Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 2

It's stated in the article, that the largest shareholder of Exxon Mobil is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ref. reference 5. That article is to the best of my knowledge misinperpreted with regard to this. The article referred to in reference 5 states, that the biggest institutional manager, that has an obligation to file quartly information about stock holdings with SEC that is followed by the source, is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The largest shareholder according to MSN Money is BlackRock Inc. [approx. 6% of out] ^[1] John Hjorth (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you realize the source of your information, MSN Money, is a Microsoft venture. Nothing was "misinperpreted" as you put it. Blackrock is a mutual fund company consisting of many funds managed by numerous managers and the stock bought by such funds are owned, albeit indirectly, by tens of thousands of investors. Though it may obtain contributions from more than one person, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a single entity.TL36 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The current citation still doesn't support the claim. It states only that "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust was the largest shareholder in Exxon Mobil at the end of Q1 out of the filers we track." (emphasis mine), apparently referring to the "hundreds of hedge funds" referenced at the start of the article. At the very least, this needs a better citation (I made some quick searches but couldn't find one supporting this claim), and "largest shareholder" needs to be qualified somehow if the intention is to exclude mutual funds and the like. (And possibly "Foundation" should be replaced by "Foundation Trust".)Jbrucefields (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the source doesn't support the statement. The "filers we track" is not referring to just "hundreds of hedge funds" like you imply. How do you think the Gates Foundation got on that list? Surely, you know the Gates Foundation is not a hedge fund. If we were to consider mutual funds, Vanguard would be the largest shareholder of the majority of large U.S. corporations. However, as I already explained above, a mutual fund is not a single shareholder. You "made some quick searches but couldn't find one supporting this claim," look in their 2014 proxy statement.TL36 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, you are incorrect. The fact that the foundation had the most shares of Funds during a quarter or two is irrelevant to this article. Berkshire Hathaway currently holds the most shares of the various funds, and in Q3-4 2010 it was ACM. This is trivial at best, and doesn't belong in this article, much less the lede. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You're the one that's wrong if you think I wrote the Gates Foundation "had the most shares of Funds." We can agree that such information, even if true, is irrelevant to the XOM article. However, I strongly believe what entity is the largest single shareholder in a company is not trivial information for an article on that company. I'll hold off on restoring my edit until I hear from you.TL36 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding. The most shares of hedge funds. If you follow the link they give in the source you are relying on, you can see it lists the top holdings of the Foundation. The source states "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Trust was the largest shareholder in Exxon Mobil at the end of Q1 out of the filers we track". In Q1(1st quarter). Which in this case is late 2012 to early 2013. Out of the filers we track. Meaning the Foundations was the largest shareholder for 1 quarter, out of the filers the source was tracking. This means nothing. It isn't notable enough for this, or any, article. Much less the lede. As I stated, many more Funds, companies and individuals have had more shares of stock in Exon. The Vanguard Group has over 231 million shares currently. Almost 30 times more than the Melinda Gates Foundation. I honestly don't know how much more in depth I could explain this. It's not only undue weight to include in the lede, it doesn't belong in this article either and is misleading. Dave Dial (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand anything in the source about hedge funds. They don't just track hedge funds which is how a designated trust like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gets on their list in the first place. I did initially misunderstand your writing that "Berkshire Hathaway currently holds the most shares of the various funds" since Berkshire isn't a fund of either hedge or mutual type. It's actually a conglomerate with a huge stock portfolio like Teledyne, circa 1980.

I think it is very misleading to write "The Vanguard Group has over 231 million shares

currently. Almost 30 times more than the [Bill and] Melinda Gates Foundation." The Vanguard Group consists of pooled money from hundreds of thousands of people and the vast majority of its Exxon shares are held in their index funds. Such funds are passive investments dependent on the percentage of market capitalization that particular company holds in the designated index, most notably the Standard & Poor 500. Even if the Vanguard fund manager wanted to sell his stock in Exxon or any company, he couldn't unless a price drop in the stock had caused its percentage in the index to drop. If Bill Gates decides one morning he wants out of Exxon stock, he could be out of it by the end of the day, provided the NYSE was open.

I now agree with you that this information doesn't belong in the Exxon-Mobil article so you might want to archive this discussion. However, I think it has a place in Wikipedia's Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation article. People might be interested to know this charity has invested well over two billion dollars building stock positions in three of this country's most vilified companies -- Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil and McDonald's -- while liquidating its positions in companies like Procter & Gamble.TL36 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering why we are giving so much space to this book. There must be dozens of books on giant corporations and we do not carry extensive information about them. If we start doing so, our articles could turn into ads for every new book that comes along. I think that this section should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, Gandydancer. Then again, the book has been noted as comprehensive and thoroughly researched—and ExxonMobil is widely known as a very secretive organization. A decent summary might be helpful. I'll take a whack at it Saturday morning (Central Standard Time). Desertroad (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How is Exxon-Mobil more secretive than hundreds of other major corporations?TL36 (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The investigative book section was deemed inappropriate in this article--but a remnant remained. It was a misrepresentation of the book--and inconsistent with the removal of the rest. I removed that remnant for consistency and maintaining a neutral point of view. Desertroad (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To remove a giant book review was according to guidelines. The content could be used to form a new article about the book, but it does not belong in this article. That is not the same as saying no mention of the book should be included. If there is usable content appropriate for the controversy section, it most assuredly belongs in the article. You are showing a misunderstanding the WP:NPOV guideline, but I know that you are new here and maybe haven't read the guideline thoroughly.

I did not add the book, and don't actually work on this article. Could you explain further why you feel the quotations are being misused? petrarchan47tc 01:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Foreign Business Practices section, the last paragraph deals with the conviction of an ExxonMobil employee for tax evasion. The information presented does not say anything about ExxonMobil business practices, only the employee taking bribes and kickbacks from entities doing business with ExxonMobil. If anything, ExxonMobil was the victim of this employee, who was presumably bribed to sign sweetheart deals at the expense of ExxonMobil. Is there any reason to keep it in the article? Plazak (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to removing the last paragraph. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see footnote 9 of WP:SELFPUBLISHED:

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:"

Formerly 98 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a gross misinterpretation of the policy to suggest that official US government publications fall under this category. Moreover, even if this ludicrous interpretation were correct, a press release by the DoJ about its own ruling would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. Please do not remove this source again. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What part of "Further examples of self-published sources include press releases" do you disagree with? Formerly 98 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My thots: 1) Adds nothing to the article but NNPOV as is completely subjective statement 2) Would certainly be "hotly contested"by company, so WP:IMPARTIAL applies 3) Undue weight, as dozens of "Most hated company" lists are found in reliable sources, and this company often fails to make the top 5, let alone the top spot. Have reverted, happy to RFC if you disagree Formerly 98 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moll's Mobil. Found it in Template:ExxonMobil. Jason McHuff (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/history/about_who_history.aspx

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a redirect: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/about-us/history/overview Dustin (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_who_mgmt.aspx
• http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_what_refining.aspx
• http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_who_profile.aspx
• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/business/31exxon.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577249302222937644.html?KEYWORDS=Exxon+Mobil+Corp
• http://www.1derrick.com/wsj-exxon-sees-big-shale-oil-potential-in-siberia/481/%7Ctitle=Exxon
• http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/106s/72736.txt
• http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/2946/4183/
• http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Big_US_Pension_Fund_Joins_Critics_Of_ExxonMobil_Climate_Stance_999.html
• http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5946&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=CERES%3A%20ExxonMobil%20Shareholders%20Relying%20on%20Fumes
• http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/spill-sends-40km-oil-slick-into-river/story-e6frf7jx-1226086642772
• http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=1&id=5851
• http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Newsreleases/Corp_xom_nr_071201.asp
• http://www.fcpaenforcement.com/documents/document_detail.asp?ID=1388&PAGE=2
• http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/company-news-story.aspx?storyid=200909301400dowjonesdjonline000633
• http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/05/24/business/100000002243986/exxon-mobils-stance-on-gay-rights.html?smid=tw-nytvideo&seid=auto
• http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/contactus_contact_businessheadquarters.aspx

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1998, Exxon helped create^[1] and fund^[2] the "Global Climate Science Team," comprised of industry opponents of the Kyoto Protocol, including Exxon, the Chevron Corporation, the Southern Company, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which was led by the API and which met in the API office in Washington.^[3] ExxonMobil is a leading member of the API.^[4] The task force work-shopped an eight-page strategy memo entitled "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan", which said in part "Victory will be achieved when average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom'."^{[2][3][4][5]: 9, 10, 40} Exxon executed the plan;^[1][5] for example, running advertisements in major newspapers on themes such as "Unsettled Science."^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Foreign business practices===

Investigative reporting by Forbes magazine raised questions about ExxonMobil's dealings with the leaders of oil-rich nations. ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (45,000 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.19×10⁹ m³) of crude.^{[1][dead link]}

In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and it, along with dozens of other companies, settled with the United States government for $50,000.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current end of the lede is:

The company has also been the target of accusations of improperly dealing with human rights issues, influence on American foreign policy, and its impact on the future of nations.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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