Talk:ExxonMobil climate change denial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:558:600a:4b:78c0:a7bd:d471:9409 (talk) at 21:14, 29 February 2016 (→‎A company blog is a citation?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconEnvironment: Climate change C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Overcite

Template:HughD, there are a lot of overcited references in this article. In cases where the weight of the reference has not been questioned please cut things down to the one or perhaps two strongest references. In cases where the reference is quoting a report such as the reports by the UCS or Royal Society, the reports themselves would be the best source. Also, you added a citation here [[1]] that doesn't make any sense in context of the statement is supposed to support. Please fix it. The work on changing the order of presentation looks good. Springee (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the reference to external links. There only appear to be a few parts where overcite may apply. Please point out which parts you take issue with. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a lot of updates and work on the article. I haven't checked all the refs but as a general rule I would say any time there are more than two references cited we should ask if they are needed. There are several places were 3-4 references are used. I would suggest looking at those and deciding which references make sense to keep. Thanks also for taking care of the ref that didn't makes sense (NYT-2007, you made it a link). I'm not sure it even needs to be a link given the limited content of the NTY article but that's more stylistic than anything else. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realized the 2007 article belongs to a related content part, moved it there. Well, up to 3 references should be fine. prokaryotes (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To keep things consistent with the parent article I've removed the citation. This issue was discussed there and HughD appears to have chosen to not follow that consensus when adding it here. The sort version of why it was removed at the parent was the weight of the claim isn't in dispute thus we should really keep things down to the best source for the claim. Since the material that needs to be supported is a quote from a UCS report, the best source for the quote is the report. The NYT article in question was very short and basically just summarized the UCS report. We really should check other examples of 3 or more refs (ideally 2 or more) for similar examples. The only reason to have more than one reference is cases where the weight or validity of the claim might be questioned. In this case if people said the views of the UCS were not significant then the fact that the NYT reported them could be seen as proof of weight. When I get a bit more time I'll look at the other potential overcite examples. I would think any time the citations are meant to support direct quotes the signle best source should be sufficient. Springee (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it is better to link to a secondary source, and secondly can you link to a Wikipedia guideline which says that we should use only one reference? prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OVERCITE, " A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided;". Remember that the WP article had a direct quote from the report. Unless the NYT article directly supported the quote then it's not actually a valid citation. That doesn't mean it's a bad source just that it doesn't support the citation in question. Since the WP statement was that the UCS report said X, the actual report is the most authoritative source for the contents of the report. It's like citing "Old Man and the Sea" for a quote from the book vs a review of the book for the same quote. No one is disputing that the UCS said what is in the report nor is anyone claiming the quotes lack weight. Thus only one inline citation should be used per OVERCITE. Anyway, there was a previous conversation about this exact reference on the parent article page here [[2]]. Note that if we were talking about interpreting the contents of the report vs directly quoting them then I would agree with you that we should use a secondary source for the interpretation and probably also include a link to the report (perhaps as a bundled citation). Springee (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if it is clear that the exact same content is linked twice, then we need only one of those. But this is not clear, and there are parts where paragraph content depends on multiple references. And you do understand that this page indeed is a controversial topic. prokaryotes (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do understand what you are concerned about. In that particular case the article claim was that the UCS report contained several quotes. The NYT citation wasn't used to support the larger paragraph and really all the short NYT article said was that the UCS issued a report that said X. Certainly in other cases more than one citation is going to be needed. For example a claim that says "a number of reports have been critical of EM for X". That would need links to more than one report. In the article the sentence "In 1981, Exxon's in-house climate experts raised concerns regarding developing the offshore Natuna gas field off Indonesia, which is 70% carbon dioxide, the main contributor to climate change." Probably should have more than one citation though one or two strong citations should be sufficient. But more than one is reasonable if the source(s) material is based on journalistic investigations rather than a direct company statement. On the other hand consider this sentence, "Toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its own climate research and was a leader in climate change denial.[1][15][16][17]". OVERCITE says 4 citations is simply too much.
Another example that probably should have just one is this statement:
In 2006 the Royal Society published a letter, pointing out that of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," and ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[26][27][28]
The above is basically an excerpted quote from the Royal Society letter. There is no interpretation or journalistic interpretation. If the Royal Society published the letter and we can cite the letter itself then we should not cite the other three sources. They may be good articles for other facts but not for the way they are being used. If all three support the quote and we can't find the original letter then pick one and remove the other two per OVERCITE. In this case the only reason for more than one is if there is a dispute about the actual content of the letter. As far as I can tell there is no dispute. Basically this example is the same as the UCS letter. Springee (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah makes sense, regarding the gas field, it is unclear to me why this is part of the article at all. Or is this similar to Shell's Arctic exploration ambitions? However, the gas field part's first two refs seem significant, but refer to something else, in such a case we should either move these or add the missing content. prokaryotes (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue with that. I think this article started off with a bit of a mess from the split. I'm happy to see your work and even HughD's work even if I frequently disagree with his editorial and talk page work. I mentioned the OVERCITE examples mostly because it just came up on the parent article and HughD was a participant in that discussion. It seemed questionable to immediately repeat the disputed edits on the split article. Anyway, perhaps the best way to handle most of these cases is to let interested editors work on the basic content and once that dust settles a bit go back and clean up some of the overcite examples. Editors might want to use some of the excess citations for other facts or just in the link section at the end of the article. I know you had already started down that path. Springee (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The gas field thing was not a part of the original split-off section but was only added less than two days ago by this edit. Beagel (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question, "...can you link to a Wikipedia guideline which says that we should use only one reference?" I also would like to see such a link. My understanding is there is no such policy or guideline. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UCS source is more like a primary source and the NYT is a secondary source, and our project asks us to prefer secondary sources. Also, coverage by the NYT is widely considered the gold standard of noteworthiness. Citation documents noteworthiness as well as verifiability. I am glad no one of the 3 of us considers the claim non-controversial at 1 ref, but that does not mean someone else will not sometime soon. Two refs are not over cite and contribute to article stability. Hugh (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are asked to provide context sufficient that our readers can understand the content of our articles. Multiple reliable sources position the funding of climate denial in the context of a corporation with major scientific expertise, fully aware of global warming and integrating the consequences into their operational planning. Hugh (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think link and statement from OVERCITE were provided. You participated in and the consensus did not agree with you regarding the UCS reference. Since the edit and talk history of the one is considered to be the history of the other it is tendentious editing to immediately act as if that past doesn't apply here. Your hyperbolic descriptions of the weight or references are hyperbole. Springee (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is a controversial topic as demonstrated by the article title, WP:ARBCC, the recent article split, and this talk page discussion, so the explicit exception in essay WP:OVERCITE applies, but you know that. Of course two or more references for content are very common on Wikipedia, but you know that. Of course two references for content, one a primary reference focussing on verifiability and another a secondary reference focussing on noteworthiness, is a very common citation pattern in Wikipedia, but you know that. Two of your colleagues have requested of you a link to policy or guideline which supports your personal preference for one and only one reference for content. Please provide a link or desist. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HughD, you should not be lecturing others about respectful editing. What you are trying to do is claim that because the overall topic is controversial every citation should be treated as such. That simply is not true. OVERCITE's mention of controversy refers to the specific citation in question, not the overall article. This was already explained to you here [[3]]. It is also covered by OVERCITE here [[4]] Springee (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • HughD, do not edit other people's comments without permission. This isn't something we should have to repeat to you. Springee (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • HughD, why would you add a weak reference to support a direct quote when we already have a strong reference doing the same thing? This is against OVERCITE. Please justify this addition [5]. Are you suggesting the NYT is a better source vs InsideClimateNews? The NYT article contains only a cut from an email, not an explanation of the story. It's actually a very weak citation in this case. If you feel the reference is worth having add it to the "also see" section, don't try to force it into a reference where it doesn't belong. Springee (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per essay WP:OVERCITE:

A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided...

Emphasis added for the benefit of the hard of hearing. Hugh (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "hard of hearing" comment is uncalled for.
Note that, per OVERCITE, if the source of fact is not controversial, ie. we are not arguing that the material supported by the citation is correct, then the fact that the whole topic is controversial doesn't mater. Hemmingway might be controversial but we don't need more than one source to support he wrote "Old Man and the Sea" or it was first published in 19XX. We would need multiple sources if the article said, "Old Man and the Sea was Hemingway's most critically acclaimed work." We would need more than one source to support that claim because even if a single credible reviewer felt that way others, even a majority, may not. Suppose we had five sources that felt that way but two, say NYT and The New Yorker, that panned it. Well instead of 5 "for it" citations, we would, per OVERCITE, rewrite the section to give more detail to the 5 "for's" and separately the 2 cons. Again, I would suggest you refer to the related discussion that you were involved with on the ExxonMobil talk page. Springee (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional relevant excerpt from essay WP:OVERCITE:

How to trim excessive citations

If there are six citations on a point of information, and the first three are highly reputable sources (e.g., books published by university presses), and the last three citations are less reputable or less widely circulated (e.g., local newsletters), then trim out those less-reputable sources.

Emphasis added for the benefit of those who may be unclear. Hugh (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above applies in the cases where more than one citation would be needed at all. It doesn't mean a non-controversial statement (not article, the controversy relates to the specific bit of information that is being added to the article) should get lots of citations. Only when the specific fact/claim/etc is in dispute should we have more than one citation. Springee (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • HughD, please assume good faith. What you are doing is WP:tendentious. You have cut sections out of the policy in a way that removes context. I'm following the same logic that we had at the parent article (I provided links above). If I recall you stood alone in your objections to removing the excess citations. Springee (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think as a general rule, the question should be "does this source add something to the article?" If we have a high quality academic source, then a news article from the guardian probably doesn't add anything, and we can trim it to one source. If we have two high quality academic sources that speak to the content explicitly, then including both helps our readers interested in investigating the content further. Wikipedia, at its heart, is really just a compilation of sources. Trimming sources should be done when they are redundant, not for aesthetics. Yes, 6 sources is overkill, but 2 is not. I don't see the harm in leaving 2 sources, and it eliminates the possibility someone will later complain the sourcing is weak, or the content insignificant. This seems to be in line with the intent of WP:OVERCITE   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are getting at but I disagree that it is within the intent of OVERCITE. The link is there to support the claims/facts/statements in the article. The "additional reading/links" section of the article is where we should put the articles that might be redundant in terms of supporting the facts in the WP article but may be of interest anyway. Springee (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me put it this way: if we eliminate good citations, we increase the likelihood of disputes later, and make it harder for our readers to investigate a variety of sources on the topic. So that's a real harm. What is the harm in leaving two good sources for a claim?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readability is part of it. Another issue is attempting to suggest weight by adding a number of lower quality citations. I would also add that in most cases I'm not removing twin citations. The ones I'm removing as a rule are ones that are weak citations given what they are actually being used to support. Take for instance this one [6]. That reference is clearly weak compared to the citations it was pared with. That one seems to have only been used to boost the number of sources. That was one of the reasons why OVERCITE exists in the first place. In other cases like this one [7] the citation is being used to support a direct quote. Well the other citation is an actual article talking about the topic. This is a throw together of some emails. Not exactly great stuff despite what the justification for the addition claims. Given the first citation fully and without controversy supports the WP article why add the readability mess? If the article contains something important yet we can't figure out how to put that important information in the WP article then put it at the end in the also see sections. BTW, this is something I point out not just here but to students I work with and in papers I review. Springee (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here is another example of questionable citation work that HughD just added.[[8]] The claim in the article is that Greenpeace said X. Well we have a statement from Greenpeace's website that says X. How much more reliable are we going to get? Even though I agree the CSM is a RS, why add it when it's basically once removed from the actual source of the statement. It becomes an example of exactly what OVERCITE was meant to stop, dumping a number of citations in to attempt to bolster a claim. Honestly I think we are also seeing the same thing with the large number of articles which say similar things. Rather than telling a cohesive story we are getting a dumping ground of articles. But that concern extends beyond just OVERCITE. Springee (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jess that we ought not to overapply WP:OVERCITE to an extreme as that in fact hurts an article. As a reader, i enjoy seeing two or three high-quality sources for claims. It gives some good links for a user to explore. It makes an article better, in many cases. WP:OVERCITE is an essay with a good point, but it's not a policy and it's not for people to follow to an extreme that hurts articles and removes good sources that have accumulated through the work of many good editors. Let's keep good sources that add to the article. SageRad (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about over applying. It seems we have only a few disagreements as to where it might have been over applied. That said, I don't think I have over applied it and as I tried to make clear I actually considered both the claims and sources before removing citations. Springee (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that two citations make the text harder to read. I think your reading of WP:OVERCITE is at odds with its intent and usual application. See several featured articles which use multiple refs. It's common in our very best articles. Here, you removed citations to the UCS and NYTimes, leaving behind only the guardian. While the guardian is a reliable source, it is not held in higher esteem than the NYTimes for journalism or a scientific body for scientific claims. Here we had two online news sources, and you cut one leaving just the guardian, which again, invites criticism that it's poorly sourced or assigned too much weight. Here you've cut cites from the single most contentious sentence in the article, removing two scientific bodies again in favor of the guardian. Look, some trimming can be good. Here you trimmed two duplicate citations, and here we only needed the Royal Society to back up their own position. But our goal should be to present as much content and as many resources of the highest quality we can, not to barely skim by WP:V. Can we please hold back just a little more on cutting sources while the article is being formulated?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but you need to look at the actual article content, not just the source of the article. Take your first example. What was the WP article statement that we needed to support? " Exxon's in-house climate experts raised concerns regarding developing the offshore Natuna gas field off Indonesia, which is 70% carbon dioxide, the main contributor to climate change." This is a simple statement that Exxon did X. The Guardian article contained quotes from the internal communication that said exactly that. The other sources also quote the same internal message. So they are all saying the same thing. None are adding an interpretation to the message. That falls into the "quote the book" example I have talked about. Now look at the three citations which were provided. The Guardian article was a full article on the subject and contained the needed quote as well as other information on the topic. The NYT article was just a collection of passages from various company internal communications. It doesn't contain any context for those passages. Yes, the NYT in general is a good source but in this case this isn't a top quality article. In this case it is certainly weaker than the Guardian. The third source is a UCS press release for a report. It is not the report and it actually doesn't support the 70% claim. So by itself it couldn't support the passage in question. So in this case we have one good RS, one that contains minimum needed information but no context or journalism and one that is a press release for a report and doesn't contain enough information to support the claim. Only one was needed here. Perhaps if the full USC report supported the claim it could be used as well but again, this is just a passage that effectively quotes EM itself. Why have extra citations if the quotes aren't in dispute? I think you will find I actually put similar thought and consideration into the other removals as well. If you notice I did not strip all cases down to just one citation. I only did that in cases where we were either dealing with, in effect, a source quoted fact (Greenpeace said "X" doesn't need a second quote if we have a link to Greenpeace saying it), or other claims that aren't in dispute. I did not do it to the subjective claims (ie more than one journalist reaches a similar conclusion).
Quickly hitting your other examples, #2, I removed a short Reuters blurb article. Look at the actual article and it should be clear it was a weak source next to the other one and again we are talking about using the article to quote something EM said. It's not a controversial claim.
3, That one was 4 citations which is too many. I removed the Royal Society one because the link was bad. The UCS was removed because it was a press release for a report, not the report. Note that the report is cited elsewhere so the actual report isn't lost. If you think the report would be better please link it instead. Note that I didn't cut that down to one.

Again, if we think those trimmed sources just need to be in here then add their unique content to the article or add them to the further reading stuff at the end. Springee (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get into a whole content discussion about every change. I plan to get in and do some writing, myself, but haven't had the time yet. I'm just asking that you hold back just a little on cutting valid sources from the article. You're citing an essay (I believe incorrectly) to support the cuts, and the end result is to weaken the article and make it harder to expand on our content. Again, some of your cuts have been good, but in cases where we have a couple different sources which discuss the topic independently, it would be helpful to let them stay for a bit while the article gets improved. The article was created very recently; we have some time to work on it. Further reading isn't the place to put extra refs (none of the sources we're discussing would be appropriate there, including the ones you left in the article) so that's not really a great option.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with the refs I've removed but I appreciate that you are discussing it in context and you are discussing edits. Since you asked I will hold off a bit. Perhaps in a week or so we can go back through and try to clean things up again. Currently the article really looks like a one or a few people just searched the web for an negative story about Exxon and then dumped it into the article in roughly chronological order. It is understanding that the sentences have yet to be meshed nicely together. However a bigger issue I see is their seems to be little effort to really understand all the accusations. If there are legitimate sources that say "Greenpeace's claims are wrong" or "it's not as straight forward as all that" we should absolutely put them in. In the short term, with so many sources I saw (and still see) nothing wrong with removing the weak links. When you actually look at the list of citations I removed perhaps half were still used else where in the article. Of those that were actually removed, some were press releases (or the MJ pointer blurb) to the real sources which are still here. A few were very short articles with no unique content and of limited quality compared to most of the stuff here (I'm still wondering why Rollings Stones, a source that is also anti-Vaccine has made it to the article). We also have the NYT collection of memos. It's not a strong source in this context regardless of what one editor claims. Springee (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 30th, new OVERCITE issues

Some recent edits have resulted in more issues with questionable sources and OVERCITE. In each of the instances below the claim that the facts in question are "controversial" is wrong. While the overall topic may be, the points in question each time were not.

  • This makes 3 citations for a single, no-controversial claim [9]. The facts of the claim have not been disputed so there is no justification for adding a 3rd reliable source. However, the added source is not a good source to back the claims in question. The HP article is sourced almost entirely from one of the ICN articles already used in this WP article. So it's not an independent source reaching the same conclusion. OVERCITE specifically mentions such sources as less than ideal. So we have more sources than needed for a claim that isn't in dispute and the HP source just retells the ICN information. Really, this is sloppy work.
  • This is another example of not looking at the new source very carefully [10]. The Independent is reporting on what The Guardian said in this article [11] which is already part of the WP article. Again, a quick reading of the source would make it clear that this was just repackaged information. This in addition to being an unneeded citation.
  • This one is almost justified.[12] The added citation was the Guardian which would be a good source. The Independent should have been removed since it just refers to the article that was just added. So, assuming the extra source is needed at all, at least the new one is better than one of the old ones. Springee (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding additional reliable sources, with excerpts, is a reasonable, measured, collegial approach when sources are challenged, an approach well supported by policy and guideline. Use by others is a legitimate aspect of sourcing as per policy. Agreement on content across sources is due weight. In recent days when arguing for removing sources, you argued that the supported content was not controversial, then the next day began challenging those sources you left. I am confused. You are misapplying essay WP:OVERCITE. May I respectfully suggest you pursue your views on the appropriate number of citations per sentence to essay talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting ridiculous with OVERCITING. Here for example[13] you claim an extra citation is needed because people are questioning the reliability of ICN. So you add a second ICN article by the same authors?! Are you serious? How can you honestly claim that addresses the concerns? Your edit here is almost as ridiculous [14]. The HP article you are using as a 3rd (and thus totally unneeded source) is re-reporting the ICN article. Thus in both cases you have done NOTHING to add reliability to claims that didn't need them in the first place. Springee (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, this addition is illogical at best and also runs counter to OVERCITE.[[15]] You claim that you are adding a third reference because people on the talk page are saying ICN may not be a 100% source. OK, then why add ICN as the third source? If your claimed reason was honest you would add some other source. So let's look at the sources for the claim in question. Frontline said, "was produced by FRONTLINE in association with the InsideClimate News report." So Frontline is not independent of ICN in this case. It's involvement can add credibility to ICN but they would be considered a common source of facts. The copy of the Black papers are primary sources and as you should know we aren't to use such things. Basically this is again a case where the only source we actually have is ICN. ICN can link us to the documents. Frontline is repeating the same information and thus you have only one source. Springee (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course PBS is independent of InsideClimate News. Frontline (U.S. TV series) and InsideClimate News have completely independent ownership, staffs, and editorial processes, so in terms of Wikipedia sourcing they are independent. Two editorial boards, two independent sources. It happens sometimes, in investigative journalism, that one agency breaks a story, and others follow, and the best recognize their colleagues. That Frontline acknowledges ICN is not some kind of strike against Frontline, in fact in Wikipedia it is strong point in favor of ICN WP:USEBYOTHERS. Frontline did not turn off all their editorial processes and mindlessly reprint a story from a dubious source. Frontline was not "duped" by ICN. When multiple reliable sources are saying the same thing we call that due weight on Wikipedia. But you know this. You are determined that this article be stripped down so as to be sourced solely to ICN, and then you want to argue ICN is unreliable, I get it, but that's not how we do, sorry. Hugh (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your removal of sources that support article content, while at the same time arguing that the sources you leave are not reliable, is tendentious and disruptive. Your colleagues have asked you to stop. Again, please stop. Hugh (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh, please stop creating strawmen for other editors. First, at least once you added a second ICN article by the same authors in order to add credibility to an ICN claim. I hope even you can see that sort of additional citation is not independent and thus counts for nothing more than the first one. Second, no one has claimed Frontline didn't review the ICN claims. However, if you want to justify adding second and even third sources (and third should almost always be unnecessary) then you should have a good reason. If all those sources are reporting the same thing as ICN then OVERCITE says stick with the best of the bunch since they are reporting the same facts. This is especially true when no one is claiming the statement is false. Things go down hill with the HuffPo. HuffPo doesn't have the strong editorial standards that PBS has and they made it clear that they were sourcing much of their article from other news articles. That should be a red flag. Use them to get ideas but go to the sources when adding content to the article.
You are accusing me of bad faith in my editing and plans for the article. It's a load of BS "but you know this". Please AGF. Your colleagues have asked you to stop adding bad citations and start discussing your changes to the article and motivations before you go to the article page. Please listen to their requests. Springee (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugh, can you justify this additional citation? [16] The sentence that it supports is, " Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial." The source you added, does not support the $20 million claim so why add it? Perhaps if you want to change the sentence to just say "millions
it would work.  I'm not sure why you think we needed this extra source given the first one and given no one was challenging the claims.  Anyway, either make sure the source really supports the claim in question or edit the claim to be less specific.  Springee (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying against emissions regulations

This section has 4 citations all bunched together to cover all but the last sentence of a paragraph. Is there a way those can be better distributed? If not which is the least important. The first two sentences seems to have just two claims. One is about a letter and recommended personnel replacement. I would assume that could be supported with one, possibly two citations. The other says a member was IPCC member was replaced (not controversial) and was seen as more industry-friendly. That last part seems like it probably does need more than one source. We should also see if there are articles that put some substance behind the comments. Industry-friendly isn't a bad thing so long as "concern for the environment" is also part of the deal (that was OR on my part). So we should see if this is just an accusation by those who don't like EM or if this really impacted IPCC recommendations. One of the general problems with an article such as this is you have a lot of accusations but often they are just that. To use my Ford Pinto example again, people accused Ford of making a car that was a death trap based on a preceived design flaw. However, the historical record shows that the car's safety record, even in terms of rear impact fires, was typical of small cars of the time. In this case, even if EM did advocate for a different member was their motivation really to be allowed to damage the environment or did they have a legitimate grievance/concern with the ousted member. Springee (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016 OVERCITE issues

  • Yet another needless citation addition. HughD, please remember that when facts are not in dispute we don't need lots of citations. I understand and appreciate that you want to use more than just ICN for facts. However, it really wasn't needed in this case. As you have pointed out ICN has a Pulitzer so presumably they can be trusted for a basic statement of fact, especially one that EM's own statements confirm. Still, if you think the NYT is a better source for this fact that is fine. To complete the edit we should remove the ICN reference. Springee (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh, I see you edited the citation again. [17] However, it looks like the NYT reference doesn't actually support the claim. The claim is more than 50 papers. "Dozens" is not sufficiently accurate to support "more than 50". Why would we want to add a sloppy reference, ie one that doesn't support the claim, for a fact that isn't disputed? Springee (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you take to article talk to argue against a reference to the New York Times on a controversial topic? Please support article stability. Please support fact-based editing. Please accept the paramount importance of reliable sources on Wikipedia. Respectfully, please stop your tendentious article space editing and talk page behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is:
  1. A bad reference for the article statements because it does not support the 50+ claim.
  2. An example of OVERCITE because the article statements in question are not controversial. Both EM and ICN agree that EM has published over 50 papers on the topic.
You are falsely suggesting I am claiming the NYT in general or even this article isn't a RS. That is not the case. The NYT article is a RS for the statements and facts which are actually in the NYT article. The 50+ fact is not and thus the NYT article is not a RS for that fact. You asked for fact-based editing, well that means making sure the citations support the claims they are asked to support. Springee (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a contribution from a colleague, a citation to The New York Times, but left your own contribution, to an ExxonMobil self-published source, because three citations too many? Hugh (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed a citation that didn't support the in article statement it was associated with. That the cited article is from the New York Times (thanks, we don't need the links here) doesn't mater. What maters is the WP article had specific statements of fact. ICN and EMP both support the factual claims. Furthermore, despite their editorially adversarial positions ICN and EMP agree on the claim of 50+ papers. Also, EM is the source of the list in question and linking to an EM cite verifies that EM agrees what the list means (ie it's not being used/shown/taken out of context). The NYT article simply doesn't support the 50+ fact in the WP article. You can tell us how many Pulitzers the paper has won, you can tell us how respected etc the paper is, it doesn't mater if the specific article you added as a citation doesn't contain the facts needed to back the claims it is meant to support in the article. Springee (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Between 1980 and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and climate policy.

  • Banerjee, Neela; Song, Lisa; Hasemyer, David (September 17, 2015). "Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business". InsideClimate News. Retrieved January 25, 2016. In an email, Exxon spokesman Richard D. Keil said he would no longer respond to inquiries from InsideClimate News, and added, "ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications."
  • Cohen, Ken. "When it Come to Climate Change, Read the Documents". ExxonMobil Perspectives. ExxonMobil. Retrieved Jan 31, 2016.
  • Gillis, Justin; Schwartz, John (October 30, 2015). "Exxon Mobil Accused of Misleading Public on Climate Change Risks". The New York Times. Retrieved January 22, 2016. Company scientists have contributed to dozens of scientific papers that supported this view and explored the extent of the risks.

Convinced, with no basis in policy, guideline or essay, that three citations is much too distracting to our readers, you removed The New York Times, and kept Exxon? Really? The New York Times does not support the content? Really? Hugh (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh, the policy that applies here is Verifiability. Specifically the WP:PROVEIT section. It says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (Emphasis mine). The NYT article that you want to include and added after the fact doesn't contradict the article claim of 50+ publications but it also does not directly support it. It (and the other two) would support a claim of "dozens" but the WP article says "more than 50". Springee (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you are unimpressed with Pulitzers, but most editors, were they to discover the content they are defending disagrees with The New York Times, would change the content. Hugh (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "...an EM cite verifies that EM agrees..." I agree sourcing our article to e-mails from ExxonMobil spokespersons, and postings on an ExxonMobil website, would tend to result in an article that ExxonMobil might approve of. But while we are discussing the appropriate application of policy, may I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline that a goal of ours is that ExxonMobil agree with our content? May also ask, are you aware of the distinction in sourcing policy between primary and secondary sources, and, to your knowledge, does policy specify a preference for one or the other? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are bordering on the absurd. You are falsely attributing views to myself and other editors. That is clearly not civil editing. Your "can I ask game" is pointless because the question will be repeated until you get the answer you like. Your above questions are simple BS. The verify policy says that citations must directly support the claims in the article. The NYT article, regardless of it's quality and due to no fault of it's writers or the editors of the paper, does not support the WP sentence in question. Springee (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I respectfully ask, at any point, did you consider that modifying the content slightly to concur with The New York Times, might be what’s best for our project? Why is Exxon's claim of "50" so much more preferable to you than The New York Times' "dozens"? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask that. Yes, I did consider such a course of action. In fact, there was a previous instance when an unneeded citation was added to the article. Like this case, the citation didn't actually directly support the WP article claim that it was associated with. Rather than remove the citation I edited the article to be less specific [[18]]. However, another editor felt that we shouldn't make the claim less specific just to include a new citation given the old were reliable with regards to the uncontested article statement [[19]]. Thus, rather than make the article text less specific to include an unneeded citation tacked on to the claim after the fact, I simply removed the citation. Springee (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very young article, actively being edited. When a colleague leaves multiple citations on content, they are inviting colleagues to read the sources and evaluate the summarization across sources. When an editor edits a young article under active editing by removing citations, to improve the visual appeal of the page, or motivated by an interpretation of an essay, or whatever, whether intended or not it frustrates future participation and improvement. Anyone who might have an idea needs to rediscover the ref first. Hugh (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says young articles are allowed to have citations that fail verifiability. There is no reason to add citations after the fact that don't support the passages in question. The sources that was added was already used in the article (prominently I would add) so you needn't fear a loss of source for other editors to review. Springee (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • HughD, here is another example of bad citation work[[20]]. The IBN article is basically a short article that quotes a few lines from three LA Times articles. All three LA times articles are already in our list of sources. The material cited to IBN, is a section that IBN openly sourced from... What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic (LA Times). That LA Times article happens to be the other citation. Really we should probably remove all references to the IBN article and anything that references it should reference one of the three LA Times articles that is the actual source of the information. WP does encourage us to use the more direct, more authoritative source. The other place IBN is cited is here, "ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[29][30][31]" In that case TBN makes it clear they are sourcing their information from the LA Times, Exxon's Climate Concealment. If the 3rd reference is really needed perhaps we should switch it to that one. Springee (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have talked about this above, WP:USEBYOTHERS. Of course International Business Times is independent of the Los Angeles Times. In investigative journalism, one agency may break a story and the highest quality sources acknowledge their debt. Multiple independent sources saying the same thing is what we call due weight or noteworthiness. You do not hear, and I repeat myself. Is that your goal? It is my failing but I begin to entertain competency concerns. Hugh (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh is correct, we have talked about this before yet it is still a problem. The IBN article in this case is one step above a republished story. You are correct in that the credibility of the NYT article is bolstered by IBN's recounting of the article. However, I don't recall anyone questioning the reliability of the NYT so that argument is pointless. What IBN is NOT is an independent source of the same facts. All of the information in the IBN article is from three of the LA Times articles which are already part of the reference list. I'm sorry you are having competency concerns. Springee (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Problematic sourcing, error in source? In the Early Research section there is a sentence with a quote attributed to Black, "Black wrote, "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels."" This quote has 3 citation, ICN, an Exxon report and Scientific America. Scientific America is simply requoting ICN so it's not a good source for quote attribution. What is more problematic is that the quote DOESN'T exist in the cited Black report [21]. If anyone disagrees please cite the page and paragraph. Anyway, if we are going to take a quote from the report then I think we should include the report summary or conclusion. Later in the Early Research section other quotes from an Exxon report were included and it's clear that Exxon was correct, they were taken out of context. It's impossible to decide that here given the reported source doesn't support the article quote. One accusation Exxon made was that ICN used a draft rather than final report. Perhaps that was the case here? Springee (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closest quote I see in the source PDF is "Although carbon dioxide increase is predominantly attributed to fossil fuel combustion, most scientists agree that more research is needed to definitely establish this relationship." That is a lot different than what ICN reports. Springee (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, do not falsely attribute positions to other editors in your edit summaries. In this edit[[22]] you suggest that an editor suggested expanding the quote in question. No editor made that suggestion. Please see the section of false attribution here WP:TPNO (Do not misrepresent other people). Springee (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So. If I do not reply to this comment, am I to be accused of not communicating at talk? Page contribution metric tools are available, I haven not checked, but my impression is I may be an (admittedly distant) 2nd on this talk page. I feel I have been extraordinarily patient here on this talk page. At some point I need to worry about enabling a wall of text. In order to preserve my enjoyment of my volunteer experience of contributing to Wikipedia, I will adopt a personal discipline of repeating myself to you just three times on a given subject, and note here only that I feel yet another reminder of WP:FOC and the availability of DS is not necessary. Hugh (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh, knowingly falsely attributing views, statements etc to other editors is against WP:TPNO. I'm not the only editor who has asked you to spend more time discussing the article. While your enjoyment of editing is important it does not excuse violations of the civility guidelines nor adding material that fails verification. Springee (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This recent expansion of Black's quote is problematic from a citation POV. The actual quote can only be sourced to Black's report. How the ICN and CSM sources should be used is not clear. Those sources do not contain the block quote and thus can not be used for citation purposes. The ICN could be used as a source to explain why we should quote the Exxon report. However, this appears to be a clear editorial error in the ICN report. That hurts it's RS standing. The CSM article is repackaging the ICN report so it adds no validity to the quote even if it adds weight to ICN's interpretations. Springee (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

h/t @Jess:

Collaborations welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hugh! About 1/3 should already be integrated, since I pulled them from the EM article. We should be able to get new content from Weart, Mann and Dunlap in particular. They were pretty instrumental to improving climate change denial. I'll see if I can put some time together to pull quotes from each and start integrating.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [24] ExxonMobil Perspecitives: An EM run blog where the company posts official replies to various topics including several of the sources above.
  • [25] Politico expressed concerns over the quality of reporting in the major LA Times and ICN stories about Exxon. Springee (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles from EM which respond directly to several sources which this WP article draws on heavily:
Fox guarding the henhouse at Columbia
More backtracking by InsideClimate News
When it comes to climate change, read the documents
More climate history distortion (LA Times and Columbia University related)
ExxonMobil’s commitment to climate science Springee (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources which discuss the politics and other issues associated with the NY ATG and other government lawsuits.
William Connolley comparing EM to Peabody
Robert Samuelson discussing free speech concerns related to the cases
York Attorney General Turns up the Heat on Exxon Mobil
New York's dangerous crusade against ExxonMobil: Bloomberg View
Schneiderman Vs. Exxon Mobil
York Attorney General Goes After Exxon Mobil on Climate-change Stance
Erase Scientists’ Early Caution on Global Warming Springee (talk)
Everything You Need to Know About the Exxon Climate Change Probe Springee (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable or weak references

OVERCITE has been an issue with this article so far. This is a list of citations that we should probably look at replacing. That doesn't mean the citations contain bad information but that the citations aren't authoritative. A typical example is a new source that is reporting on the content of a report by an organization, effectively acting as a repeater for the primary source. These should only be used if weight is in question. I've also noted links which reside behind paywalls as they are often difficult to verify. (Note if other issues with sources come up those can also be listed here)

  • Herrick, Thaddeus (August 29, 2001). "Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's Stance On Global Warming Causes a Stir". The Wall Street Journal. : Paywall, limited access.
  • Lorenzetti, Laura (September 16, 2015). "Exxon has known about climate change since the 1970s". Fortune. Retrieved October 14, 2015. : This is a short article that basically quotes PBS's Frontline then tells readers to watch the show. It's cited 3 times. Citations should probably just be replaced with links to Frontline report.
Removed per OVERCITE in all 3 cases. Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former Exxon Employee Says Company Considered Climate Risks as Early as 1981; New Report Finds that Despite Decades of Scientific Warnings, Fossil Fuel Companies Continued to Mislead Public, Policymakers". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved January 23, 2016. : This is a press release by the UCS promoting a UCS report. We should link to the report directly (link provided in the article: [26]
  • "Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved April 24, 2009. : 404 Error. This would appear to be another press release by the UCS discussing another of their own reports. I think we already have this link elsewhere in the article.
Removed per OVERCITE and as a dead link Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Society and ExxonMobil". The Royal Society. Retrieved April 24, 2009. : Bad link
Removed per OVERCITE and as a dead link Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved October 15, 2015. : Duplicate link
  • "Exxon still funding Climate Change Deniers" (Press release). Greenpeace. May 18, 2007. Retrieved 30 September 2012. : This one looks to be on the weaker side of things. However, my quick skim isn't enough to say one way or the other.
  • 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. This is effectively a lead in for the other Harkinson article. Only one of the two should be retained since they are in effect the same article.
Removed per OVERCITE. The material about EM is contained in the link to the other Harkinson article. This one adds nothing of value. Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exxon Mobil Acknowledges Climate Change Risk - You Read That Correctly". Investing.com. 1 April 2014. : Duplicate citation

I've noticed that InsideClimateNews.com is cited quite a bit. How reliable are they in terms of presenting a complete vs an advocacy POV on an issue? Springee (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InsideClimate News has a Pulitzer in their office and is generally regarded as a reliable source. Deleting supporting mainstream sources such as the general press and the business press may not be your best tactic for your case against InsideClimate News. You are misapplying essay WP:OVERCITE. We editors are expected to carefully consider whether addition noteworthy content may be drawn from a source before removing a source contributed to an article by a colleague. We editors are asked specifically NOT to remove a reference with a bad link. Sources need not be available online for free. But you know all this. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you have shown they are reputable. I asked because much of the WP article is based on several of their reports. I did not misapply overcite but you are welcome to bring up examples where you think I did. The bad links were removed primarily because they were not needed due to the strength of the other links. Please do not accuse others of bad faith. Springee (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some additional searching regarding ICN and similar sources. While a Pulitzer is certainly something to be proud of we shouldn't forget that Mother Jones got one for their Ford Pinto reporting. In retrospect most of the Pinto article turned out to be misleading and false. However, the degree to which the Pinto article was garbage wasn't really obvious until years after the Pulitzer was handed out and MJ's sloppy work had caused great and largely unjust harm to Ford. We should always be careful when dealing with sources that are trying to be "unbiased reporters" yet are also advocating a position. Here are some articles discussing that concern [27], [28]. Here is an article discussing specific concerns with ICN [29]. I'm placing this stuff here not because it should go in the article but mostly to remind that ICN should probably be treated as a RS but perhaps not a very reliable source when we are reporting on their interpretations/views (as opposed to direct quotes). Springee (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HughD, please don't edit your comments in a way that changes their meaning/scope after someone replies to the comment. Note that when I said the content was behind a pay wall I didn't say removed it. I only suggested that if the information existed in a more available RS then perhaps we should use that instead. Please cut out the accusations. Springee (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, "InsideClimateNews.com ... How reliable are they" then seemed to be unaware of their Pulitzer. I thought this was odd because their Pulitzer is mentioned in the banner in the header of every page of their website, and also mentioned in the 3rd sentence of our project's own article for your reference located at InsideClimate News. It is almost as if you raised questions regarding the reliability of this source at article talk without reading any sources, or even the most rudimentary of due diligence on your own part. For your information another thing most of us would have done is search the WP:RSN archives. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Mother Jones got a Pulitzer for the Pinto article which has turned out to be almost total BS. I raised the question initially because they are not a mainstream news source. I later brought it up again because I've found several articles that are question their objectivity. One talked about their cloaked funding (an issue you have raised when talking about conservative organizations). The other talked about the potential for COI when an advocacy group is also acting as the reporter. The ExxonMobil site also offers a number of replies to ICN articles. We should add those later. Please drop the accusations of bad faith. They don't help your arguments. Springee (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee, an unavailable link is not per se a reason to delete, content is stored in web archives, or the URL changed. Either tag unavailable content or make a google search. prokaryotes (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that just being a dead link isn't a good reason to get rid of it. However, if you look at what the links I removed were actually supporting or stating removing shouldn't have been an issue. One, to the best of my ability to tell, was linking to a report that we cite elsewhere. Thus nothing was lost when we cut the citations down. The other I would have to go back and double check but I recall it was to a summary of a letter/report rather than to the exact report. Again it was one of a large number of sources and thus should have been cut as OVERCITE anyway. Springee (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natuna gas field

The current information about Natuna gas field does not provide the sufficient context and overview of that issue. First of all, the name of the gas field. First, although both used sources refer to it as Natuna gas field, the name name Natuna is ambiguous as it may refer to a number of gas fields in East Natuna and West Natuna basins. It would be more precise to use East Natuna gas field (current name) or Natuna D-Alpha block as it was known back in 1980s. Second, this article here is missing to mention that due to unusually high CO2 content in this field was never developed and even now, 36 years later, the development has not started. Third, it is missing that the attitude of Exxon's directors became: "This project cannot go ahead unless we remove the CO2." If we use one direct quote from the source, we may also use the another direct quote from the same source. Also describing different actions which were tested to avoid or mitigate CO2 emissions, as described in Iside Climate News, would be useful. I think that we can keep also that source as the NYT says nothing about the Natuna issue beside of the quote about the largest point source of CO2. Beagel (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is even part of the article. Other editors also seem to feel it's just out of place here [30]. I would be fine with removing it as off topic. Springee (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The episode of the Natuna gas field is extremely relevant. It is included in multiple reliable sources on the topic of ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change. It is the archetypical example of ExxonMobil integrating their highly sophisticated understanding of climate change into their operational planning, before and while funding climate denial groups and lobbying Congress and the White House to frustrate the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a justification for why it fits in the scope of this article. Yes, they seems to understand the potential for CO2 release from developing the field but how is this an example of spreading misinformation or lobbying to prevent some climate change legislation? Springee (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removal of this topic from article

The discussion of an undeveloped gas field strays from the topic of this article which is the efforts EM made to create false information, mislead and lobby to block climate change action. The discussion of a site which was not developed and thus has not caused CO2 release and for which there is no evidence of EM attempting to mislead is off topic. Springee (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose The episode of the Natuna gas field is extremely relevant in this article. The episode of the Natuna gas field is the archetypical example of the subject of this section, ExxonMobil integrating their highly sophisticated understanding of climate change into their operational planning, before and while funding climate denial groups and lobbying Congress and the White House to frustrate the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. According to multiple reliable sources, the episode of the Natuna gas field is inextricable context for the subject of this article. The episode of the Natuna gas field included in numerous reliable sources on the topic of ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change, including, but not limited to:

Our project's due weight policy clearly prohibits removal of the topic of the Natuna gas field from this article. Thank you for your proposal. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the due weight policy doesn't prohibit it as the scope of this article is about Exxon's deception activities. Yes, this is used as an attempt to show they had an understanding of CO2's impact on the atmosphere. At best it's background and should be seriously reduced. More realistically it can be cut because it doesn't show Exxon trying to generate misinformation or skew public understanding.

Springee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove or trim substantially: Given the scope of this article this is a side story that is given too much weight. Other sources might talk about it but the scope of those articles is not the same as this WP article. Springee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the direct quote "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." stays, also the standpoint of EM board should to stay for a balance. The original addition of this gas field made an impression that Exxon developed the field notwithstanding the impact. I support to trimming this paragraph to one sentence, something like "In 1980s, Exxon studied ways of avoiding CO2 emissions if developing the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) off Indonesia." because only this is relevant in this article context. Beagel (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the recently added following sentence: "In 2015, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil declined to comment on why ExxonMobil had yet to develop the gas field, saying “There could be a huge range of reasons why we don’t develop projects.”" It was restored by the following edit summary: add ExxonMobil spokesperson comment on reasons gas field undeveloped, with date, and reliable source reference The Guardian. However, the reason why I removed it has nothing to do with reliability of The Guardian. The reason why I removed it is that this is absolutely irrelevant in the context of this article as it as nothing to do with climate change denial or funding climate change sceptics. In addition, it makes a false impression as ExxonMobil is not longer responsible for the development of this field. EM is one of the partners of this project, but the operator and a company who is responsible for the development is Pertamina. I would kindly ask to remove this sentence. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think we should expand this to most of the research history section. For instance, why mention that it cost Exxon $1 million to equip a tanker for research? At some point, and we are past that point, this is needless detail. Springee (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: Thank you for your contributions to this article and for your engagement at article talk. Exxon's points of views are relevant to the extent they are reflect in reliable secondary sources. An earlier version of this section did not mention that the gas field was not developed. As you know, the reason why the gas field was not developed are complex and unclear in reliable sources, and would take probably a paragraph to cover thoroughly; environmental, engineering challenges, remote location, economics, jurisdictional, contracts, etc. For example, InsideClimate News reported that the lead scientist on the project said it was not developed because it could not be developed profitably. Once we mention that the gas field has not been developed, one thing for sure we do not want to do is leave our readers through omission with the mistaken impression that EM decided not to develop the gas field out of purely environmental concerns. This quote conveys concisely to our readers that EM had a recent opportunity to claim some degree of environmental motivation and declined. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HughD:This is ridiculous. There is a number of reliable sources available explaining exactly the reasons. But this is irrelevant because this is not the topic of this article, particularly taking into account that there is a separate article about this field. Even more, you have ignored twice the fact that since 2007 EM is not responsible for the development of this field— Pertamina is. EM s just a non-leading partner. As I already said, we can trim information about this field what is really relevant for this article purposes down to one sentence and this will resolve also your concerns. Beagel (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. May I respectfully suggest a separate thread for your concerns regarding the due weight of the reasons why the Natuna gas field was not developed, separate from your concerns regarding due weight of the Natuna gas field episode. Briefly here, I agree numerous reliable sources cover the East Natuna gas field, including why it has not yet developed. Within those reliable sources are detailed reasons so numerous and complex as to frustrate terse summarization that is both accurate and neutral. Regarding EM's current status in the development team, Wikipedia does not document just the current state of the world; this article is fundamentally a history article. As you know, the gas field has its own Wikipedia article. In this article, the main aspect of this episode of note is of course that it clearly demonstrates EM integrating a sophisticated understanding of the greenhouse gas effect in its operational planning, as per numerous noteworthy reliable sources. However, if you believe the current status of the gas field, and the reasons for the lack of development, are relevant here, I would enjoy collaborating with you on a brief but neutral expansion. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already suggested twice how we can to trim this thing to one sentence which is really about the topic of this article. Beagel (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I missed your two proposed summaries. Reading back, I'm afraid I don't find them, sorry. Could you please post your proposal here at talk? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I substantially trimmed the operations section. It's purpose in the article is only to illustrate that EM was thinking about CO2 outputs and climate change. A single paragraph is sufficient to do that. This section and the early research section (which also should be trimmed) should be merged. The core of this article are the later sections regarding allegations of disinformation and to a lesser extent the government sponsored (and politicized) legal cases against EM. Springee (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletions are without consensus. Your near section blanking is not an improvement. This article is well within readable prose guidelines and well short of long article guidelines; what you call "trimming" is not a priority with this article and is completely without basis in policy or guideline. Your personal preference is not the arbiter of the due weight of this subtopic in this article; under policy of our project, due weight in reliable sources is. Your content removal is non-neutral with respect to reliable sources. As explained above, which you apparently did not hear, is that multiple reliable sources, in the context of writing about ExxonMobil's climate change related activities, go into considerable depth in providing context to their readers on the many examples of ExxonMobil's climate research and ExxonMobil clear demonstration of a sophisticated understanding of climate science in their operation planning. I'm sorry you are not happy with this content. Your expression of your views regarding a "government sponsored and politiziced legal case" is off-topic and suggest a lack of objectivity with respect to this subject. Wikipedia is not the place for you to mount your defense of ExxonMobil. It might be best if you step back. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. Other editors, myself included, felt the two sections in question were filled with far to much detail given their purpose in the whole article. The point of the article is EM's efforts to confuse, lobby and deny climate change, presumably out of fear of regulations. All that needs to be said is that EM was well versed in the subject and even contributed to the basic research. We don't need more detail. Your comments about multiple reliable sources and the like don't come into play here. Those sources are free to cover what ever they want. However, this WP article has a central topic. Background is fine but not when it goes into detail that doesn't support the central topic. You basically summed up the only important point in the early research and operational sections in your reply above, "ExxonMobil [has a] clear demonstration of a sophisticated understanding of climate science in their operation planning." Boom, done, link to a few articles which support that claim and move on. Furthermore, unlike so many of the cases where lots of citations were jammed into a non-controversial or debatable point, this would be a good one to include 3 UNRELATED sources that would support the view. We have plenty of sources for this. My comments about the politics surrounding the NY ATG's lawsuit is not at all off topic. You added the information as a kind of proof by accusation that EM was spreading disinformation and the like. Articles which note the political motivations and the like ARE relevant, far more than information about a gas field that was never developed and thus had no environmental impact. Anyway, several editors expressed concern about the needlessly long section. I took action to address it. In reply to your "which you did not hear" comments, please be civil. Springee (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every reliable source on Exxon and climate change since summer 2015 include the context of Exxon's research, and the best sources cover it in considerable depth, illustrated by examples. Exxon involvement in climate change goes back four decades. Every reliable source on the numerous recent investigations includes coverage of Exxon's climate expertise. A reminder, due weight in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The recent investigations and calls for investigations cannot be understood absent this context. Your recent near blanking of this section is unacceptable with respect to our neutrality pillar and with respect to our readers. Please self-revert. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced background material

Per the discussions above I have reduced the length of the background material (early research, operational etc). Basically these sections only need to say that EM was aware and planned around the potential issues with greenhouse gases. Per WP:Concise, we don't need to expand on all of this information as it doesn't help get readers to the core of this article, ie, the activities that Exxon was alleged/shown to have used to spread climate change denial etc. Springee (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed off topic discussion
We understand you agree with ExxonMobil, that their climate expertise, and their integration of climate change into their operation planning, are irrelevant to their program of climate denial. As we have discussed in detail above, and in other threads, vast reliable sources disagree with your assessment of the due weight of this content. Please refrain from disruptive section blanking. A reminder, this article is under active discretionary sanctions, and you have been notified. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than accusing others of bad behavior, please use the talk page to discuss proposed changes and reflect on the concerns of other editors. Please note this article is under under active discretionary sanctions, and you have been notified[31]. Accusing me of disruptive blanking is not assuming good faith as is falsely stating my view on the background material. Springee (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please collapse your own talk page comments whenever you want, but please self-revert your collapse of my talk page comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues, Copy Paste, others?

HughD, this addition to the article appears to be a cut and paste copy [32]. The sentence has been carried over into this article after the split. The sentence is from the cited source [33]. I have tagged the article out of concern there may be other similar issues. I would ask that someone who is familiar with detecting copyright concerns review the current article text. Springee (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding quotes from sources helps with this, as I've been doing. It makes it very clear where the content came from, and makes it obvious if the quote and our content is identical. A few of the quotes I added match the content a little too closely, so we'll have to clean that up. Thanks for looking into the close paraphrasing!   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is also an area where trying to blend the "dumped" sentences into a textual narrative will help. There may have been a bit of back and forth over this paragraph [34] but in the end the text reads much better, contains the same facts as before and there is no chance that it was a copy paste violation. Anyway, I hope this was just a one off thing since the editor is a member of the WP copyright cleanup project! Springee (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct copyvio but some potential close paraphrasing:

Beagel (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • HughD had addressed at two of the potential copyright items. However, I put the copyright tag back on the article. I would like a third party to review and decide if the article is clean. Springee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can manage to clean up a few issues here and there without having to introduce a tag. This doesn't need to be a big thing. That particular tag is for articles which are entirely copy/pasted from another source, which doesn't apply here. At worst, we have some close paraphrasing. Let's just take care of that as best we can and move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the wrong tag. My concern is that the editor in question SHOULD know better and this issues has come up with his work in the past[[35]]. It's understandable to make that sort of mistake when you are new to editing but not at after several years etc. Anyway, I'm going to see if I can find any more issues like that. I hope that anyone who added copy-paste phrases will quickly edit and correct the issue. Springee (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, no worries! {{close-paraphrase}} is the right tag, but I don't think it's necessary quite yet. There's definitely some issues, but we have some good editors on it so we should be able to clean it up. I'll try to review the content carefully as I'm adding more sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I would like to add some of Exxon's replies (from the corporate blog). Do you have any suggestions for wording? My concerns is how to present Exxon's arguments without accusations of bias. For example, Exxon specifically comments on the ICN and LAT stories that are used as sources in this article. If the primary sources say "Exxon VP told the board to suppress research." How would we phrase Exxon's replies? "Exxon responded to the allegations, '...' ". The problem is "said" isn't exactly what Exxon did. "Allegations" really is the correct term but it also is typically considered a loaded word. Another example is when Exxon specifically mentions a source they disagree with. If in reply to the VP example Exxon says "ICN was wrong because..." do we mention that because they do? In the case of Exxon mentioning a non-traditional news source (ICN, Greenpeace, etc) I think they should be mentioned. I think readers should know if the source is outside of mainstream news (even if the source has a good record) and especially if the company mentions them by name. What are your thoughts/suggestions? Springee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think their responses might be useful, and I'd imagine would have a place in the article. We just need to be cautious about is assigning the proper weight to their statements wherever they conflict with independent sourcing. Of course, that is going to vary depending on the statement and the sourcing, so it's not like we can make a general rule for all Exxon statements. Making up an example: if Exxon said they never gave any money to climate change denial groups, then we should mention that, but it deserves essentially no weight. We might have to use the word "claimed", and we'd be compelled to significantly emphasize the overwhelming evidence their claim is untrue. Conversely, if Exxon said they performed climate change research in the 70s, we can assign lots of weight. The biggest thing is not giving apparent parity to their claims vs. independent reliable sources. There is space to discuss Exxon's PR statements, but this isn't a debate page, or a vessel for their PR, so caution is needed. As long as we can balance the weight properly, yea, let's do it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"allegations" There are no allegations in this article. There are two state investigations in progress, and calls for a federal investigation, but no one has been charged with anything. The only lawsuits in this area so far have been civil, but they are not covered in our article. One subpoena has been issued, but the NY AG may subpoena financial records before charging. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of close paraphrasing from sources

  • From [36], [37], the sentence associated with "by failing to disclose truthful information..."
  • From [38], [39], the sentence associated with "mobil lied to the public or shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change possible " and " internal exxon documents suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s" and "general kamala harris is investigating whether exxon mobil", basically the whole paragraph in the WP article.

Attributing to InsideClimate News

I think at some point the article should note some of the information attributed to ICN. The source seems largely legitimate but as some of the sources I've found have pointed out, the group's funding is somewhat cloaked and the potential of an activists group acting as a news source creates a large potential for bias/COI. I had attributed a comment to them but it was undone [40]. I see nothing wrong with that particular edit but I think somewhere early on the article needs to identify that source. They aren't the NYT after all. Springee (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article's sourcing is clearly documented for all to see through thorough citation as per policy and guideline. Multiple noteworthy reliable sources clearly document that Exxon's lobbyist wrote to the Bush administration and tried to replace the US delegation to the IPCC. Clearly we may summarize across multiple noteworthy reliable sources and then in-text attribution is not necessary. Earlier on this talk page you claimed your zealous "one ref per sentence" deletions of noteworthy reliable sources were in good faith and justified because the content was not controversial. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, ICN appears to be at least a semi-controversial source. Since so much of the article references that source it does make sense to include a link. When discussing groups funded by conservative billionaires you have felt that was highly relevant information. In this case we have a news source that is the environmentalist equivalent. Regardless, I've added the link to a fact that isn't supported by other sources. Please assume good faith. Springee (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim controversial, that Exxon was among the founding members and had a leadership role in the Global Climate Coalition, comprised of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation? If so, then attribution is useful. If not, then it's extraneous, in my opinion. I recommend attribution for claims that are reckonings or opinions, or for controversial claims. Otherwise, if it's factual and not challenged then attribution might clutter the text, and brevity is key to readable articles. SageRad (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICN isn't neutral and shouldn't be judged as particularly reliable; in particular, not for "throwaway" remarks; only for things it has clearly sourced. It isn't reliable for anything it states without a clear source William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that I think can be addressed by referencing Exxon's replies to some of the ICN articles. I added a link to the Exxon company blog in the Potential References section. Springee (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William M. Connolley: Sources need not be neutral, but you know that. Blacklisting InsideClimate News in this topic area is extraordinarily non-neutral. InsideClimate News is cited in this article for facts, not views. Everything in this article cited to InsideClimate News is more than adequately supported by additional citations to other reliable sources, primary documents, and extensive use by others WP:USEBYOTHERS. You may consider raising your concerns regarding InsideClimate News at WP:RSN. Don't forget to mention their Pulitzer! Hugh (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm posting this here but the issue is described here [42]. ICN attributes a quote to an Exxon employee (Black). The ICN article states Black wrote, "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels." I have been unable to find that quote in the referenced Exxon report. [43] Springee (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, thanks for reversing the crazy quotes. I do have a few concerns with how this early research material is being presented. It seems Exxon was correct to accuse ICN of selective quoting. For instance this section, """In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which indicated that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. It concluded: "Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."" I see two issues here. First, this is certainly an example of ICN selectively quoting. Exxon has mentioned the selective quoting because they saw that ICN was presenting some of the worst case predictions as if they were the agreed fact while not printing the clear statement indicating uncertainty, the need for more information and the concern with over reacting. Also, and this is now a WP edit, I think the "It concluded" is certainly not fair. It makes it sound like that was a concluding statement of the report rather than a sentence from a middle paragraph which said:

The "greenhouse effect" is not likely to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1C above today's levels. This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century. However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situational in the short term. Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situational from developing.

The overall tone of the report was clearly cautionary in terms of actions the company should take. If we are going to have an early research section then we should be fair to Exxon and not quote things out of context even if ICN does. From a bigger picture POV, this section claims to be about background research. In that case we should present the information fairly. We should not follow the lead of ICN and selectively quote. It certainly reads like Exxon was well versed in the state of knowledge and the state was highly uncertain. Presenting it as if Exxon already knew things for certain is a way of unfairly damning the company. Springee (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to understand how scientists generally communicate scientific data. It is distinct from how journalists, or encyclopedias, would be expected to communicate the same results. You are correct that the paper does not "conclude" that passage, which was my error in paraphrasing. I've amended it to use a more precise quote. That said, I don't see anything in the original report (and more importantly, in any significant secondary coverage of the report) that would compel us to say that Exxon was not informed of the scientific consensus, or that the scientific consensus was uncertain on greenhouse gasses and their contribution to climate change. Neither appear to be true, even based just on that report alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments about how scientists communicate the data. That is one of the big issues with how ICN has presented the reports via selective quotes. In reading the 1977 report I think it is clear that the scientists were cautious but they made some very clear statements regarding needing more information and not reacting too quickly. I'm working on looking at some sources that talk about this. The problem is they aren't as prominent as sources like the NYT. However, if they and Exxon are saying the same thing then I think it should be given weight in the article. Also, as I pointed out earlier I was worried about a quote that ICN indicated was from the Black report yet my key word search didn't find it. Perhaps that has been corrected in the article through editing but if ICN is falsely attributing a quote then I think we shouldn't use that quote even if we still use their general statements around that quote. Springee (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ExxonMobil posted a critical response to the LA Times article...

Using the response is right. But its in the wrong section, and therefore incomprehensible. Because all the text in the previous paragraph is anodyne ; Exxon isn't responding to those bits William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to better integration. Really that applies to most of the article. I stand by my earlier criticism that the article currently reads like a dump of facts taken almost exclusively from sources that are negative on EM. I also think we are getting to the point where trimming is in order. This is especially true of the intro sections which really don't support the basic claim of the article. Springee (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my earlier criticism that the article currently reads like a dump of facts taken almost exclusively from sources that are negative on EM - I agree. Not only that, but there is a tendency to source all statements - even quasi-neutral statements - from critical ICN coverage. Its like people are reading nothing but ICN William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Springee (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William M. Connolley: Thank you for your comments. InsideClimate News is a news agency. The content sourced to ICN sources is factual, the result of investigative journalism, not editorial opinions. Please do not confuses content you consider unflattering to the subject of the article, or content the subject of the article might object to, with criticism. Specific ICN-sourced content of concern can be supplemented with additional citation to noteworthy reliable sources and to primary documents, if necessary. Also, again, respectfully, you may consider raising your concerns at WP:RSN. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editor doth protest too much, methinks. ICN is an advocacy group that is also acting as a news agency. In general I agree with you but if ExxonMobil says the material was cherry picked and provides evidence then I think there is just cause to give more weight to both sides. Also, we really should be careful when multiple sources are effectively basing their investigation of the investigation of ICN. In this case WC is expressing reasonable caution while you seem to be taking his statements, and mine, and trying to create an extreme strawman in order to discredit any sources that don't embrace ICN's views. Springee (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Specific concerns of bias with regard to InsideClimate News-sourced content can be easily addressed through supplemental citations to independent noteworthy reliable sources and to primary documents, if necessary. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what WC suggested we should do. Springee (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICN's coverage seems reasonable and comprehensive. Would I use them to cite controversial statements that conflicted with other sources? Of course not. But I don't know of anything we're sourcing from ICN that isn't also indicated by another independent source. William, can you give me an example of something from the article sourced to ICN that's given too much weight? I don't disagree that our sourcing needs to be improved - that's being worked on - but I can only do so much in a given day.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about weight in this regard. What I'm pointing out it that references to even neutral or uncontroversial statements are routinely being sourced to sources that are strongly - in my view, too strongly - critical of Exxon. ICN is very clearly not neutral when it comes to Exxon; they hate it. They are also rather poor at understanding how climate research works, which means they've misunderstood much of what Exxon did (a point accepted here and now, I think; at least many of the corrections I've made haven't been challenged). My own views are somewhat written down, e.g. in http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/09/16/what-exxon-knew-and-when/ (note to the hard of thinking: no, I'm not proposing using that as a source) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"ICN is very clearly not neutral when it comes to Exxon; they hate it." May I respectfully ask, what is your evidence that ICN hates Exxon? ICN acquired and reviewed many documents, and interviewed participants, and reported facts that may be considered unflattering to Exxon, but I see no evidence that ICN hates Exxon. When investigative journalism targets a subject, and their report is not glowing, it does not mean the investigative news team hates the subject. Hugh (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently endeavoured to improve the sourcing of our article to address the concerns expressed here at article talk by some regarding the Pulitzer Prize winning source InsideClimate News, by identifying content sourced solely to ICN, and adding additional, supplemental citations to independent secondary sources and relevant primary source documents. More often than not, I found that content sourced solely to ICN was sourced solely to ICN because corroborating noteworthy relevant reliable sources had been recently removed. Often, I found my contributions to improving the sourcing of our article by adding supplemental citations to independent secondary sources and relevant primary source documents were quickly reverted. I believe adding corroborating sources is a reasonable, measured, collegial response to sourcing concerns. I believe misapplication of WP:OVERCITE is contributing to the sourcing concerns of some. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, your accusatory statements do not AGF. Second, your claims regarding OVERCITE are long on proclamations but short on detail. I have tried to explain each example of OVERCITE that I've acted on. You certainly haven't explained how, for example, adding a second article by the same authors blusters the claims of the first, especially when no editors were claiming the first was wrong. If PBS and ICN work together to produce an investigation then the two news articles covering the same investigation can't be considered independent corroboration of the facts. Furthermore, if a secondary source doesn't actually support the claim being made it SHOULD be removed. I would suggest a better use of editing efforts would be taking the current mash up of article bites and turning them into a cohesive article while also working to remove copy-paste and close paraphrase examples from the article. Another area for work is better integrating EM and other critical responses to some of the information in the article. The article talks about the New York and other state lawsuits attacking EM but lacks any information from sources critical of the motivation behind those suits. Finally, the early research and operational sections need to be recombined and greatly reduced. What is sufficient for that part of the article is to convey that ExxonMobil was working on climate related research even in the 1970s and their scientists were concerned about POTENTIAL, but as of yet very uncertain possible future scenarios. Springee (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley: A reminder, citation serves our core principles of neutrality, including noteworthiness, also known as due weight, as well as verifiability. Our project prefers secondary sources that support due weight, authorizes multiple citations for controversial topics, and allows primary sources that support verifiability. A primary source may perfectly satisfy verifiability, while offering little support for noteworthiness; a secondary source paired with a primary source is a common citation pattern on our project. Removing corroborating neutral, noteworthy citations to reliable sources, while at the same time disputing the due weight of content or the reliability of sources, may be considered tendentious. A reminder, this topic is under active discretionary sanctions, and exemplary editorial behavior is expected. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've stuffed far too many biased references into this article without even attempting any form of balance. You need to stop doing that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are asked not to edit article space to make a point or teach someone a lesson. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"without even attempting any form of balance" Your perception is inaccurate. I added "reputation for expertise," "more than 50 peer reviewed papers," "Exxon denied wrongdoing," "Exxon denied concealing," "no position on IPCC chair" and many other balancing edits. Please help us all focus on content here on this article talk page and kindly refrain from gross inaccurate mis-characterizations of your collaborators' contributions. Make your case for your preferred balancing edits without personal attacks, please. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the content currently reads:

ExxonMobil posted a critical response to the LA Times article

... but there is no prior reference to the LA Times article. I assume it's still in progress, so if this is fixed, you have my permission to delete this comment. SageRad (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times was specifically noted earlier but WC, not without merit, felt that the comment about the LA Times was too remote from the reply.[44] EMP is actually replying to the specific LA Times article and related content but currently I put the reply in a later paragraph to avoid an instant reversion. I think the better solution would be integrate it right after the presentation of the material. I also think the history and operations sections are way too long and contain a lot of unneeded information. The whole section should be summed up with just a few lines stating that EM was an acknowledged and respected research entity during the 70s and 80s. That would be what might be called the early to mid climate change research period. The rest of the section, talk about gas fields etc (and the EMP replies to those discussions) really aren't relevant to the central topic of the article. Let's cut them. Also, WC is correct, HughD has been packing useless citations into the article left and right. It's bad when it was 4 sources to support 1 uncontroversial statement. It's really bad when the newly added sources DON'T support the statement. Springee (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
William, regarding the "critical" nature of the sources... I would expect many of our sources to be critical of Exxon. The article is devoted to a controversy for which Exxon has received significant criticism. It isn't Exxon Mobile, which contains many unopinionated sources discussing its name, and budget, and programs. This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon, their actions that led up to that criticism, and their response to the criticism. So yes, the sources we're using are often critical. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You think our sourcing should be improved, and I agree. Mann, Farmer/Cook, Weart, Dunlap, the NYTimes, and so on are a lot better than the guardian and ICN, and we should incorporate such sources whenever possible. But I also think you're identifying red flags that maybe aren't quite as red as they seem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon...: no. It is about the controversy. Inevitably a fair amount of it will be critical. But also, please, read what I said, and what Springee has also said: that people are packing in citations merely because those citations are critical; not because they are useful references for statements being made William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a secondary source to a primary source is useful. Adding corroborating sources to challenged content is useful. Adding noteworthy sources to content challenged as undue is useful. Please provide a diff of a citation added "merely because" it is critical. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"no. It is about the controversy." Yes, and it wouldn't be a "controversy" without criticism. I can't tell if you understood my point. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm certainly not adding sources "merely because they are critical". I'm adding them because they discuss Exxon and their involvement with climate change denial. True, such sources are unlikely to say nice things about Exxon... but that's the nature of the sourcing and the topic. We shouldn't avoid sources which also say nice things about Exxon and their activity on climate change, it just turns out there aren't many of those, so their respective weight is low.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to rebut your point that This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon. If we're now agreed that is wrong - that isn't the sole point of this article - then fine. I'm certainly not adding sources "merely because they are critical": no, of course you aren't. Its HD who is, isn't that obvious? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a disagreement on the scope of the article perhaps we should start a discussion section regarding what is and isn't within the scope? Springee (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William M. Connolley: If you have an issue with sourcing, kindly be specific here on this article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article is to document the article's subject according to the universe of reliable sources, proportionately. In this sense i agree with William M. Connolley. In effect, the article's subject is the relationship of ExxonMobil to climate change, and the reality of what happened in the world is that ExxonMobil acted in a way that gains most people's disapproval, and so most sources report with that disapproval, and therefore this is what we mainly report here, reflecting the sources neutrally, and in this i agree with Jess. So overall i think we're in agreement, but coming to the same point from different semantic places. I do think further discussion on the article's scope is useful, so in this i agree with Springee. I've already opened up that topic on this talk page in the section called "What has happened" and my opinion as one editor is that this article was intended to be about ExxonMobil's support for climate change denial, and rightly should have been called by that title, but due to some politeness (which is not neutral) we called it this as a sort of realpolitik compromise and that the scope has gotten a bit diffused but can be focused again if we choose so. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the focus. Having read a number of the accusations against EM, I think many are examples of people who want to see smoke finding smoke even if it's just the mist rising from the early morning dew. That said, I agree with limiting the article. Also, the bulk of the article is now just a dump of quotes and paraphrased passages with little coherence or narrative. It would be great if other editors could clean up and corral the large volume of text. Finally, I think few have put much effort into finding articles that defend/justify/explain EM's actions. I did find several that talked about the less that transparent motives of the NY ATG's lawsuit. To avoid a NPOV issue we should do the same for other parts of the article. That doesn't mean equal weight or including fringe sources. However, I see a lot in here that looks like things EM did could be explained by non-nefarious motives. I again will draw a parallel to the Ford Pinto case. Ford was accused of all sorts of deliberate and callus choices to maximize profit over lives and it was said Ford 'knew' the things they were doing were wrong. Heck, MJ even got a Pulitzer, which we have been informed means the source is beyond reproach, for their Pinto Madness article that exposed Ford's cold blooded thinking. Yet, here we are nearly 40 years later and what history and later scholars found was Ford's engineers didn't produce a death trap, the "memo" wasn't about the Pinto and Ford was actually acting in a reasonable way to the uncertainty of what they did and didn't know and the limited understanding of future regulations. Consider that EM is likely knowledgeable about the practical impact of new regulations. Yes, they might fight a new regulation because it costs them money but they also might fight it because they understand it won't work or will make consumers mad. For instance, look at the snafu that corn ethanol requirements have become. If EM was against ethanol mandates is that because they are greedy or because they honestly believe corn ethanol isn't a good idea. This is a very big topic so its very easy to find negative comments but we do our readers a disservice if we don't also find other reliable views. Happily I think we already agree on this and I'm preaching to the quire. Springee (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale development

The latest addition about synfuel development is questionable. It says that "oil shale development released 1.4 to 3 times more carbon dioxide than the equivalent in conventional oil". This is grammatically incorrect using past simple instead of present as the properties of certain oil shale from the the area do not change over 30-40 years. At the same time, the past simple implies that Exxon processed oil shale which is incorrect. The source itself uses "would release" which is more correct. The other issue s that ICN seems to make a false conclusion that the fact of higher CO2 emissions from oil shale is something which was discovered by Exxon. I am sure this is correctly reported that this information was included in their estimates but for that time the properties of Colorado oil shale were well known in America as all oil majors were engaged in oil shale research and development for decades. In general, ICN is good for facts but we should be careful while giving interpretation to these facts, and we should avoid using the narrative of ICN. Beagel (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK striking that as well. As I've said, cut the early research section down and combine with the operations section. The shale oil sentences can go. Springee (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: What is your alternative summarization of the source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why have it at all? Springee (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see the relevance of this information. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ExxonMobil integrated the then-current scientific understanding into its corporate operational planning. For example, in the early 1980s, oil scarcity was a concern, and Exxon promoted synthetic fossil fuels, such as liquified coal, oil shale, and tar sands as a plausible solution. Internal Exxon documents said that oil shale utilization releases 1.4 to 3 times more carbon dioxide than the equivalent in conventional oil, and that development of oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases.

I understand you strongly feel it is unflattering to ExxonMobil to cover both their applications of their extensive research expertise to their operational planning, and their extensive support for climate denial, on Wikipedia in one place. However, all recent reliable sources do exactly that. Also, as you know, this article is not about ExxonMobil, it is about the controversial history with respect to climate change; ExxonMobil has its own article, and I agree in-depth coverage of how ExxonMobil demonstrated its climate expertise to the area of synthetic fuels might be undue in the parent. You supported the split. This article is well within article size guidelines. The source is neutral and relevant and noteworthy. May I respectfully ask again, what would you suggest as an alternative summarization of this source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, please cut out uncivil statements like "I understand you strongly feel it is unflattering to...". It is a back handed way of questioning the motives and editorial integrity of others. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HughD: We can discuss in depth what you understand and what you misunderstand but this is not the point. I don't buy our argument that this is relevant because it reported by ICN. This is not the case here. Once more about Exxon's oil shale activities. The Colony Shale Oil Project started in 1964. Exxon joined the project only in 1980 and the project was ended on 2 May 1982. Do you really believe that the amount of CO2 released by processing of Colorado's oil shale was discovered by Exxon in less than two years while nobody else noticed it during the previous 16 years (even more, taking account the oil shale research history in the United States). So, releasing 1.4 to 3 times more CO2 was not discovery of Exxon as you try to imply (Internal Exxon documents said blah-blah-blah) but common knowledge of that time. Even more, if these had been data from the Colony plot, the possible range had been smaller as "1.4 to 3 times more" takes into account the varieties of oil shale through the whole Green River Formation. The second issue is the sentence "that development of oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases." While "1.4 to 3 times more CO2 than conventional oil" is not dependent of the produced amount of shale oil, the five years thing makes only sense if the exact amount of shale oil and the time period is linked to it. However, there is not the link to amount in the source which makes clear that the journalist did not understand the information in the documents and just picked up impressive figures to support his narrative without a proper context. Producing one barrel of shale oil hardly accelerates the doubling of CO2 by 5 years. I think that this figure applies maybe to the commercial scale project which was planned to be 46,000 barrels per day but for what period? Over the project life time? Without knowing this, that information in the article is just misleading. Third, there was no commercial production at the Colony project, only the pilot plant which produced over 18 years less oil than the one week production of the planned commercial scale project. Exxon was linked to it only less than two years. So I really can't see the relevance here other than framing Exxon for considering sources which are more CO2 extensive that conventional oil. Beagel (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer not to debate syn fuels here, thanks. Wikipedia is not making a claim about whether oil shale is more or less CO2-y than oil; the current article text does say that Exxon engineers told their management oil shale released more Co2, and as such true or false it is highly relevant to this article as another good example of EM demonstrating through their actions their sophisticated understanding of the greenhouse effect by applying that understanding to their operational planning, years before their denial campaign. Verified by primary docs and noteworthy as covered by ICN. EM demonstrating their understanding through their operation planning is a theme in both the ICN and LA Times 2015 reporting. No one is framing anyone. I am not framing EM and ICN is not framing EM. ICN is reporting what EM knew and when they knew it, and we can, too. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ICN and the LA Times reported on internal documents that show EM's foreknowledge, but the story is more than that; EM acted on the knowledge, and that is highly relevant in this article; it's not just obscure papers flying around inside a massive corporation that no one read or understood; there's no way EM can say so what? no one read the reports or no one understood them. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody is debating that oil shale is more carbon intensive than conventional oil–this is the common knowledge and you should not to be a climate scientist to know this. And I don't buy your claim that we should add another example that Exxon had understanding about climate change. Nobody has questioned the fact that Exxon had studied CO2 emissions and climate change and this is well included in this article. If the only reason is to show that Exxon had ophisticated understanding of the greenhouse effect, this is an overkill as this is already established. Also, for this you don't need out of the context claims such as "oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases." which is a clear nonsense without giving context which was in the original document but was not given in ICN (why it is nonsense, I explained in details in my previous post above). To get the result you claimed being your purpose, it would be enough to say that "At the beginning on 1980s, Exxon extensively studied the impact of the oil shale industry to greenhouse gas emissions" or something like this. Something being published in the news story is not an argument for inclusion per se, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: (edit conflict) Yes, this whole article could be summarized "Exxon knew." As a matter of fact, #ExxonKnew is the exact twitter hash tag version of this Wikipedia article. However, we are not twitter, coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, and numerous reliable sources provide their readers with considerably more depth of detail than that, and we can, too. We are expected to provide context in our articles. You supported the split, arguing this content was undue in the parent, and I am disheartening that you make the same arguments here in the child, but I am heartened you propose a summarization of the source, thank you! We agree about one sentence is about right. For our purposes here relevant to this article, the one sentence summarization should tersely describe EM's application of climate modelling expertise in an evaluation of a business opportunity and include specifics about what EM projected might happen. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This addition seems like another off topic addition to a section that should be reduced, not expanded [[45]] Springee (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone find the original report, so we would be able to understand what is missing in the ICN story? Beagel (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. I've found at least one case where the quotes in the ICN story which our WP article and the ICN article seemed to attribute to Black were no where to be found in his report. Not good when direct quotes don't appear in their sources. Springee (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to clarify what is "the time to double". There is a need to clarify what means "development of oil shale" in this context. Does it "advance by about five years" in the case of developing of all global oil shale resources, in the case of the U.S. resources, or in the case of developing the Colony project? This is not clear from the text, and it is not clear from the ICN source. To give any meaning to this, we probably need to find the report itself which was used by ICN. Right now, the current sentence have as much meaning as saying "Ford Pinto saves to you five years". It may be correct in some context but if we don't know the context, it says nothing meaningful. Beagel (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the original document. Placing this sentence into the context of the original document, it became more clear. It is also clear that original documents talk about the effect of replacing synthetic fuels globally by conventional petroleum, and it was not oil shale specific. It also provides the timeframe doubling 1980 level by 2065 versus 1980 level by 2065. Previously there was no indication for how long it will take for doubling the CO2 level and what 5 years means in this context. Once more, thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source Noticeboard Discussion related to this article

Not sure why the initiating editor didn't notify the article talk page. [46] Springee (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, the noticeboard discussion did not result in a consensus to change an article claim of "more than 50" articles to a less precise description. [[47]]

I've edited the article section in question to address the concerns HughD might have had. The recent edit did not accurately reflect what the NYT article said. It added a negative slant that wasn't in the article's phrasing. The article now has the NTY as a source for a claim of "dozens" and Exxon providing the list of "over 50". It is quite likely the NYT chose the word "dozens" as an editorial choice vs ICN and EM which say over 50. Springee (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article length and editing

The article in it's current form is too long and doesn't stay on topic. As mentioned previously, the introduction section is needlessly detailed given the scope of the article. All that is needed is to state with links that EM was involved with climate change research from an early date and that even early on they considered it in their operations. This should likely be no more than 5-6 sentences. The main body of the article is a quote/paraphrase dump. It largely consists of quotes but little substance behind any of those quotes. It seems the editorial intent is to overwhelm the reader with claims of Pulitzers and volume of negative quotes rather than deep substance. I think adding depth to the arguments made by the sources would make this a far better article. Despite it's length and large number of citations this article still needs a lot of help. Springee (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your feeling that this article is too long? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Concise Springee (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your last reverts, the content is actually beneficial for the image of Exxon. Before you remove information entirely, reword if required. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the length is an issue yet but the real problem is that instead of encyclopaedic text this article here is a quote/paraphrase dump from news stories. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If written in encyclopaedic way, the substance of that section could be provided by five-six sentence without loosing any important aspect. This issue has been raised numerous times but has been just ignored by the editor who has added the most of these quotations/news texts. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YES!!!! This too! Springee (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. My issue is the article is getting way to long and this material is really off subject. It would be helpful if HughD would explain what he wishes to accomplish with various sections and how that will fit into the overall story. He should spend more time talking with other editors vs just dumping content into the article without group input. Anyway, editor issues aside, given the length of the article (at least 20% larger WP guidelines) how does the material in that section support the controversy subject. Yes, it does prove that Exxon had knowledge and considered CO2 impact but we can state that, provide links and move on. Basically the article "doesn't get to the point". Springee (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The article is 19kB of prose (or 2841 words), which would take an average reader 10 - 20 minutes to comprehend. Per WP:PAGESIZE, an average page (corresponding to the average attention span) is 30kB - 50kB, or double this article. That is an established guideline. Quoting from it: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons for acceptable reasons." Springee, you clearly don't like the article. I'm sorry that's how you feel, but you're objecting to something new every single day. That's a little tough to handle. This isn't a BLP; it's a small sub article spun off of a low-traffic topic... it's not likely to have real-world consequences on anyone in the coming months. I think it would be best if we just let the page develop, and if you'd like help with that development, without making such an effort to stall and cut back on progress. I get that you find the article objectionable... but this isn't the way to go about arguing that. An RfC would be, but RfC comments are what started this article to begin with.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reference to Global Climate Coalition

I came across this interesting reference as "flak" to Global Climate Coalition which might warrant a mention and a link back to this sourced typology of propaganda efforts as the reckoning of one of the major scholars in this field. SageRad (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good section. One of the big issues I have with the current main body is a lack of depth. It would be useful to focus on some of the alleged* activities rather than the volume of one line quotes. *Note that when I say alleged I'm using it in the legal sense, many of the things that Exxon is said to have done have not been proven or alternatively it's not in dispute that they say questioned a new regulation. What is in question was if the negative response was an honest review of the policy by a knowledgeable group or, alternatively, was the question raised as a smoke screen? This is something that I do think has been lacking. Either way, I think talking about that makes far more sense than much of what we have now. Springee (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose trimming the background and operational sections

Per WP:Concise, the background and operational sections are simply way to long. Much of the material that has been added simply belabors the purpose of the sections. The intent of the sections is to show that Exxon was researching and had an up to date understanding of climate change as early as the 1960s. It also is to show that Exxon operations considered CO2 output. However, the core topic of the article is the controversy around Exxon's climate change denial etc. It is NOT as article about what Exxon knew or did. That is only background material. Per this edit I took the bold step of reducing the section length.[48] Note that WP:AS suggests a page of between 30-50k. I removed ~6k though most sources were retained. Currently the article is 60k. So it is already too long per WP. How should at least 10k be cut? Springee (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off the article has a medium size, Secondly, unclear what you mean with trimming. The article appears to be just fine. Link to the content you like to trim directly. prokaryotes (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By trimming I mean we don't need all the direct quotes and what are essentially off topic facts. For example, how does a 1970s sensor equipped supertanker add to the discussion of the controversy? The background section should get to the point rather than add so many extraneous details. Perhaps the better way to handle it is combine and condense the material as a series of edits that we can discuss. Springee (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the background section?prokaryotes (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article are the sections talking about Exxon's efforts to spread disinformation, lobby etc. "ExxonMobil engaged in research, lobbying, grassroots lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming." Material that doesn't directly support the subject of the article should be included sparingly and only when really necessary. "Funding of climate change denial" is the start of the main body of the article where we address the reason why the article exists. No where in the sections I edited do we see Exxon engaging in behavior we would see as controversial. Hence that is background material. That Exxon had researched CO2 and climate is relevant. The details of how are not strictly relevant and given WP:AS are good candidates for removal. Note that the information is still linked via the source articles. What I was doing was quoting/paraphrasing less information from the source articles. Given that I'm not the only editor who things this is too long perhaps HughD can explain why the material is needed/makes the article more encyclopedic (an issue raised by another editor). Springee (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, i looked now at the article, it is certainly not to long. I think your "concerns" are unfounded, and maybe disruptive, looking at the frequency of your comments here at the talk page (yes the talk page indeed is to long). prokaryotes (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a highly noteworthy source, and InsideClimate News is a highly noteworthy source in this topic area. Our article's content drawn from them from summer-fall 2015 is obviously due weight in and of itself. Additionally, working backwards, coverage of the most recent developments, the ongoing investigations from fall-winter 2015, is unanimous in covering ExxonMobil's climate expertise and operational planning. Every reliable source that mentions Exxon and climate change, after summer 2015, covers ExxonMobil's demonstrated climate expertise. If your concern is due weight, you must welcome additional supplemental citation to noteworthy reliable sources, including vast use by others. But I repeat myself, is that your goal? Your attempt to apply WP:SIZE is unfounded. Your section blanking, including removal of numerous noteworthy neutral reliable sources, is extraordinarily non-neutral and disruptive. Hugh (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I commented above. The fact we somehow need two sections to discuss article length is indicative of the real problem, which is the length of the talk page. WP:Concise is an essay, and does not apply here in any case. WP:PAGESIZE is a content guideline, and it indicates this article is small, and we should never remove content for the purpose of reducing page size.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#JOURNALISM (Wikipedia is not written in news style) and WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS (While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion) are highly relevant here. And this is a policy. Beagel (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:TOPIC applies here, although one could argue that we should ignore an essay. Beagel (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least we are now having a discussion about it. Note that was not my intent in the trim. However, it is telling and perhaps disturbing that HughD has been so active in adding material yet does NOT participate in the talk page to the point that he didn't even notify the talk page that he opened a RSN discussion retailed to the article. Jess, I actually don't mind the subject at all. I don't like how the article is being handled. I think there is too much packing of unneeded information such as the background. I also think that the main body seems too focused on short quotes rather than depth. That does fit with the WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. Also WP:CONCISE should be considered. Much of this article is long but without value. Perhaps that is what is really bothering me and I was approaching the issue in the wrong way. This again suggests that we need to be talking about content more rather than throwing up yet more random content after people have objected. Springee (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"HughD...does NOT participate in the talk page" What??? Hugh (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the main body seems too focused on short quotes" I will lengthen the quotes per your suggestion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have expressed concerns yet you only reply after people take action. Perhaps if you discussed and took the views of others into consideration upfront we won't have long talk page issues. Certainly you didn't consider the talk page when you added a RSN discussion about this topic without notifying the talk page.
Your comment about increasing the length of quotes is tedious at best. It clearly misrepresents my concerns and suggests that you are not behaving in good faith. The article really needs fewer quotes and more depth. Additionally it needs to include articles that discuss some of the views that if not agreeing with Exxon, raise concerns about some of the attacks on Exxon etc. For example, you have added a number of articles discussing the proposed government legal actions against Exxon but nothing from sources (some I've added here) that raise concerns about the potential political motives behind public statements. Springee (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am free to decline to reply to you, especially if I don't want to repeat myself over and over in each of your multiple threads. Hugh (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HughD: Unfortunately it is true that you have ignored some valid concerns raised by other editors not only in this thread but also in other threads at the talk pages. Also your answer above to Springee does not help to have a constructive discussion. Beagel (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Additionally, edit summaries such as this one [49] "expanded quote as per talk" are WP:tendentious editing. The editor in question SHOULD know better. Springee (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no consensus and no Wikipedia guideline to support the conclusion of editor Springee, and supported by editor Beagel to remove content from the article on grounds that the article is to long. Editor Jesse, above even pointed out to you that removal of content on grounds of "article is to long", is against Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop edit warring, and disrupting edits with bogus claims. See WP:PAGESIZEprokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have also said the material is off topic. That IS a justified reason to remove it. Springee (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then make a RFC, there is clearly no consensus here for your removal campaign. prokaryotes (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there was, if only a small group, consensus. You and Jess and now added your oppossing view so there is no longer consensus. "Removal campaign" is unfair phrasing. Removing material that was seen as off topic is not a "campaign" so much as cleaning up. Again, I think this begs the question, and this is one I and others have asked but HughD has not constructively contributed to, what is the scope of topic? Springee (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prokaryotes: Based on your edit summary and your comment above, you did not understand the reason of my revert, so I kindly ask you to undue your revert. At least, if concerns are raised, it is not constructive behaviour to ignore this and continue making edits violating WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS and WP:TOPIC. You suggest to have RfC, but what is the question in the that case? Question "Should we follow the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not?" seems relevant but is it really the way how Wikipedia works? Of couse, we could have RfCs by paragraph after paragraph and quote after quote but do you think that having 20+ RfC will work? I don't think so. Therefore, please try to discuss instead of continuing adding questionable additions. Beagel (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the peer review process may be more productive than Afd. Beagel (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:NOTNEWS do you feel applies here? Quoting: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." I see nothing in the article that is less than several years old, and nearly everything is cited to secondary sources. Are events that occurred in the 1980s "breaking stories"? The only recent first-hand event we cover is Exxon's PR comment in November. Are you suggesting we cut that? I don't know what else you could be referring to.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my original post from yesterday somewhere above in this thread. What I mean is While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and by this I referred to all these quotes and out of the main topic details added to the article. Beagel (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: Thank you for your collaboration. I enjoy collaborating with you. Respectfully, may I add my voice to question the application of NOTNEWS, and to sincerely suggest a formal peer review process may not be necessary at this time. To expand, of course newspapers such as those used in this article, including The New York Times, the The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, are individually reliable, and as you know when multiple sources say the same thing, that constitutes due weight. NOTNEWS does not outlaw newspapers. Instead of peer review, may I respectfully suggest you identify one specific content of concern. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you on resolving your sourcing and due weight concerns, by providing additional citation, here at article talk or in article space, and I feel confident our colleagues can convince you of the due weight. What do you think? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beagel, that whole section is about "breaking news" that doesn't warrant lasting coverage. For example, if Will Smith went on vacation, it might be printed in several newspapers, but it won't receive lasting coverage next year. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to events which occurred in 1980 which received significant coverage even years after the event. I don't know what "out of the main topic details" you're referring to. A specific example would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong limiting WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM only to the current event, as WP:NOT explicitly says: The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. It is also about these out of focus details like it was in the case of Natuna, which were added to the article but at the some time did not provide the full context. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. It is also about the style how we using these sources. Newspapers may be a good sources if used in encyclopaedic style. However, if you look at the current article here, do you think it looks more like an article in encyclopaedia, e.g. Britannica, or does it looks more like a journalism, e.g. story in ICN or The New York Times? This is my concern with the current state of this article. I accept that I may be wrong and you are right, but this is that kind of issue where is very hard to formulate a RfC question which will result with a deep discussion instead of brief yes/no. Therefore, peer review may give more in-depth feedback how to develop this article here. Beagel (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Thank you for suggesting a specific content example for discussion, our coverage in this article of the ExxonMobil's application of climate modelling in the evaluating the Natuna gas field project, and ExxonMobil's documented conclusions from that modelling regarding impact on climate. With your permission to repeat myself from earlier on this talk page, may I respectfully disagree that a one or two sentence summarization of this is as you say "out of focus." This is relevant and due weight, and we can tersely add sufficient context that it can be understood by our readers. I look forward to continued collaboration with you above. To your question, I think the article looks like an encyclopedia article, and progressing toward a good article. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current sentence about Natuna summarize everything what is needed to be summarized here. For the rest there is a specific article about that field. And what you added was far more than just "a one or two sentence summarization", more like four or even five sentences taking account that the first very long sentence was actually two sentences. And direct quoting usually not referred as "summarization". Another example of that kind of addition is about Esso Atlantic. It was raised at least twice at this talk page here; however, you just ignored and re-added it to the article without discussing it first. It is not exactly edit warring but it is also not constractive editing. As for moving towards a good article; well, we probably have quite different definitions what is a good article. My understanding of good article is based on WP:GACR, and this article has to go very long way before satisfying these criteria. If you don't believe me, just nominate it for a peer review. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I though you might respond with an expansion on how NOTNEWS may be applied to the Natuna related content. Your impression that I do not participate at talk is counter-factual; perhaps you are misreading my reluctance, relative to some, to repeat myself over and over in multiple threads. Please let's discuss the Natuna and Esso Atlantic related content in their respective threads. Here, some of your colleagues are seeking a better understanding of the application of NOTNEWS to specific content in this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs where you discussed Esso Atlantic before re-adding it. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of peer review if it got some additional eyes on the topic. The article just doesn't read like I would expect an encyclopedia to read. Part of this is much of the content has been coming from one editor. We need to discuss a bit more about what the sections should look like and what goes into each one. Instead we have a dump of quotes with no substance. Simply extending the length of the quoted text isn't fixing the problem. Citing additional sources that reference back to the original ICN reports also doesn't help since it doesn't add free perspectives. It adds weight to the views of one group but doesn't add alternative, legitimate views. To some extent I can see this shaping up a bit like the Pinto case. When scholars look back with 30-40 years of perspective they might say Exxon wasn't good but much of the furry directed at Exxon was based on things like politics rather than cold hard rationed analysis. Anyway, I would support outside help here. Springee (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Esso Atlantic in this article?

It seems to me that the Esso Atlantic does not have weight for this article. Why mention it? It was restored here [50] with the edit justification that it was "highly relevant". How is it relevant? The three references are not independent. Two reference the same article series by ICN. The third is wired restating what ICN said. Are we trying to say this is the only way Exxon collected data? Is this their only climate experiment of the time? How is this entry encyclopedic? HughD, since you restored the passage please justify it's weight. It seems that NO sources that aren't simply restating what ICN reported have mentioned this ship. Why is it "highly relevant"? Springee (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources saying the same thing is the very definition of due weight. Here are some addition, supplemental, independent, noteworthy reliable source references which are not yet in our article which clearly support the due weight of this content:

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account WP:TOPIC (The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.), but also the good article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).) and our policy named What Wikipedia is not (While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.), I don't support this inclusion. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: Of course the research on board the good ship Esso Atlantic is highly relevant to the topic of ExxonMobil's climate change activities. Here are the sources currently in the article supporting this one-sentence content:
Please read the sources, but for god's sake the relevance is obvious without reading the sources; just look at the titles. The editorial boards of Wired, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American all agree on the relevance of the Esso Atlantic research in the context of Exxon and climate. Hugh (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this is relevant to the topic of this article? Being published does not necessarily mean it should be included. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this background material contributes to the article topic. That several sources, all of which are simply reiterating the ICN story, mention does not justify it's inclusion. Furthermore you really should read your sources before adding them. The first doesn't mention the ship by name and is only reiterating the findings of ICN. Thus it's not an independent source to your primary source. #2 is again just retelling the ICN story and again does not mention the tanker by name. #3 is an interview with the authors of the ICN article. How can you possibly claim that is independent? Look, it's really easy, tell us how this contributes to the WP article. A internet search for "Esso Atlantic" prior to mid 2015 just brings up articles talking about the size etc of the ship. Remember WP:Topic. This article is about Exxon's denial efforts. It is not about all the various research projects that ICN thinks are attention getting. You need to justify how this material adds to the topic of the article. Note the topic of the article is NOT "what ICN says." Springee (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate contributing to the trend of complaining about something every day... the talk page is now twice the size of the article... but I don't understand this complaint at all. Why do you think the Esso isn't relevant to the topic? Summarizing our article: Exxon engaged in scientific research in the 70s, then began promoting climate change denial. They lobbied, were criticized, and then changed their policies a few times. We need to cover the first part - their initial scientific research - in sufficient depth, not just talk about their climate change denial nonstop. According to ICN, the Esso was "a crown jewel in Exxon's research program". How can we talk about their initial scientific research without mentioning one of their biggest projects? Who is this hurting to leave in?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good articles stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If these edits would be discussed before added to the article, there would be no reason to complain. Beagel (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained to you several times before, it is not unusual that our best sources reference prior art, and "independent" in Wikipedia sourcing refers to editorial processes, and multiple reliable sources saying the same thing is due weight and use by others. The Washington Post is not the only source for Watergate. Since it is abundantly clear you will not hear it from me, may I respectfully suggest you ask for clarification of your interpretation of "independent," perhaps at WP:RSN. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained to you several times before, every reliable source on ExxonMobil since 2015 offers their readers significant coverage of ExonMobil's carbon dioxide research, and our best sources go into considerable depth. It is inextricable context. For example, the section on investigations is impossible to evaluate absent this context. Since it is abundantly clear you will not hear it from me, may I respectfully suggest you ask for clarification of your interpretation of due weight, perhaps at WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have said, if all the sources are simply repeating what the original source says then they aren't independent. They didn't each reach the conclusion independently. I would suggest you read the PBS article about why they didn't repeat the ICN findings when they were first published. Your second paragraph is not true. Those articles have their own subject. This article is about the controversy related to Exxon's efforts to hide, distort etc. So a story about a single research project who's output is unknown to us is hardly significant. The reports from internal scientists are sufficient. Springee (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jess, per your reversion comment, yes, we did discuss it here. The discussion seems to be those who felt it was totally out of place because it's role in the larger article topic was unclear at best and those who felt we should keep it because it was mentioned by ICN and those who re-reported the ICN story. My objective with this edit was to come up with a more streamlined compromise that keeps the references in the article yet doesn't leave readers wondering why the ship was ever mentioned. If you read through the WP article the mention seems very out of place. We have a lot of discussion of the views of Exxon researchers and what they did and didn't know. We then have a one line mention of a boat with sensors. We are never told why that boat was mentioned or why we as readers should care. Why does it exist in the article? It's purpose is to emphasize that Exxon was taking the research seriously. We still get that with my edit without leaving the reader feeling like this was a character that was introduced 1/2 way through a movie and then quickly dropped two scenes later. Note that even the other articles that mentioned the tanker didn't bother with the name of the ship. It is clear that what it was meant to convey was that Exxon was doing serious research. Anyway, I think it really just reads badly. I'm open to other suggestions to better integrate the material but the "as is" is terrible. Springee (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about changing from: "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling. Exxon budgeted more than $1 million over three years to outfit their largest supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans." to something like "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling including outfitting a supertanker with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans."? Springee (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My position was never that it should be included because it is mentioned by ICN. I think you should reread what I wrote. Leaving the source but cutting the content is even worse... because now we have no mention of it, and we have a redundant source that doesn't back up any content. Several sources, not just the ICN, discuss the Esso. If our content on Exxon's initial scientific research is not covered in sufficient detail to be sensible, then we should expand it, not cut what we have.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JessWe are editing at the same time so hopefully no edit conflicts! Anyway, ICN is the first one to mention the ship. The other mentions come from articles that are citing ICN. We have no idea what the ship's research yeilded. It's not that clear why ICN mentioned the ship other than to emphasize that Exxon was doing serious research. Normally I would agree that the earlier edit would have left the reader high and dry except that the citation tags actually contained the needed information if the reader was interested. So basically the information was there but it didn't stick out like a sore thumb. Hopefully my new suggestion (above your reply) addresses your concerns. Springee (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a benefit to removing the name, but I don't have a problem removing the budget; "Exxon did X" is what we're communicating, not so much the funding and timing of X. How about: "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling including outfitting a supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans." Here's another source we can use:
  • "EEMTIC Digest". IEEE. 1981: 44. Our main objective... is to acquire data relative to changes in atmospheric and oceanic chemistry. Commercially available electronic equipment was placed onboard a tanker, the "Esso Atlantic"... and are uniquely manipulated by a computer to measure and record the numerous variables so important to this study. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Does that work for you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is better and thank you for the effort. I still don't believe the discussion of the ship is important to the article (note how hard it is to find any mention of the ship's scientific work prior to September of last year). However, I think the compromise sentence addresses the bad flow issue which was bothering me the most. It both fits in better and tying it to the previous sentence makes it more clear why the reader should care. Would you like to make the change? Springee (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jess: The budget $1 million in 1980's dollars, and the span 3 years, are highly relevant to conveying to our readers the scale and magnitude of Exxon's commitment to carbon dioxide research. No reason our article should admit a reading of a lone scientist sentenced to a boat ride-along. No reason to hold this significant quantification from our readers. Article is well short of long. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HughD, you are over stating their importance and I think editing this article is now in violation of your TBAN. Springee (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please focus on content on this article talk page WP:FOC; other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your opinion on the due weight of Exxon's research is clear, long before your recent section blanking; unfortunately your preferred edit is contrary to our neutrality and due weight policies and a mountain of reliable sources, see above. Hugh (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made the changes described above. I couldn't find a good copy of the conference proceedings Jess had mentioned but found a different IEEE journal source instead. Springee (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "grassroots lobbying" in the lede?

I am curious as to the meaning of the reference to grassroots lobbying in the lede. I don't see the word "grassroots" anywhere else in the article. I would prefer to remove this and leave simply "lobbying" in the lede as it would cover all kinds of lobbying, and it would simplify the language. Would everyone be okay with this change? SageRad (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I haven't (yet) seen this in any of the sources, so I removed it for now. If anyone is aware of a source that discusses it, I'd be interested, and we can incorporate it in the body.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent on the issue. I think people could see "grass roots" in the funding of say a think tank which then produces a report etc. Thus the source (Exxon) and the result (Think Tank report) are not obviously linked. However, I still see no issue with removing it from the lead. I would prefer to simplify more, the article has way to many off subject and rambling bits. Springee (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to remove this. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SageRad: Lobbying is accepting pay from at third party to represent the third party's interest in legislation to government. Grassroots lobbying is appealing to the public to appeal to government to influence legislation. Our article covers both activities by ExxonMobil, lobbying and advertising. Both lobbying and grassroots lobbying were wikilinked in the lede. I can add brief in-text definitions for clarity. I can add specific subsections for lobbying and advertising for clarity. BTW I would welcome your collaboration on the body. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i look forward to helping more with the body as i get substantial time to dedicate, Hugh. I understand the nature of what grassroots lobbying is but i didn't find direct reference to it in the body, nor to appealing to the public to directly lobby government, but if you could point to the specific source or passage i would appreciate it. I do understand that ExxonMobil sought to influence public understanding about climate change science as well as policy so in that sense, they sought to change public opinion which could have been expected to cause grassroots to lobby government, but that is my OR and although i think it's correct, i was checking to see if there was a source in the article that speaks to it. SageRad (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a handy direct reference to the term "grassroots" in RS. My thought was that "advertising" alone does not encompass pubic speechmaking such as the several noteworthy speeches of executives. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A company blog is a citation?

Springee, please explain your rationale for repeatedly reverting against consensus and providing dishonest edit summaries?
1) Your initial open reversion(1) with the edit summary of "No it does not." was more honest, but less in line with WP policy on the matter since it's already your second consecutive reversion.
2) Apparently realizing this, you falsely claimed in your next edit summary that you were making a "compromise"(2) which is a reversion in all but the name you give it. It uses a few words of the original, but substitutes a company blog for an RS reference. It completely mischaracterizes the existing references, essentially changing it from "did research showing the harms of climate change" to "did research" (on what?). It also renders meaningless the only significant string of words you left in place (in the mouseover reference description), "Company scientists have contributed to dozens of scientific papers that supported this view and explored the extent of the risks." If left in place, your "compromise" would soon need to be deleted because it's altogether meaningless.
3) Aside from the fact you're substituting a company opinion-piece blog for an RS reference, the blog entry's only actual comment on the matter is "And while you are at it, check out this 10-page document listing the over 50 peer-reviewed articles on climate research and related policy analysis from ExxonMobil scientists from 1983 to the present."
4) This company blog "reference" is only a reference to the degree that it links to ExxonMobil's archive (which is later linked separately under the section header "Selected ExxonMobil climate research collaborations"). Did you, or did you not, support removing a NY Times source based on the opposite premise? Your priorities with regard to reliability seem a bit misordered.
~
Rewording clear statements to tepid ones(3) or confusing ones (4 - "promulgator"? really?), and tepid ones to meaningless ones(2) that later have to be cut because no one remembers what they meant in context, weakens the article. Deleting an RS source and substituting one that's worthless weakens the article. Continuing to whittle off as many references as you can (despite multiple admonitions from uninvolved editors that you're completely misconstruing WP:OVERCITE) is tendentious at best. And a glance back at the history shows that you've been doing this quite a while.
I regretfully have to ask this in all seriousness: Will any degree of weakening the article's evidence and wording be enough for you, or will you not be satisfied until the article is gone altogether? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial&oldid=707615714"