Talk:Exxon

History

Where in the world does it say anywhere in history that King Devin McIlvain found the holy grail and that inspired him to create Exxon? If this is true then it needs to be cited. I'll be surprised if someone can find a valid source for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.47.48 (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights violations

See this article: http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/exxon/

see also this section from CMTV news commentarry top ten anti homosexual companies:

...Why We Picked Them: Exxon, in 1999, was only the second company in American history to rescind domestic partner benefits for its employees (Perot Systems Corp. was the first—see above). It also rescinded its sexual non-discrimination policy that was once in its employee handbook. Exxon is not exactly on the HRC's list of favorite companies, given that Exxon regularly donates money to organizations dedicated to upholding traditional family values...

and again:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/04/160250

and again:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_34_37/ai_76697365

article after article points to these being not nice people

Here they get the lowest possible rating: http://www.betterworldhandbook.com/gasoline.html

Here is a section:

ANWR driller, Nigerian Environmental Damage, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, refuses to pay EV spill damages, no responsibility taken for spill, 1990 Staten Island oil spill, Clean Air Act violations, toxic dumping suit, human rights violations, Chad pipeline, MM's 10 Worst List (x4), MM's Top 100 Corp Criminals (#5), HRC Equality Laggard, Greenpeace Boycott, Corporate Responsibility Intl Boycott, Sierra Club Boycott, Top 25 Superfund Polluters, Only Top 50 company to discriminate based on sexuality, evidence of political manipulation, responsible for 5% of all global greenhouse gases, Indonesian human rights abuses, New York toxic dumping, Louisiana radioactive waste suit, MTBE lawsusit, Kazakhstan toxic sulphur suit, Louisiana air pollution suit, Califronia oil spill, silenced shareholder resolutions, price-gouging suit, deceptive practices suit, Alabama fraud suit, Angola "Arms For Oil" scandal, Foreign bribery charges, highest emissions in the industry, Australian safety suit, Canadian sour gas death suits, Top 10 Greenwashers

Why don't you (whoever wrote the above comments) add a section in the Exxon article about their alleged human rights violations. Currently, the only information present is their history. This article seems severly lacking. Ingres77 13:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Esso diesel today?

The other day I filled up at an Exxon in MA and noticed that the diesel pump said “Esso Diesel” whereas the three grades of gas were labeled Exxon. Could someone explain this? —Ben FrantzDale 12:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The section that says 'controversy' is empty on the main article. I will delete it, for 'look-good' reasons. I fanyone finds actual material to put in a 'controversy' section, do so.

You mean something like this [1]? Totnesmartin 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good controversial subject to place under a heading of that name [controversy]. I feel it's widely rumored, but not necessarily believed by everyone or totally proven to be fact, that ExxonMobil and other oil conglomerates have poured billions of dollars into disinformation campaigns. It seems that they [ExxonMobil, et al] are perhaps funding bad science as a propaganda tool, which they are using in an attempt to fool the public into believing that their oil products are not to be blamed. Which is of course, rather controversial, in light of mainstream scientific research and opinion.

If anyone has any good sources already on hand for this topic, please let me know here. I'm going to attempt to collect the data and sources needed to re-insert a section on controversy, because this will make a good informational addition to this article. I hope to have it written and cited in a few days as long as no one vehemently opposes this. Thanks for the info Totnesmartin, it's a good jump off point for this idea. Heimdallen (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

37 $Billion In Profits

Under the Trivia section, the article says that Exxon profited 10 billion dollars, however, according to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/ Exxon profited 36.130 billion dollars.

The 37 billion dollar profit was the outcome of ExxonMobil at the end of the year, In the past Exxon did have a profit 10 billion dollars as a separate company. This was before the merge with Mobil making it the undisputed superior amongst the oil companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gunis del (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Profits should be reported in context. For instance, media companies' profit margins are higher than oil companies' by several-fold. However, the largely anti-business U.S. and other western media are reluctant to report this context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.5.199.244 (talk) 21:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Exxon Corporation is no more

This article is about Exxon, which is either:

-a corporation which no longer exists since its merger with Mobil Corp, or a brand of gasoline

Any references (there were many) to ExxonMobil's 2006 profits, recent activities, or current environmental positions aren't appropriate for the article on the brand and the defunct corporation. ("Exxon Corporation" didn't exist in 2006, so how could it have any profits? And, profits for the Exxon brand are not the same as those for ExxonMobil Corp.) These issues are more appropriately handled in the article for Exxon's still-operating successor ExxonMobil.

I deleted several such erroneous references from this article. Meersman 07:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about redirecting the search term "Exxon" to "ExxonMobil"? My thought is that most times when people type in "Exxon", they are actually looking for the company "ExxonMobile" (known as Exxon until the 2006 merger), rather than the brand of gasoline. There were would be disambiguation link just under the ExxonMobile banner saying "if you're looking for the brand of gasoline, see Exxon. Hyphenated company names are confusing for most people. Pro crast in a tor 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste copyrighted stories

There has been repeated copy and paste edits to this article from the Guardian Unlimited, this is a copyright violation see Wikipedia:Copyright problems and WP:COPYRIGHT editors wish to include aspects of this story must rewrite the section of the article, excluding copyrighted text.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo section on Interlinked XX's

This brief bit at the bottom of the page is a little confusing to me. In the sentence that reads: "The interlinked 'X's are incorporated in the modern-day ExxonMobil corporate logo, but the original Exxon logo continues for marketing and station signage.", it seems to me to be indicating that the logo using the interlinked X's, which are found on the gas station signs (and clearly visible in the sign at the gas station in the photo) are somehow different from the corporate logo, in that the stations DON'T use the interlinked X's seen in the photo because the corporate logo does. I read it as there is an implied difference here between the corporate and station logos, and that it is the interlinked X's are used in the corporate logo and therefore not used in the station signage?

From my little bit of research, it appears that there is a difference between station signage logos and the corporate logo. The difference is that the corporate logo is "ExxonMobil" written in red, with the X's interlinked (as noted above), while the station logo is simply "Exxon", written in red with a blue border and blue stripe at the bottom, but it also uses the interlinked X's. For reference, the gas station logo graphic is on this page, and the corporate logo graphic is at top right on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Am I reading this incorrectly? It just struck me as implying the interlinked X's are only used in the corporate logo, and confused me a little. I had a friend read it and she drew the same conclusion from the paragraph, that the logo on gas stations doesn't have the interlinked X's. I realize it's such a minor point but it bugged me. Does anyone else see this or am I just not using my brain today when reading? I apologize in advance if I'm 100% wrong here. Thanks for any input or comment about this!

Heimdallen (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Profit / Turnover

What were these in 2011 please? There should be some mention of this in the article SmokeyTheCat 06:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary lacking

Example ...

• Out of Balance Video, ExxonMobil's climate change impact.

User:Funandtrvl made many changes with an Edit Summary of only "updte, ce".

More explanation is needed, and potentially discussed. 99.181.143.62 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple more ...

• Exxon wins delay again; convinces Supreme Court to review Exxon Valdez damages
• ExxonSecrets a campaign directed against the company by Greenpeace

99.181.159.117 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly appropriate in ExxonMobil, not Exxon. In fact, the first and last seem to violate WP:ELNO anywhere in Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

unlinked?

Why was climate change unlinked? Better to have global warming instead? 99.181.154.33 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Richard Stallman makes an interesting point about the pronunciation and spelling of "Exxon". But I can't seem to find another source for this. What do you think? --Serpinium (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez exclusion

It seems like an oversight that, in the history section, no mention is made of the Exxon Valdez spill. If there are no objections, I would like to incorporate a summary of the spill into the article. - Waidawut (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to History about the spill now -- if anyone has any objections to it, please discuss them here. - Waidawut (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a good move. I'm stunned that you had to add it this long after the incident and all the analysis. Some corporation articles have an "incidents" section, in which such material is expanded a bit. I haven't read the history section, but if it contains any more incidents, you could make such an incidents section, while leaving the incidents included in History in their brief forms, while expanding them somewhat in the new section.

• note that, due to the controversy around the Valdez spill, the incident's prominence in the article may have been discussed on this page in prior years. To determine how to proceed, see if that is the case. Also, you can use "External tools: Find addition/removal" near the top left of the article's History page to find out, using WikiBlame, if the term "Valdez" was removed, and under what circumstances, as I somewhat smell a rat, given that the "See also" section no longer exists, and it included Exxon Valdez. You may or may not be aware that See also is strictly for WP articles on topics not linked within the article. When the entire See also section was removed may be one more smoking gun.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips! I will look into that - Waidawut (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible Merger?

I'm debating whether to propose a merger between the Exxon article and the ExxonMobil article. The article here is a bit short, and a majority of its content could be merged into ExxonMobil and/or a new article on the histories of both Exxon and Mobil before and after the 1999 merger (these two companies are the biggest direct descendants of Standard Oil save for Chevron).
There's a few big reasons why I'm thinking of a merger:
1. ExxonMobil is commonly referred to as Exxon, most likely because Exxon is first in the merged company's name
2. The merger didn't create a completely new company; ExxonMobil is in essence a merged continuation of Exxon
3. ExxonMobil already contains a lot of history on Exxon prior to the merger, including but not limited to the Valdez.
4. The merger was similar to the Merger of Sprint Corporation and T-Mobile US, except that both brands survived.
I don't feel ready to propose the merger just yet, but rather survey editors on whether it should/could be done first. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and WP:JUSTDOIT. Starting a discussion on whether a discussion should be started seems rather redundant and is mentioned as part of WP:RFCNOT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think your reasons are valid. Exxon bought Mobil and ExxonMobil is not just the successor of Exxon, it is Exxon. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright...I'm gonna propose the merger. Thanks guys! InvadingInvader (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)