not participate in the debate, but merely report that a debate exists.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: As an uninvolved editor here, I completely agree with SageRad. NPOV is not jeopardized as long as the context provided by reliable sources is clearly stated in the source's voice, and not Wikipedia's. Darknipples (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the section heading does imply that Wikipedia agrees that Exxon engaged in climate change denialism.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that works because it's correct acording to many reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• No... but I think what we should be doing is trying to come up with a better overall structure. The titles should be NPOV and that means they should not suggest an outcome or preference. "Climate change denial" is very much a non-neutral phrase. I think it would be better if people suggested a structure that would encompass several sections all at once so we could decide if it made sense. Basically I'm not endorsing the current structure but I'm not agreeing we should just change a single subheading and move on. As a group, please suggest what the subject structure should look like and what should go where. Springee (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thought experiment: would it be "neutral" in the NPOV sense if the "Bhopal disaster" heading at the Union Carbide article were changed to "Events in India"? Reality is the arbiter. Neutrality in the Wikipedia NPOV sense mears representing reality without bias. It does not mean neutral sounding or bland language. Bland language about a thing that's not bland can be equally non-neutral. Did all the reliable sources about ExxonMobil write "ExxonMobil's attitudes about climate change were not quite in line with the general consensus"? No, they wrote that ExxonMobil supported climate change denial. So following sources would be neutral. SageRad (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

First, this is hardly the same level of "disaster" as the UC plant explosion. Second, for WP purposes the Bhopal disaster can be neutrally referred to as the "Union Carbide Bhopal plant explosion". Finally, I don't see that there is a claim that there is a wide spread proper noun called the 'ExxonMobil climate change denial'. Basically I get what you are saying but that is an example of overwhelming evidence saying that an otherwise non-neutral name is the common name. We don't have that here. Springee (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I also get what you're saying, and appreciate our ability to disagree in a civil way. I do think climate change is a vast disaster, so large it's hard to see it as such sometimes. Secondly, that incident is referred to as a disaster in Wikivoice as it reflects reliable sources. Finally, there is a widespread "proper noun" referring to ExxonMobil's support for climate change denial -- see the sources that i listed in my support for this RfC, above. Some headlines directly contain this proper noun. Thanks for good discussion. SageRad (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. Section titles should be NPOV, or at least not libelous. H. Humbert (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• No. I don't think that an entire section should be devoted to it. A passage or two in the context of a section like "issue advocacy" or "public affairs" under "Corporate affairs" would be appropriate with a cross-reference to the Climate change denial article. The existence of a section like this is not universal among company article .. I had to search a bit to find an example. For instance, see Intel where there are several sections under "Corporate affairs" like "school funding" and "open source support". Also, Keurig Green Mountain, where there are subsections "sustainability" and "corporate social responsibility". A passage or _short_ section could be written in an NPOV manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this s a good idea to integrate it into the "Corporate affairs" section. Support this proposal by Ceyockey. Beagel (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see why it would be inappropriate. The sources appear to amply suggest that Exxon has been a major player in supporting climate change denial. (Climate change denial is a real thing, by the way... it's not just a slur against Exxon). If we have a load of academic sources documenting a very real, uncontroversial history of Exxon supporting "x", I don't see why we shouldn't discuss it, whatever "x" may be. I'm not so much tied to "Support for climate change denial" as I am opposed to "Criticism"; we should name the section descriptively based on its contents. A documented historical trend significantly covered in academic sources is not general "criticism", even moreso given that such a title implies some kind of controversy, or "political opponent." I'd also be fine with "involvement with climate change", or "political activities" with a subheading "climate change", or "lobbying efforts", or whatever. Just name it descriptively... not "criticism".   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't "climate change denier" just another way to say "quack" or "fraud"? Quacks and frauds are real things too. H. Humbert (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. Read climate change denial. It is the name of a movement aimed at discrediting the scientific opinion on climate change. There isn't really a "nice" name for it, in the same way that... say... "conspiracy theorists" don't usually like the label. It has negative connotations for some people (the whole point of the movement is to mislead the public and sway policy, so no wonder...), but that's the name for the subject we're stuck with. A "quack" can be described in other ways ("a discredited/unaccredited medical practitioner" or "a practitioner of alternative medicine" or "a naturopath"). We don't have so many options for "climate change denial". I made several suggestions... but we shouldn't shy away from being accurate and descriptive just because there isn't a "nice substitute".   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be a movement but is the term "climate change denial" a self identifying label and has ExxonMobil applied it to themselves? Springee (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a well-defined term. Entities do not need to apply a label to themselves for it to be correct. A murdered often does not call himself a murderer, either, and yet they still are called that by others. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What label Exxon decides to use for PR isn't relevant... we aren't their PR firm. The fact is the label is accurate, well sourced, and doesn't have a good substitute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note in those words. Yes, the section should be retained, but a neutral title is needed. The current "Climate change" is ambiguous (it might mean the company's effects on climate change, etc.) The earlier version "Attitude toward global warming" is a little iffy. Something like "Position on climate change" is probably better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral" in WP:NPOV means to represent the sources accurately. SageRad (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@SmCandlish, the current heading is a subsection of "Environmental record", which I think gives us context. If we're going to expand the title, I'd prefer "Lobbying on" over "Position on". Climate change denial is more about lobbying and swaying public opinion than it is about simply holding beliefs on the topic. Would that be alright with you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The current subsection title "Climate change" is adequate but less than informative. Yes, the subsection under discussion is a subsection of "Environmental record," and so is a subtopic in the history of the subject of the article; the appropriate content of the subsection are diverse activities of the corporation. A corporation does not have an easily verifiable "position"; its board or executives or stockholders might but not a corporation, a legal entity. The subsection content is more broad than lobbying (attempting to sway legislators or other elected officials), and includes other activities including grassroots lobbying (attempting to sway public opinion to in turn sway legislation), advertising campaigns, executive and spokesperson statements, in-house research, carefully directed outside research funding, funding of surrogates, the corporation's own operational activities to plan for climate change, and other activities. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is already fourth section on this talk page discussing the same question and therefore I understand the comment by William M. Connolley in this thread. For this reason, I am copying here my last comment on this subject. For transparency, I first time edited this article already in 2007, but until the previous RfC in December where I arrived due to notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Article alerts, my edits were mainly about sorting categories and reverting vandalism. If I remember correctly, I have not participated in any previous dispute related to the climate change. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 12 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)

In what way is the current section heading more WP:NPOV than saying "support for climate change denial"? And we can edit the section to focus only on that aspect -- after all, it's already tagged as being too long and could use splitting. SageRad (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And we can edit the section to focus only on that aspect No, we can't per WP:NPOV, more particularly per WP:CHERRY. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Why of course we could, and should. That section was on this and should again be more strongly focused. Thus is how articles are written. There are subsections about important aspects about the article's subject. That's the norm for articles. Your objections make no sense. SageRad (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Currently this subsection covers different aspects of the complex issue about ExxonMobil attitude towards climate change. Your proposal to include only the certain aspect is a classical example of fact picking instead of finding a balanced set of information. This violates WP:NPOV. But I agree that this subsection needs further trimming. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. No it is not. It's a clss example of representing an actual thing about an actual company. It's not fact-picking. The company did this, and sources wrote about it. It's representing what is with honesty. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Given WP:CSECTION, why is our section on climate change denial not a subsection of "Environmental record"? Could it not be shortened and integrated into the rest of the article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, indeed. And in a normal editing environment, we'd actually be simply discussing things like that and coming to agreement. Instead of which we have this rather over-heavyweight RFC method when editors don't get their way; please see my !vote above William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose but.... The suggestion is not NPOV. However, simply labeling the section criticism doesn't capture the nature of what is in that section. Suggest "Opposition to Climate Science Consensus" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that proposal is best. It seems to be not quite the right topic. Sure, Exxon hasn't publicly agreed with the scientific consensus, but that's not what the section is about. It's about their lobbying efforts and promoting disinformation. Something like "lobbying against the climate science consensus" better sums up the section... though it's also clumsy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe some of the lobbying and the like occurred at a time before there was a strong consensus. For that reason I don't think it is accurate to say "against consensus". Also, "against consensus" is still loaded language. At some level it is probably not possible to get away from loaded terms but we could try a bit harder. Springee (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Exxon's dive into climate change denial began around the 1990s, and continues today. Climate research has been going on since the 1860s, and it was around the 1930s that we had evidence the Earth was already warming. A consensus was clear sometime in the 1980s. The IPCC was formed in 1988, and its first report appeared in 1990 showing a clear consensus. Exxon's promotion of climate change denial did not occur "before there was a consensus". Sources for all this can be found in this article, climate change denial, and IPCC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - (I also came here from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology‎) "Support for climate change denialism" is not neutral and should not be used as a heading. That being said, a new more concise heading should be added - along the lines of something generic like: "Climate change", so readers are not exposed to a preconceived notion from a non-neutral heading. Meatsgains (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Include, having due care as to how we represent the sources. ExxonMobil has wilfully suppressed evidence of the contribution of fossil fuel consumption to climate change, using tactics straight out of the tobacco industry playbook, and there are numerous reliable sources supporting this. Obviously some sources are reluctant to use the d-word, but we have no need to describe a WP:SPADE as a "non-agricultural manual earth-turning implement": if the only options on offer are skepticism and denial, we go with denial, because the term climate change skepticism is pure spin on the part of denialists and is not consistent with the technical or real-world definitions of the work skeptic - the sources clearly show that Exxon started with a conclusion and worked back. Climate change denialism is, in fact, a neutral term, just like holocaust denialism. Obviously the denialists don't like it, but Wikipedia is not censored to protect the feelings of anybody, especially not people who put commercial interests ahead of robust scientific conclusions. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think people understand what "neutral" means in WP:NPOV

It means representing sources accurately, without biasing the representation. SageRad (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't. Reliable sources are free to present a POV; Wikipedia is not. It doesn't mean we present fringe viewpoints equally, nor does it mean we have to sugarcoat unpleasant topics, but it does mean we must not present reliably sourced opinions as incontrovertible fact. WP:NPOV is a cornerstone policy and what you have written above misrepresents it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean representing the sources accurately without bias? Of course it does. Sage is right that "neutral" means something different on wikipedia than in common usage. On wikipedia, we don't mean "equal time" or "without opinion", we mean "representative of the sources". When we have a large collection of academic sources which all say the same thing, we need to represent that clearly. "Company X engaged in behavior Y" is not an opinion, and given the consensus among our highest quality sources, representing it as an opinion would contravene the very essay you quote.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in your characterisation of NPOV, but "without bias" includes the bias inherent in the sources (even if they are reliable). What "academic sources" do you mean? The examples Sage gives at the top of this thread are all news sources, and many of them either left leaning (The Guardian) or pretty solid left (Slate) in worldview. I refer you again to the summary of WP:NPOV, with my emphasis: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." In other words, we are free to state (accurately) that ExxonMobil has been accused of supporting climate denialism by numerous sources. However it is the very core of NPOV that Wikipedia not explicitly endorse this point of view. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the very crux of "due weight". If all our high quality academic sources say that Exxon engaged in behavior X, we cannot say Exxon has been accused of engaging in behavior X, as though it is a contested viewpoint. See WP:YESPOV. We are not "taking a side" by representing the viewpoints with respect to their prominence, as our policies require.

Those source include Weart, Hamilton, Monbiot and Sample and Goldenburg, Farrell, The Royal Society, Gore, Antilla, Revkin, UCS, Banerjee, Lorenzetti, Whitman, Herrick, Mooney, Foley, Mann, Washington, Oreskes, Dunlap/McCright, Farmer/Cook, Hogan, Sinden, Begley, Jacques/Dunlap/Freeman, Brulle, Fischer. I could go on for some time... All our high quality academic sources point in one, clear, unambiguous direction. This is not "just an opinion".   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

And of course the conservative press is less likely to rat up a climate change denial operation anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between giving alternate views due weight and speaking with Wikipedia's own voice. Can you explain how, given the five bullet points in "explaining NPOV", that using the term "climate denier" is neutral?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

And also, "academic sources" are different from "sources which quote an academic" (which is what you list above). One academic (Goldenburg) slinging mud at another academic (Soon) in a left-leaning newspaper does not an NPOV source make. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

On further inspection, Goldenburg isn't even an academic. Why are you characterising the above as academic sources?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not using "climate denier". We're using "climate change denial". It is consistent with NPOV because it is the preferred term among our highest quality sources. The list I provided is of reliable sources, not all of which are academic (though several are). Reading through those sources paints a clear picture, and if you come away from that list believing this is a phenomena relegated to left-wing newspapers, you are not evaluating the sourcing objectively.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Denial ≠ denier, that's a stretch. But even taking you at your word, many of the sources you provide above merely mention Exxon's funding of anti-consensus scientists (eg Goldenburg calls Harvard solar physicist Willie Soon a denier). You claim theses sources as support for "denial" when they actually use the term "denier". Pretty hard to then argue that they're different terms. I'm also baffled that there is a question over whether either term is NPOV - are you aware of the Associated Press's stylebook guidelines on the issue? Any variant of the term is considered pejorative, and AP thus advises avoiding it. Hardly a "preferred term."--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not in so... I agree with Yeti Hunter above, but more strongly with Guy below about split-out. When there is a persistent spit-fight (don't point at ME! I'm only here for the RFC and the topic is not my sort of thing anyway!) there is a lot to be said for stopping to take stock. The very fact that the problem doesn't go away suggests that it is of enough concern to merit its own article and only muddies the water for the main article, which is no service to the reader. Exxon is in any case too large a subject for a single article, and its associated controversies are not necessarily what readers on other Exxon-related would be looking for. Separate the topics say I and make sure that they are conveniently, appropriately, and clearly linked to in the main article. JonRichfield (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support/Yes. The edit linked is nakedly an attempt to bury the issue by shunting off ExxonMobil's history of supporting climate change skepticism into a "criticism" section - which is always a bad idea. This obscures the fact that ExxonMobil's support for climate-change-skeptical pseudoscience is notable in its own right, independent of the criticism. Furthermore the criticism has been subsequently shaved down and/or diverted elsewhere, because that's what happens to hotly disputed topics with "criticism" sections. This is tactical maneuvering and we shouldn't allow these ploys to work. The information should be restored. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as too POV and interpretive/negative for a header. Section headers should be completely neutral; therefore the heading as it is better. However I think too much has been removed when the spin-off article was created, leaving the section in the main article too bland and uninformative. There should be more info on the controversy in this main article; there is no Wikipedia prohibition against duplication of material across articles where warranted. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support without the ism. ExxonMobil are shown by sources to be a hotseat of climate change denial, which is what the topic is properly called, hence being the title of the wiki article about it. That fact is widely reported in RS and should be reported here. "Denialism" I object to on purely lexical grounds in that it's a horrible word and "denial" will do the same job far less 'Clunkily'. The content also needs to be restored. SPACKlick (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. ExxonMobil's support for climate change denialism is notable (and actually quite transparent). I agree with Sammy1339, the information should be restored. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support ExxonMobil's highly significant activities including lobbying, grassroots lobbying, advertising, and financing of climate change denialism surrogates are clearly due weight as well-documented in vast reliable sources. Absence of a section summarizes these sources is so grossly non-neutral as to constitute a whitewash. Hugh (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment now that the article has split: Is this RfC even relevant now? The climate change section of the article was split off so does that make this whole question moot now? Springee (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me as the article still needs to address the topic, even with much of the material being split into its own article. What do you think? Should we leave it going for a while or close the RfC fairly soon? How long do RfC's typically run? SageRad (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The default for RfC is 30 days but the RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support; sources seem to indicate that EM's denial of climate change is quite transparent, therefore per NPOV the heading should say as much.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would support Climate change denial. prokaryotes (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support/Yes Per SageRad and Jess. Fdssdf (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Split-out

The section on Exxon's climate change denial activism is by now I think too long for this article and should probably be split out. I would suggest something along the lines of ExxonMobil climate change controversy. See? I managed not to include the D-word in the article title. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Note that we already have #Split proposed for Merger section, and that section is even longer. Do that first? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Merger section could also be split out I guess, IMO it's also rather too detailed. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support the idea. Springee (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I also support splitting out the section into a new page. The question then becomes, what content covering "Exxon's climate change denial activism" do we leave on this page? Meatsgains (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The split out subsection should be summarized here according to the summary style guidelines. Something like one sentence about financing climate research, one or two sentences about funding climate change denial notwithstanding their own scientists warnings, one or two sentences about change its position in 2007 and supporting carbon tax now. I think it covers more or less the topic. Altogether four-five or five-six sentences seems to be enough. Beagel (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. We';re not here to hide things. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. As I said in the previous section: "The very fact that the problem doesn't go away suggests that it is of enough concern to merit its own article and only muddies the water for the main article, which is no service to the reader. Exxon is in any case too large a subject for a single article, and its associated controversies are not necessarily what readers on other Exxon-related would be looking for. Separate the topics say I and make sure that they are conveniently, appropriately, and clearly linked to in the main article." JonRichfield (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What are pro's and con's for a split-out, for the reader? The reader is who we ultimately want to serve -- to make the best encyclopedia for the common reader as possible. I don't see a split-out as a useful way to resolve disputes, though. It only moves them to a new place, and it would also continue here, with more complexity, as it would then be debating about what should be here and what should be in the split-out -- because the main ExxonMobil article would surely refer to their support for climate change denial, and then link to the sub-article. What's the advantage to that? SageRad (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically the reader is here for a page on Exxon, and what they get is a book. Better to summarise large issues (merger, climate change denial) and discuss them at more length in separate articles. Otherwise we risk giving undue weight to peripheral matters. Exxon's funding of climate change denial may be reprehensible, but as far as the history and operations of the company goes, it's a side-issue. Ditto the merger. It was big and significant, but you don't necessarily want to read a blow-by-blow when looking at a summary of the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not their climate denial support is a side issue depends on what the reader is here for and what they find relevant. We follow sources and shape articles according to the weight given in the press, with some guidelines. For me as a reader, personally, i would want a well-written and solid section on their support for climate denial in the main article. I'd want an appropriately labeled subhead in the table of contents, and a solid section explaining this, as that would be relevant to me if i'm reading this in light of figuring out what's happening in the world. So i'd respectfully disagree about the relative weight of things being a fixed schema. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no. The article will continue to describe ExxonMobil, will continue to note their funding for climate denial, and will offer the reader a link to an extended treatment, potentially in greater detail than we could possibly justify in this article. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point, i would oppose the idea, as i don't think it serves the reader. I think all the knowledge for a good article can be contained in this one article. Some parts can be more concise. Saying things directly and simply, according to sources, can be brief. SageRad (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy et al have described precisely why and how a split would benefit the reader and WP. Just because some of us feel that a particular topic is morally overriding does not justify shoe-horning the whole caboodle into the main article to bully the reader into wading through our personal sermons and concerns, together with all the baggage of controversy on the topic, its relevance to the company, its realities and relevance to the public. Conversely nor does it justify reducing the discussion to a pejorative and question begging summary pruned into meaninglessness in the name of concision. In the main Exxon article the entire topic could be dealt with adequately in a brief comment, very likely with its own heading, containing a link to a full article dedicated to the topic. The reader then knows why he follows the link, or not as the case may be, and if he does choose to follow it, he can be sure that the article he finds is as complete and distraction-free as we can make it. That is what I call "serving the reader", not piling it onto an already hopelessly top-heavy article and forcing the reader to grope through all the distractions. The TOC is already over a page long; Is our best remedy to increase the article length and reduce the number of TOC entries? And beware the likes of "brief high-level summary here could be written solidly NPOV reflecting the sense of the reliable sources"; it should be brief and NPOV all right, but all it should reflect is the nature of the topic, such as (thumbsuck) "Exxon has been ... for alleged attempts to... whatever, which has led to .... whatever. See main article at blabla" Two lines should be plenty. "The sense of the reliable sources" is strictly for the propagule article, not for assessments in the parent article. Apart from being POV and wikiwarrior fodder, such summaries then need separate maintenance to keep them in step with the main body of material on the subject. That sort of problem is rife in WP as things stand, and we should avoid aggravating it. JonRichfield (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• The more I read the views of others the more I would support the split. SageRad posted a lot of articles discussing the topic. That would suggest there may be quite a bit of reliable information, more than we can have in this article due to weight issues. A split would allow for a good high level summary here and far more detail in the new article. Springee (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In fact, I have just had a look at the article, and I would suggest more splits. I am not much concerned with the topic, certainly not enough to make a study of it, but superficially I should think that the first four sections, From History to Corporate Affairs, could be the main article, and plenty at that. How to organise the rest of the material is open to discussion, but I would suggest Environmental record could be an article in its own right and criticism another. You could split climate change out as well, but as things stand it seems to me still to be comfortable within criticism. However, watch this space; those are topics that could grow. Similarly, you could unite environmental record with criticism, but my feeling is that they might be better apart, possibly with cross-links. But suit yourselves on that. JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

• I might be moved to support the split, if the brief high-level summary here could be written solidly NPOV reflecting the sense of the reliable sources. I also would like to commend JzG for this edit, which i think is very good. Economy of language in headings is key to a readable article. Weeding out the word "Attitudes" is good because that's a complicating word. It calls into a reader's mind complex questions about who holds that "attitude" -- how does a corporation have an "attitude" for while they're defined in U.S. law as a legal person, they're not a human. Anyway, words without clear meanings should be omitted, so this is a great change. The conjunction of the heading "Criticism" --> "Climate change" makes it pretty clear what the section is about. I'm thankful for some progress. SageRad (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

SR has somewhat jumped the gun by doing the split [14] but I doubt anyone is going to complain William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that was jumping the gun but it seems like the group was heading that way anyway. I would suggest cutting the GW section of this article down to a single paragraph. Keep the majority of the detail in the new article. It will help avoid content conflicts and discontinuities. Springee (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this needs more trimming. E.g. I think that two sentences about the Union of Concerned Scientists report so too much for the summary style, and particularly the second sentence The report argued that ExxonMobil used disinformation tactics similar to those used by the tobacco industry in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking, saying that the company used "many of the same organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue." does not belong here per this reason. Beagel (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Does climate change fit into Criticism or Environmental record?

I reverted a good faith edit that moved the Climate change section from Criticsm to Environmental record. There was discussion in regard to renaming the section to "Climate change" in the above which referred to the logic of its location under "Criticism" casting its meaning clearly for the reader. It fits better under "Criticism" as it's general critique of the company on an ideological or political level, whereas "Environmental record" is about specific interfaces of the company's operations to the environment. I appreciate the edit's boldness so in accord with WP:BRD essay recommendations, i would love to discuss it further here. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your mistake is to think that the CC section is a "general critique of the company on an ideological or political level"; it isn't, and it shouldn't be.

Criticism sections are bad in general; the less in them the better, as a move towards removal William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

For example, [15]. That makes no sense under a "criticism" banner William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In general I think we should avoid having a "criticism" section so I guess by default I would put it into environmental record. However, I'm not sure I would want the climate change stuff in there either. I would typically think of environmental record in terms of things like oil spills, chemical leaks etc. Basically, local, direct harm to the environment. Global warming related information seems to fit as much into a political type issue as anything. Basically EM could never spill a drop of oil and contain all of their chemical wastes but the simple consumption of fossil fuels results in carbon output. I guess I see a distinction the way I do with car emissions. A 30 mpg car from 1965 gets better gas mileage than a modern pickup truck pulling a trailer (say 15 mpg). So in terms of "global warming" it's got bad emissions. However, in terms of emissions that have a local (regional) effect (acid rain, soot, smog) the truck is much better. So when we talk about Exxon and their environmental impact I'm not sure I would want to put it into "Environmental Record". Perhaps if we changed "Record" to something else that could include things like pollution related to spills and the like, efforts to help the environment and a carbon impact/global warming section. The GW section would then talk about the issues of denial or what ever we choose to call it. This isn't meant to bury the topic but put it in a logical hierarchy. Springee (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that we need to move the stuff from the 'Criticism' section into the 'Corporate affairs' section as was proposed by one editor at the RfC thread. I also think that the 'Environmental record' needs some work. At the moment, it is mainly the list of recent random events (except the Exxon Valdez which is one of the largest oil spills and not so recent) which includes some not so big accidents (e.g. Mayflower and Yellowstone spills made a big headlines but 3,190 or 1,000 barrels is not so much compared to some other pollutions by Exxon which are missing from here). The Mayflower spill, having its subsection here, was settled for $5.07 million but the article is even not mentioning the $250 million settlement about Bayonne and Linden sites pollution. I agree that these event should be mentioned and linked to their own articles, of course, but no need for separate subsections. That section is also missing overview how many and how big are spills (e.g. per year or per decade or per any other certain period), how big are different emissions (there is some information for the US operations which is out of date) or how big is the company's carbon footprint. And, of course, the comparison with other oil majors would be useful. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed; there is too much that is quasi random. Some editor noticed a thing, found a newspaper article about it, and thought to add it to the article. Its kinda OK for a bit; but some synthesis and consolidation is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been a serious violation of the WP:BRD norm of editing in this reversion which constitutes edit warring. I reverted with very clear indication that there were reasons, and pointed to one of those reasons, and then said "let's discuss" so immediate re-reversion was edit warring.

Now, in the above section of this talk page, i had written:

The conjunction of the heading "Criticism" --> "Climate change" makes it pretty clear what the section is about.

That is what i referred to in that the position of that section in the "Criticism" section is important for its meaning to be clear, at least in my eyes and as i have said here.

So, i would like to ask you to self-revert, and to then discuss it here. I'd like to be working collaboratively, but it's hard when there's a contentious feeling in the air.

I think it makes more sense in the "Criticism" section than the other section which is essentially a list of specific incidents of environmental damage, whereas the "Criticism" section is about global concerns of a more philosophical/strategic/behavioral nature. Anyway, let's please discuss. Can you please give me some background on your statement that criticism sections are bad? What's bad about them and is this a generally agreed upon norm at Wikipedia supported by an essay or guideline? I'm open to hearing that, but i think there are reasons for "Criticism" sections and i see them in many controversial articles.

The current state of the article is not the status quo. I am not going to engage in edit warring, but it's the result of edit warring. SageRad (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM. Oh, look. It isn't a redlink. That was really hard to guess. How about you try to avoid needing spoonfeeding in future? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. You failed to address nearly everything i said. We have a failure to be civil here. SageRad (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. A lot of articles do have criticism sections, and this article currently has one as well. As long as it has one, think this fits better there. It's not a huge point, but i would like to see that we are able to discuss and work on this article as equals, in a civil way, with rational and good-faith discussion. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• How about in a section on political activities or some such? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Could be, or both "Climate change" and "Human rights" and "Political influence" could be main subheadings. The "Environmental record" section could be renamed "Environmental incidents" as that is more what it focused on until the addition of "Climate change" there. There are many options. I would like us to be able to discuss it in a positive way, with the good of the reader in mind as the main goal. What would serve the reader best to know about ExxonMobil, and how could we make the article as logical and simple to read as possible? SageRad (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of renaming 'Environmental record' I prefer that the section would be reworked to give a full overview about the company's environmental record. Beagel (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a natural list of seven incidents. I would prefer "Climate change" to be a main subheading of the article, as i think it is of great weight in terms of WP:DUE in this article. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a political activity. It is not an environmental issue, as those are all spills and the like. I'm agnostic as to whether it should be on its own, included in criticism, or under political activities (which could use more focus in this article IMO). Guy (Help!) 20:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I would put it under a political section. Climate change isn't about cleaning up spills or how much toxin leakage is OK. The big issue is what regulations/laws will be passed and what can EM do to impact those rules and regulations in a way most favorable to EM. What ever counter science, misinformation, muddy water etc is there to cloud the political issue and impact political action. So that makes it political vs environmental. Springee (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Some resolution soon

Well, i've held off on making this change as to where the "Climate denial" section fits, but i think it ought to be done soon. This edit for one thing (which was then reverted seems to depend partly on where the section is located). Do we have something of a consensus or general feeling that this section would fit well under a "Political activities" section or something like that? I would appreciate it if thoughtful editors would read this section of the talk page and make suggestions or make the edit they feel is needed. It's currently in a state that is not status quo but is rather the result of an edit war.

My strong feeling, after some days of thought on the subject, is that "Climate denial" should simply be a main subheading of the article. This is a very weighty aspect of the topic of "ExxonMobil" in relation to most readers' interests, by my reckoning of the weight of reliable sources, especially the mainstream respected media. It's a very significant sub-aspect of "ExxonMobil" as relates to most readers. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your view that public interest would suggest promoting that section vs others. It makes sense in terms of providing the information we believe the readers want as quickly as possible. That said, I'm not sure if I would agree given that WP is meant to be encyclopedic. In 50 years would reader interests change and thus would this topic still demand a top level section? I think fitting into a broader political actives section is more logically structured. The only exception would be if EM has basically no other political activities of note. If a category is populated by only e a single sub-category then perhaps the sub should be come the category. Clearly I'm suggesting a hierarchical vs public interest structure. Does anyone know which WP guidelines might apply when making this sort of decision? Springee (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand concerns about WP:RECENTISM but in this case, i really think it's a good encyclopedic decision to make it a top-level category. The sheer volume of media reporting on this topic is an indication of its great weight. We cannot predict the future, but this does seem to be an issue of great concern to people at present and in the future, for obvious reasons. This is not an edit for the public interest, however, except insofar as we are here to serve the reader. I'm thinking encyclopedically and by the principles of Wikipedia here. And i don't think we need to serve the projected reader in 50 years, so much as the reader over the next few years. We don't have a crystal ball, but we must make do with lowly human minds. There are some other political aspects to ExxonMobil in the article currently, but i don't see enough to make a clear and logical list, so i think this would best fit as a main-level heading. I would love to hear further suggestions, but think we should move on this soon because the article progresses, and it makes sense to get the structure right, so further editing makes the most sense. SageRad (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to disagree but I think you make a good argument none the less. Others should take it under consideration when making their recommendations. Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your point, as well. It seems to be a judgment call. As evidence against WP:RECENTISM, there is this article in the New York Times from January 2007, which shows that it's been a newsworthy part of the story of ExxonMobil for some time, and quite newsworthy at that. That's been 9 years now, perhaps enough time to judge its notability with some reliability. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

where the "Climate denial" section. Pardon? There is no such section William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's called "Climate change" out of some sense of politeness, but the actual central theme of this trope is "climate change denial" so i guess it was a simple slip of the mind. Thanks for looking out. To be clear, the central element of this aspect of the ExxonMobil topic is indeed their support for climate change denial, and their actions in attempting to delay public perception and governance in that regard, as reflected in the January 2007 New York Times article:

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report on Wednesday accusing Exxon Mobil of spending millions of dollars to manipulate public opinion on the seriousness of global warming.

While it may be polite to ExxonMobil to call it "Climate change", "Climate change denial" might be more accurate. I don't see a reason to not be as accurate as we can be. SageRad (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We have many separate discussions of this same point on this page, and none of them have gone your way. Trying to slip in your desired change via a "slip of the mind" won't work either William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would not agree with your characterization of discussions here, and i was not trying to "slip in" anything. It was an honest slip, but it actually is supported by sources. But when it arose, i realized that the actual most honest language would be to simply say what it is. Anyway, we have consensus for "Climate change" as a category, for now, and i'm not in the mood for a long debate. It is interesting, however. SageRad (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the criticism section is deprecated generally at wikipedia, and bulking one up with additional "climate change" section, would not be a positive addition. I see no consensus for such a section. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here we have discussed finding ways to get rid of the criticism section, and therefore where "Climate change" would fit, as it used to be under "Criticism" and now is the odd item in a list that is otherwise specific incidents. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I previously supported inclusion of climate change activities under 'Corporate affairs' but I also agree with inclusion under 'Political activities', if and when created. But, of course, also other political activities of EM should be added to the article. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How about a simple subheading under the article itself? It seems noteworthy enough to me to be a main subheading. It seems like a messy proposition to group it with anything else. It seems like it could be simplest as follows:

5 Environmental record

5.1 Exxon Valdez oil spill

5.2 Exxon's Brooklyn oil spill

5.3 Baton Rouge Refinery benzene leak

5.4 Baton Rouge Refinery pipeline oil spill

5.5 Yellowstone River oil spill

5.6 Mayflower oil spill

5.7 Sakhalin-I in the Russian Far East

6 Climate change

7 Human rights

8 Foreign policy

SageRad (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. The above proposed outline non-neutrally endorses the point of view that greenhouse gases are not a pollutant. Just because carbon dioxide is odorless and colorless and is not black and sticky does not mean that this content and these reliable sources are not a key aspect of the environmental record. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, of course i know that carbon dioxide (and methane) in this context are a pollutant, in that these gases have negatively affected the ecology. My reasoning is that:

• The climate change denial part of the story is not on a par with specific local spills and incidents.
• In the list under "Environmental record", a more significant aspect of the subject, according to weight conferred by coverage in media, is misrepresented. As a main-level subheading, this aspect of the story that is so central to what defines ExxonMobil in the world, as serving the reader best in their use of Wikipedia, would be best served.
• The fewer sub-levels in a table of content, the easier to take in the article for the reader.

I hope you can consider these points. I'm really trying to make the article as neutral and easy to read as possible. Of course i agree with you that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and do affect the environment, but that's very clear in the section's text. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your contributions to this article and talk page discussions. In particular, thank you for your bold commitment to neutrality in rescuing the subtopic of the well-documented climate change related activities of the subject of this article from burial under "Criticisms." In terms of easy to read, I think including the well-documented climate change related activities of the subject of this article under environmental record makes it easier to read. Placing this subtopic outside the environmental record section exposes our readers to the possibility that they might skim the environmental section, find nothing on the subject of this article's well-documented activities to slow our specie's response to the understanding and regulation of greenhouse gases, and arrive at a false impression that they understand the environmental record of the subject of this article, and leave with an incomplete understanding. As far as "on a par," already the subtopics under environmental record are not on a par the each other in terms of impact. As far as number of section headings, that is not changed regardless of where a particular subtopic is placed. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, i fully hear your comments, and understand them, but oddly, the list under "Environmental record" is the one place where i would not like to see the section on climate change. I think it's actually buried there, in a way. It's also a much different thing than the other items of that list. The others are incidents. The many aspects of ExxonMobil in regard to climate change are a long political story about the company's intentional doings, whereas the accidents are just that -- accidents. They may be the result of negligence but they were not intentional and not political in the same way that the company's support for climate change denial was. They were time-specific in regard to weight, whereas the climate change story is very long-term, both in media coverage as well as in global import. In terms of section heading organization, by eliminating the "Criticism" container, we do in fact reduce the count by one, as well as reduce the amount of nesting, which in my experience makes an article easier to read. Lastly, i personally like "Criticism" sections but they're deprecated and so we can work toward removing that section by making "Climate change" a top-level category, and the other contents of "Criticism" could be the same, pending further discussion. Thank you for a civil discussion. I appreciate it. SageRad (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, i would prefer the "Climate change" heading be called "Climate change denial" as you can see in above dialog, but i don't think that would fly right now with some other editors. I don't think we'd find an easy consensus for that. But i think that would be the ideal structure for this article, making the reality most accessible for WP:READERSFIRST. SageRad (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If the climate change section is broad, not just criticism then I think I would be OK with that. My impression is not 100% of EM's activities related to climate change are negative. Also, if there are reasonable groups that say things like "EM's concerns are legit" etc then those should be included along with the criticism. Note that this section should be quite short (at least the denial part of it) since there is now a specific article on the subject. Springee (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Truly, not all of ExxonMobil's climate change related doings have been about denial. The support for denial is probably the most notable part, but the section as it currently stands does begin with ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change has varied over the decades. From the late 1970s through the 1980s, Exxon funded research broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. And as it currently stands, the amount of content on climate change denial is brief as it does point to the other article on the ExxonMobil climate change controversy. I would definitely want the section to retain the same "Main article" tag, as that controversy is the main aspect of "Climate change" as relates to ExxonMobil. Shall we do this change? I don't want to jump the gun, but also don't want to let things hang too long. SageRad (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would wait a day or so for more feedback. I would have said if you get no objections then go for it but HughD voiced concerns. Let's see what others say but if there are no strong objections they I would say go for it. Note, for future reference I think it would fit better in a Political subsection instead of a main section but if we don't have other political material to fill that section then the only subsection gets promoted to a section. So if other political activities material is added I may change my view. Springee (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Refined subsection structure proposal

Environmental record

Spills and leaks

Exxon Valdez oil spill

Exxon's Brooklyn oil spill

Baton Rouge Refinery benzene leak

Baton Rouge Refinery pipeline oil spill

Yellowstone River oil spill

Mayflower oil spill

Sakhalin-I in the Russian Far East

Climate change denial

What do you think? Hugh (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I lean towards opposing this structure. First, "climate change denial" inherently limits any discussion of Exxon and climate to denial. It sounds like not all of their climate related activities would fit into that category. Second, climate change is very much a political activity. Even if there is full agreement on the science the question of what to do is a political one. Lobbying efforts related to climate change are relevant to this subject area. Lobbying against say a carbon tax is not denial yet should be discussed. Research into ways to reduce greenhouse gas output would also fit into this section. I agree with SageRad that even the largest of oil spills are not political actions. They are also for the most part local in their impact (local might be all of the Gulf of Mexico but that isn't global). Furthermore, now that we have a separate article on the climate change denial activities the climate change denial section in this article should really be no more than a paragraph with a pointer to the new article. EM's efforts related to carbon taxation, carbon credits/exchanges, policies, even non-denial research should fill the rest of the Climate Change section. Springee (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• At the moment I don't support this structure proposal but rather for some specific issues and not because I disagree with the general approach. My first concern is the third level sections which may be sometimes useful, but usually splitting the topic too much. At the same time I think that having the second level section named 'Oil spills' would be useful. As I already mentioned somewhere above (and we need to maintain the talk page readable to find information), we are missing the important information about the number of leaks (e.g. per year), about the amount of leaked oil (e.g. per year) and comparison with other oil majors. At the same time the current list of oil spill subsections is not representative and has a problem with WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Some of them like Mayflower and Yellowstone made a large headlines but actually were rather limited accidents while some older and several times larger accidents are missing. Therefore, combining leaks into a single subsection would be good idea (but, of course, we should preserve all links to the more specific articles about these accidents. We also need a separate subsection about different emissions (not only CO₂ emissions, but all others, caused mainly by refineries. And one issue is related to the section title about climate change. I think that the present title is a good compromise. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I also support the proposal to get rid of the criticism section. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of a reduced criticism section, that means a lot to me. Best is to integrate controversies, that's what we do. The volume of an oil spill is certainly noteworthy, but is not determinative in terms of article coverage; coverage in reliable sources is. It may seem counter-intuitive at first but in Wikipedia a small spill with large coverage is due more weight than a large spill with less. Three levels of subheading is nothing to be avoided, it is fully supported by our MOS, and is an aide to our readers in navigation MOS:BODY. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not due to WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Beagel (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Made a change

I made a bold move to simplify the article's structure, getting rid of the "Criticism" section as everyone has agreed on, and made "Climate change" a main-level heading. I also renamed the long section to "Geopolitical influence" as i think that's the actual abstract noun for the main point of that section. I hope you find it useful. Please discuss. SageRad (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Include New York Times article?

I fail to see how citing the 2007 New York Times article is "larding" the article as stated in the edit reason in this revert. Who thinks this article is worth citing? Why or why not? Let's discuss this. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement which is being supported in the article is in effect "the UCS says X" which of course is a claim that needs to be supported. Since the actual UCS article in which X is said is cited, the WP article statement is fully supported by the statement's source. Additional citations, including those added to establish "weight" are WP:OVERCITE. Springee (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Two sources for a contentious claim are not over citation. Citation supports noteworthiness as well as verifiability. One or more sources for verifiability and one or more sources for noteworthiness are a common citation pattern on Wikipedia, a best practice fully supported by policy. A New York Times citation is often the epitome of noteworthiness. Another pattern on Wikipedia, not as common and not a best practice, is removing citations then removing content. Hugh (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC) When the verifiability or noteworthiness of content is disputed, adding additional citations to noteworthy reliable sources is an improvement to our project. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't need multiple refs for each statement. The refs are there to provide a citation for the statement; not to add their own viewpoint; hence only one is needed. Also, there's a see-main of which this para is just a summary; add the lard there if you must William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline for your personal preference of one citation per sentence. Your multiple deletion of noteworthy, neutral, reliable source references (11:51 20 January 2016, 11:54 20 January 2016), with your edit summary of "rm excess refs; pick one you like for each statement," is disruptive. Hugh (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. In cases where the references are used to verify the views/statements of a group such as the UCS then a single reliable reference, including publications of the group itself, are sufficient. In cases where we are talking about reporting on an event or multiple groups expressing a similar view then I would agree that more than one source often makes sense. Please refer to WP:OVERCITE. Springee (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, What are you attempting to argue? Are you saying the views of the UCS are not reputable enough for inclusion? That opens up a new can of worms. If we had a more generalized statement and the NTY and UCS both, independently supported the claim then you would be right. However, the specific claim being supported is that the UCS said X. The most reliable source of that statement is the actual UCS report which made the claim. A NYT article is simply repeating the contents of the UCS article. It's like using more than one citation for a direct quote. Springee (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

One additional problem here is, that this section should be summary of ExxonMobil climate change controversy, otherwise there is a risk for potential POV fork. When adding additional references, they should be added to the main article (ExxonMobil climate change controversy) and then also here, if necessary. Also all other addition should be done there first and then summarized here, if appropriate, by using sumamry style. But this NYT reference was never added to the main article. This is a problem. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concern regarding the possibility of a point-of-view fork. In summary style, content in the parent article and the child articles have the same burden of citation to reliable sources. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Two sources for a contentious claim are not over citation - what contentious claim? No-one is challenging any of the statements or seeking to remove them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The subtopic of ExxonMobil's well-documented, highly significant support of climate change denial is contentious, please review multiple above talk page discussions and recent archives. Here is one particularly explicit example, many more diffs are available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, per WP:OVERCITE, it is not nessisary to include multiple quotes for the same fact/comment/statement if the fact/comment/statement is not in question. If someone is questioning if a particular statement is being given WP:UNDUE then a discussion of more than one citation may be relevant. I haven't checked all the references that were removed so you certainly could make a case for why the extra citations are needed. However, in the case of the UCS quote, you have not made a valid argument for the extra citations. Springee (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

one particularly explicit example: no, that's not an example. Because the veracity of the statement is not being challenged there. What is being challenged is whether the statement belongs or not; a reference is irrelevant for those purposes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations support due weight as well as verifiability. Hugh (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really, no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the essay that Springee meant to cite is WP:OVERCITE, for WP:OVERSITE is about the Wikipedia slang term for redacting. Anyway, i agree that the NY Times article is not needed for this content, but it could be nice to leave it in. I understand about not over-citing. Seems like it's an editorial decision. I generally like to have a couple citations for things when it's possible, as there is not much additional toll on the reader's eyes, but i understand when there's a string of 5 or 6 citations that it looks burdensome. Anyway, i have no preference and this seems to be a stylistic preference. I don't think the NY Times article adds any new material, but it does confer a weight to the content, that the NY Times chose to print this story. That is what the additional citation confers. SageRad (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, you are correct! Springee (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Given there is now a subsection should the second paragraph of the section be trimmed? The first paragraph could be expanded with some of the most important points but the summary seems to be that EM was doing legit research, changed their tune for a while and has since (maybe) changed back. Springee (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would depend on what reliable sources say, both in terms of content as well as weight of coverage. My survey on the literature is that the climate change denial support got a lot of coverage, since the story broke up until the present. Even when i just did a Google News search on "ExxonMobil climate change", i see the huge bulk of stories as recently as 10 hours ago on this topic of their support for climate change denial. SageRad (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The coverage of the subject of this article's activities related to climate change are many, many times more prominent in reliable sources than other current content such as say the number of parking garages at the world headquarters. This article is well within readable prose size. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I agree with that. But what are you trying to imply, William? The policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia regarding WP:DUE specify that:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This seems to be what editors are saying above. I do agree that the coverage of ExxonMobil's climate change denial confers much weight to the topic and therefore merits significant coverage in this article. SageRad (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that we have a right discussion at the wrong place. After split the main article about this issue is ExxonMobil climate change controversy. That means that all additions should be done there first and then summarized here if the addition change the summary. According to WP:SYNC, to keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. According to WP:DETAIL, the parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects. That means we should avoid to becoming too detailed here. But, of course, if any of ExxonMobil climate change controversy aspects is not summarized here properly, please explain what is exactly missing and what we should change to be in line with WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us that there is other stuff on Wikipedia. The article you link to has many problems, starting with the title; please discuss that article, including your suggestions about sources that are not yet included, on its talk page. Thank you. Meanwhile, the issue of due weight here in this article is independent of any other article. The coverage in this article of the subject of this article's activities related to climate change are grossly under-represented in proportion to the vast coverage in reliable sources. Coverage of the subject of an article in the The New York Times is generally considered noteworthy by most Wikipedians. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That article was split from here and here is a summary of that article. It is not "other staff exists". Please read WP:SS. If you think that the summary does not summarize some important aspects, please make a concrete proposal. You also seem not understand that there is no WP:RS issue with this NYT article – the issue is WP:CITE and not following WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are big articles, please be more specific about specifically what parts of those articles, quoting if necessary, may be applied in your view to exclude adding a reference to The New York Times to this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this text from the top of this section where it was placed out of typical talk page order. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists said that ExxonMobil granted $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming, and that ExxonMobil used disinformation tactics similar to those used by the tobacco industry in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking, saying that the company used "many of the same organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue."

• "Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. January 2007. Retrieved January 19, 2016.

Contended second citation:

• Krauss, Clifford (January 4, 2007). "Exxon Accused of Trying to Mislead Public". The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2016.

Clifford Krauss

Hugh (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• HughD, please stop this WP:Tendentious talk page editing. Editors have said why they removed the citation. You have said why you think it should stay. Consensus hasn't supported your view. The addition above does not respect talk page nesting and wp:bludgeons the discussion. Please respect the talk page and discussion. I support any editor who decides to collapse the above as well as my reply. Springee (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

End of text that i have moved to restore the structure of this talk page section. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• HughD, The reasons for replacing the NYT reference with a link to the UCS report also apply to your edit here [[16]]. Again, please respect the consensus process. Springee (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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/20131004234911/http://sec.edgar-online.com/exxon-mobil-corp/s-4-securities-registration-business-combination/1999/04/05/section3.aspx to http://sec.edgar-online.com/exxon-mobil-corp/s-4-securities-registration-business-combination/1999/04/05/section3.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)