Talk:ExxonMobil

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages,[1] including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

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

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

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

Dec 2015 related edits

The outcome of the above discussions was only a consensus for the inclusion of the factual elements of the MJ article. The inclusion of a list was considered to be editorial in nature and there was not an agreement for inclusion. The cited RFC [2] from another article using the same MJ article only concluded for inclusion but the closing editor noted that the method of inclusion was not settled. Springee (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions

Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [[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)

That stated, my original Oppose is unchanged. 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

RfC comment

HughD, per WP guidelines you should not delete the talk page comments of other editors [6]. 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)

API attributed quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If two editors disagree with your POV, it does not mean that they are "teamed up". Therefore, I would request that you will remove your allegations per WP:AGF and WP:PA. About your question, in my edit summaries I have explained that "Funding of global warming scepticism" has nothing to do with the company's environmental record because compared to other subsections in the 'Environmental record' section it does not have environmental impact. But of course, that kind of activities may be criticized from the moral point of view, and therefore, it suits better in the criticism section. As the title of this subsection, I think that 'Attitudes toward global warming' is more neutral and covers better the actual content of this subsection. As I already mentioned above, this subsection is too long and therefore violates WP:DUE. However, I tried to remove the {{too long}} tag from this section with any comment. So, please discuss and lets try to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 1 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)

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)