Revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2015 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →API attributed quote: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:01, 14 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers803,303 edits →Productivity: Deleted nonsenseTag: Manual revert | ||
(638 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{American English}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=top}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high|TX=yes|TX-importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth|importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=top}} | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Brands|importance=high}} | ||
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{contentious topics/talk notice|cc}} | |||
{{FailedGA|16:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Economics and business|status=onreview|note=}} | |||
{{reqphoto|in=Houston|of=Houston area office and future headquarters, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389-1425}} | |||
{{Image requested|in=Dallas County, Texas|of=Headquarters entrance sign, 5959 Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039-2298 - }} | {{Image requested|in=Dallas County, Texas|of=Headquarters entrance sign, 5959 Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039-2298 - }} | ||
{{Copied | |||
|from1 = Vistamaxx | |||
|to1 = ExxonMobil | |||
|date1 = March 2009 | |||
|afd1 = Vistamaxx | |||
|from2 = Exxon Mobil merger | |||
|to2 = ExxonMobil | |||
|date2 = 2012-02-26 | |||
|merge2=yes | |||
|from3 = Exxon | |||
|from_oldid3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Exxon&oldid=697831251 | |||
|to3 = ExxonMobil | |||
|to_diff3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&type=revision&diff=698207338&oldid=698082861 | |||
|to_oldid3 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&oldid=698207338 | |||
|date3 = 2016-01-04 | |||
|from4 = Mobil | |||
{{afd-merged-from|Vistamaxx|Vistamaxx|26 December 2008|date=March 2009}} | |||
|from_oldid4 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mobil&oldid=697849664 | |||
{{Merged-from|Exxon Mobil merger|2012-02-26}} | |||
|to4 = ExxonMobil | |||
|to_diff4 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&type=revision&diff=698207338&oldid=698082861 | |||
|to_oldid4 = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&oldid=698207338 | |||
|date4 = 2016-01-04 | |||
{{Energy portal news|date={{date|2007-11-23}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{split article|from=ExxonMobil|to=ExxonMobil climate change controversy|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy&type=revision&diff=699958451|date=14:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)}} | |||
{{split article|from=ExxonMobil|to=Criticism of ExxonMobil|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&type=revision&diff=1119311253&oldid=1119300025&diffmode=source|date=21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 5 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
|archive = Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |dounreplied=yes}} | |||
== External links modified == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|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 —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
== The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on ] and ] == | |||
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. | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
-] (]) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Dec 2015 related edits === | |||
The outcome of the above discussions was only a consensus for the inclusion of the factual elements of the MJ article. The inclusion of a list was considered to be editorial in nature and there was not an agreement for inclusion. The cited RFC from another article using the same MJ article only concluded for inclusion but the closing editor noted that the method of inclusion was not settled. ] (]) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:<blockquote>In December 2009 '']'' said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.</blockquote> | |||
::*{{cite news |first=Josh |last=Harkinson |url=http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial |title=The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial |magazine=] |date=December 4, 2009 |accessdate=August 17, 2015 |quote=Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.}} | |||
:Your personal interpretation of the noticeboard discussions, as agreeing with your personal position, is unfounded. "among the most vocal" was found, by a clear consensus of the participants in the RfC at ], to be a neutral, accurate, complete paraphrase of this source. Your preferred paraphrase is non-neutral, incomplete, and inaccurate. The consensus of an RfC is determinative. Your edit of this article to reflect your preferred paraphrase of this source is disruptive in rejecting the consensus of the RfC, please stop. Another RfC for the same paraphrase of the similar content from the same source at this article is not necessary. ] (]) 01:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::HughD, please focus on the topic, not the editor. We have gone around on this point before. I summarized the views of the other editors on another talk page. The recent RFC only concluded on inclusion. It specifically noted that how to include was not decided. How to include would also have to factor in the RSN discussion. You are welcome to ask that it be brought back to life if you disagree with my summation. In the mean time other editors on this topic as well as the NPOV and RSN discussions do not support inclusion of the opinion aspects of the article. Please stop the disruptive editing related to the topic. If you disagree then I would suggest you start a discussion about the source that isn't on an individual article talk page. Notify those who were involved in the various discussions regarding the source and then hammer out the answer. Trying to sneak in changes that have been repeatedly rejected by other editors and aren't supported by consensus is unproductive. ] (]) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::There is no basis in policy or guideline for softening a source that says "the subject is among the most" to "the subject is a." Your preferred paraphrase is a blatant violation of our neutrality pillar. Your interpretation of the preliminary noticeboard discussions is unfounded, and in any case the RfC is determinative. ] (]) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Actually there is. Consensus is a policy. You can't cite any consensus that supports your preferred version. A number of editors have said that isn't an acceptable entry which means there is currently a consensus against your edit. You can claim my interpretation was wrong but when I asked you to offer your own summary you declined on the very article RFC you are citing. The RFC that says inclusion but the form has not been agreed upon. Again, the best option for you would be a RSN discussion to decide what can and can not be used from that article. You are welcome to start such a discussion. ] (]) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::I may not be completely correct as to the conclusion of the RfC, but Hugh is completely wrong. The RfC found that some statement should be included, but there was no consensus for any specific phrasing. And Hugh is banned from making adding the material, because ''he'' said it's related to the Kochs. — ] ] 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::If true then he should self revert his recent additions of the material to other articles. That and his recent Watchdog.org request may be found upon by the admins. ] (]) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::He didn't say watchdog.org was related to the Kochs. He '''did''' say that this MJ article was related to the Kochs. — ] ] 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Note that my stepping in make take this out of the realm of ], unless someone wants to claim that {{u|Springee}} and I are clones. — ] ] 04:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::<strike>OOPS. The topic ban (which is apparently '''not''' an AE topic ban, in this instance), was extended to Watchdog.org on December 11. </strike> I haven't been actively watching Hugh lately, but I was correct as to the scope of the topic ban as applied to this article. — ] ] 04:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)</strike> | |||
== Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers == | |||
{{rfc|econ|sci|rfcid=7FA1DD2}} | |||
Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section: | |||
==Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change== | |||
<blockquote>In December 2009 '']'' magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.</blockquote> | |||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Bentley_University/NAS_348_Global_Climate_Change_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-04-29 }} | |||
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
*{{cite news |first=Josh |last=Harkinson |url=http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/12/deniers-inconvenient-truthiness |title=The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness |magazine=] |date=December 7, 2009 |accessdate=December 21, 2015 |quote=Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.}} | |||
*{{cite news |first=Josh |last=Harkinson |url=http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial |title=The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial |magazine=] |date=December 4, 2009 |accessdate=December 21, 2015 |quote=Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.}} | |||
== Harvard study from May 2021 == | |||
] (]) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Any thoughts on which section would be suitable for a summarized addition of context (below)? | |||
Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as the topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions ]. | |||
* "For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. & | |||
* A new study suggests that ExxonMobil has used language to shift the blame for fossil fuel use from producers to consumers over the past four decades. | |||
* The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists. Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating. | |||
* Exxon Mobil Corp. has used language to systematically shift blame for climate change from fossil fuel companies onto consumers, according to a new paper by Harvard University researchers. The paper, published yesterday in the journal One Earth, could bolster efforts to hold the oil giant accountable in court for its alleged deception about global warming. | |||
Cheers. ] (]) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions === | |||
Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th ] | |||
: I'm always baffled why people can't accept that consumers are indeed largely to blame; so no these suggestions are not good ] (]) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th ] | |||
::What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. ] (]) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it ] (]) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Survey === | |||
::::Are you capable of offering any more productive suggestions/input other than just exclusion, due to your personal opinions that the source material, produced by academic experts, is "junk" and "not good"? ] (]) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Here are a few more sources. The study seems to have a sizable amount of coverage. | |||
Please indicate support or opposition to inclusion of the above content and a brief statement use in this subsection. Please do not included threaded comments in ''this'' subsection, please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments. Please adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility. Thank you. | |||
* ExxonMobil is one of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas companies—and it wants you to take responsibility for climate change. A new analysis from researchers at Harvard University released Thursday found that the company’s public-facing messaging on climate change since the mid-2000s consistently emphasizes “consumers,” “energy demand” and individual “needs” as the cause of climate change, as well as the avenue for potentially addressing it. Outwardly focusing on consumers’ personal responsibility is one part of the company’s nuanced messaging to deflect the blame for climate change without denying the science behind it, the researchers say. | |||
*'''Support inclusion''' because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed | |||
* By endorsing the environmentalist image and removing themselves as the source of the problem, oil giants limit people’s ability to think about other forms of environmental action beyond consumption, and thus, economic growth. It confines the individual and his or her responsibility towards climate change within the logic of the market, reducing the possibilities for systemic transformation. ExxonMobil and Total also engage in the same strategies. They emphasize greenhouse gas emissions as a problem of demand, not supply, creating an imaginary concept around the individual as a consumer and the sole stakeholder responsible for mitigating climate change. This communication strategy legitimizes the continued production of fossil fuels and serves to protect the industry from restrictive environmental regulations by pointing the finger at growing demand. | |||
*'''Oppose inclusion''' since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed | |||
* There are many examples in ExxonMobil’s advertising materials and other documents right up to 2019, all doing the same thing: Deflecting attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change by supplying fossil fuels and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products. We now have a comprehensive view of this strategy, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study by Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran and Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes in the journal One Earth. In a painstaking analysis, they show how hard the oil giant has worked to keep the conversation about climate solutions focused on the consumer, effectively individualizing responsibility for the problem. | |||
Cheers. ] (]) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Support inclusion''' Proposed content is a neutral, complete, and accurate paraphrase of a noteworthy, reliable source. Reliable source is attributed in text for possible bias in conformance with ] and ]. A similar paraphrase was recently endorsed by the clear consensus of a similar request for comment at ]. ] (]) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{U|William M. Connolley}} I have posted this discussion to WP:3O , since there is no one else to discuss this with and you've stopped responding. Cheers. ] (]) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' Previous NPOV and RSN as well as several related article talk page discussions reached a general consensus that the MJ article is a mix of reliable information and editorializing. The list is based on the views of MJ's editorial staff, not a reported event. No information is given as to what criteria was used to create the list other than the opinions of the author or perhaps the MJ editorial staff. A list based on the editorial opinion of the magazine might be worth including if the list itself has weight. In this case, and especially in comparison to the more significant sources talking about ExxonMobile there is no compelling evidence that inclusion on the list is in and of itself notable. Thus we have an opinion that doesn't rise to the level of a RS and we have the fact that EM was listed on a list that carries no ]. I feel my view aligns with the limited consensus of the recent noticeboard discussions. ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]. ] (]) 10:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
* Note there is also an open thread at ]. ] (]) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Threaded discussion === | |||
(saw at the noticeboard) Zillions of things lead up to any one happening, it's subjective to call any one of them a "cause". (Normally the major departures from the norm are considered to be the cause(es)) The biggest ones here are that people use fossil fuels and energy companies provide those fuels. Even more so calling it "responsibility" or "blame" which implies wrongdoing. Such value-laden words are not informative. Also, if ExonMobil is speaking about consumer demand being a cause (but did not use the value-laden "blame") I'd avoid quoting those who mis-quote claims of "cause" as being claims of "blame". Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. ] (]) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:While I do appreciate the advice on how to be careful with adding academic research into the article, there was a recent interview on February 27, 2024 with Fortune magazine, by the CEO, Darren Woods, where he said... | |||
'''Comment''' Since this same MJ article was added by one editor to a number of WP articles it should be discussed not in an article talk page but at the RSN or other forum since it concerns more than one article at a time. Furthermore, any formal decision on this RFC should take the recent RSN and NPOVN discussions into consideration. Those discussions resulted in only a consensus that the factual content of the article (X said or did Y) not the editorializing by MJ was reliable. Since this RFC is attempting to supersede those discussions the involved editors should be notified. I would suggest that HughD notify them as the editor who created this RFC. ] (]) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*“People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of and pay the price,” | |||
:This is a valid RfC and this RfC proposes adding content to this article. You seem unclear on the roles of noticeboard discussions and requests for comment. The source is a feature article by a staff writer, not an editorial. Thank you. ] (]) 05:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Whether that statement is referring to economic or moral responsibility is not something I was trying to speculate on. My first instinct was to keep it short and more concise, but if others find that to be informative and there is consensus to add an actual quote, I'm open to it. | |||
'''Comment'''. The Monckton RfC conclusion was that the statement should be in the article in some form; it did not find consensus for Hugh's wording. Furthermore, Hugh's claim above that the noticeboard discussions are not precedent apply even more strongly to RfCs relating to different articles. In other words, the noticeboard discussions ''might'' apply to this article; the Monckton RfC arguments cannot. — ] ] 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:However the peer-reviewed research from 2021 is obviously indicative of that rhetoric and seems to have more ]. ] (]) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
I just came to make a few comments which I though might be useful. I don't need to be in on any decision but anyone please ping me if they would like anything more from me on this. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
RfC publicized at ] and ]. ] (]) 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|HughD}}, please ping the editors involved in the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions as they were in regards to all uses of the MJ article in question, not the use in a specific article and thus discussions there would apply here. 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Controversies === | |||
I'd oppose inclusion, because its just not very useful. MJ isn't neutral in this context. However, more importantly, this is all down at the trivia level compared with giant biases like the inclusion of "These charges are consistent with a purported 1998 internal ExxonMobil strategy memo, posted by the environmental group Environmental Defense, stating: Victory will be achieved when..." which are poorly sourced and far more prominent ] (]) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
It would seem the best placement for it would be between the third and fourth paragraphs in the Controversies section, where it mentions ]. Perhaps something along these lines? | |||
== API attributed quote == | |||
: 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: 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. ] (]) 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{U|HughD}}, {{U|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. ] (]) 02:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:May I ask, what brought you to this article, for the first time, {{diff2|696113469|20 December 2015}}, to revert one of my edits? This article was created 9 December 2001. You were reported at ] for harassing me . {{u|Callanecc}}, an administrator of our project, asked you to cease your harassment {{diff2|686290411|18 October 2015}}, and specifically asked you to avoid commenting on my edits. ] (]) 12:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I again removed the citation overkill in section in question. Two RSs should be enough for the quote. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*ExxonMobil has used its own website to attack Exxon Knew, claiming that it is a coordinated effort to defame the company. | |||
<blockquote>In 1998, Exxon created and funded the "Global Climate Science Team," comprised of industry opponents of the ], including Exxon, the ], the ], the ], and the ], and which met in the office of the American Petroleum Institute in Washington. The task force work-shopped a strategy memo entitled "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan", which said "Victory will be achieved when average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom'."<ref>{{cite news |title=Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty |first=John H. |last=Cushman Jr. |date=April 26, 1998 |accessdate=December 22, 2015 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html |newspaper=] |quote=Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic}}</ref><ref name=ucs200702>{{cite news |title=Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air |date=February 2007 |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf |agency=] |accessdate=October 14, 2015 |format=PDF |quote=In 1998, ExxonMobil helped create a small task force calling itself the “Global Climate Science Team” (GCST)...A 1998 GCST task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming...In the years that followed, ExxonMobil executed the strategy as planned}}</ref>{{rp|9,10,40}}<ref>{{cite news |title=Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change |date=October 23, 2012 |accessdate=December 22, 2015 |first=Sarah |last=Childress |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change/ |publisher=] |work=] |quote=Exxon begins funding groups to research his theory, including the Global Climate Science Team, which writes up a national plan to challenge the science behind climate change.}}</ref><ref name=Mooney>{{cite news |url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html |title=Some Like It Hot |magazine=] |date=May 2005 |accessdate=April 29, 2007 |first=Chris |last=Mooney |authorlink=Chris Mooney (journalist) |quote=...some forces of denial—most notably ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, of which ExxonMobil is a leading member—remained recalcitrant. In 1998, the New York Times exposed an API memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” The document stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” I}}</ref> Exxon executed the plan,<ref name=ucs200702/><ref name=icn20151022>{{cite news |title=Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Exxon Sowed Doubt about Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty |agency=] |date=October 22, 2015 |accessdate=December 22, 2015 |first1=David |last1=Hasemyer |first2=John H. |last2=Cushman Jr. |url=http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty |quote=in 1998 Exxon also helped create the Global Climate Science Team}}</ref> running advertisements in major newspapers on themes such as "Unsettled Science."<ref name=icn20151022/></blockquote> | |||
:>''A 2021 peer reviewed study by researchers at Harvard University showed that for the past few decades ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been shifting the narrative of responsibility for climate change towards consumers rather oil companies.'' | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
:In December 2022, U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney and U.S. House Oversight Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna sent a memorandum to all House Oversight and Reform Committee members summarizing additional findings from the committee's investigation into the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming. | |||
] (]) 03:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I'm open to tweaks and other suggestions. Cheers. ] (]) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I declined the request at 3O since I see four participants so far, but I'll make my voice #5. I don't think "peer reviewed" is necessary and the verb should be something like "said" or "stated", not "showed". I'm unconvinced though that due weight has been established given that the secondary sources are pretty news-of-the-day for an article about the company. I suggest a RFC to get broader input since several editors have already expressed editorial reservations about mentioning this at all. ] (]) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It is a reasonable paraphrase summarizing across multiple reliable sources, above. What I know does not matter. Thank you. ] (]) 17:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I would note that one of the reasons this article failed it's last was because #4 "The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at ]". Whether or not this helps address that issue may be debatable, but I disagree with your take on the quality and quantity of coverage this aspect is getting. Cheers. ] (]) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general == | |||
{{U|William M. Connolley}}, here is the suggestion I received from ... | |||
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 | |||
*Science historians Geoffrey Supran and ] have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the ] when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking. | |||
Would you be open to it, or do you have any versions to suggest that might help us achieve consensus? | |||
Cheers. ] (]) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I still think you're one-sided; you're effectively channelling GS+NO by your "portrayed" language, and so on. And anyway, all this discussion is in the wrong place: it should be at ], of which the bits here should be but a summary ] (]) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
# funding of research on GW in "the early (naive) period" | |||
::That sounds like a textbook bad faith assumption, but honest at the very least. Considering this article failed it's last GA review, what other improvements would you be open to? ] (]) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
# shift to denialism (Lee Raymond period, when he realised it might actually affect profits) | |||
# "quiet period" (maybe) | |||
# shift to weak acceptance (Rex Tillerson period; nominal advocacy for carbon tax) | |||
For what it's worth half a year later, I agree with the request here. ] (]) | |||
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 ] (]) 09:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 09:01, 14 November 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ExxonMobil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
ExxonMobil was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 16, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
It is requested that a photograph of Houston area office and future headquarters, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX 77389-1425 be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Houston may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Headquarters entrance sign, 5959 Las Colinas Blvd. Irving, Texas 75039-2298 - Map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
Material from ExxonMobil was split to ExxonMobil climate change controversy on 14:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Material from ExxonMobil was split to Criticism of ExxonMobil on 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forest gump egg (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SunshineANDSmile.
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Harvard study from May 2021
Any thoughts on which section would be suitable for a summarized addition of context (below)?
- "For decades, ExxonMobil has deployed Big Tobacco-like propaganda to downplay the gravity of the climate crisis, shift blame onto consumers and protect its own interests, according to a Harvard University study published Thursday. The peer-reviewed study found that Exxon (XOM) publicly equates demand for energy to an indefinite need for fossil fuels, casting the company as merely a passive supplier working to meet that demand. CNN & One Earth Journal
- A new study suggests that ExxonMobil has used language to shift the blame for fossil fuel use from producers to consumers over the past four decades. CBC
- The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals — and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists. Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow planetary heating. The Hill
- Exxon Mobil Corp. has used language to systematically shift blame for climate change from fossil fuel companies onto consumers, according to a new paper by Harvard University researchers. The paper, published yesterday in the journal One Earth, could bolster efforts to hold the oil giant accountable in court for its alleged deception about global warming. Scientific American
Cheers. DN (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm always baffled why people can't accept that consumers are indeed largely to blame; so no these suggestions are not good William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. DN (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you capable of offering any more productive suggestions/input other than just exclusion, due to your personal opinions that the source material, produced by academic experts, is "junk" and "not good"? DN (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- RS doesn't *oblige* you to insert junk, just because someone in the meeja has said it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is "not good" about them? They seem to be reliably sourced. Whether or not we agree with Exxon's rhetoric seems immaterial. DN (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are a few more sources. The study seems to have a sizable amount of coverage.
- ExxonMobil is one of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas companies—and it wants you to take responsibility for climate change. A new analysis from researchers at Harvard University released Thursday found that the company’s public-facing messaging on climate change since the mid-2000s consistently emphasizes “consumers,” “energy demand” and individual “needs” as the cause of climate change, as well as the avenue for potentially addressing it. Outwardly focusing on consumers’ personal responsibility is one part of the company’s nuanced messaging to deflect the blame for climate change without denying the science behind it, the researchers say. Time
- By endorsing the environmentalist image and removing themselves as the source of the problem, oil giants limit people’s ability to think about other forms of environmental action beyond consumption, and thus, economic growth. It confines the individual and his or her responsibility towards climate change within the logic of the market, reducing the possibilities for systemic transformation. ExxonMobil and Total also engage in the same strategies. They emphasize greenhouse gas emissions as a problem of demand, not supply, creating an imaginary concept around the individual as a consumer and the sole stakeholder responsible for mitigating climate change. This communication strategy legitimizes the continued production of fossil fuels and serves to protect the industry from restrictive environmental regulations by pointing the finger at growing demand. The Conversation
- There are many examples in ExxonMobil’s advertising materials and other documents right up to 2019, all doing the same thing: Deflecting attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change by supplying fossil fuels and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products. We now have a comprehensive view of this strategy, thanks to a new peer-reviewed study by Harvard research associate Geoffrey Supran and Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes in the journal One Earth. In a painstaking analysis, they show how hard the oil giant has worked to keep the conversation about climate solutions focused on the consumer, effectively individualizing responsibility for the problem. Vox
Cheers. DN (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
William M. Connolley I have posted this discussion to WP:3O here, since there is no one else to discuss this with and you've stopped responding. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note there is also an open thread at WP:NPOVN. Bon courage (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(saw at the noticeboard) Zillions of things lead up to any one happening, it's subjective to call any one of them a "cause". (Normally the major departures from the norm are considered to be the cause(es)) The biggest ones here are that people use fossil fuels and energy companies provide those fuels. Even more so calling it "responsibility" or "blame" which implies wrongdoing. Such value-laden words are not informative. Also, if ExonMobil is speaking about consumer demand being a cause (but did not use the value-laden "blame") I'd avoid quoting those who mis-quote claims of "cause" as being claims of "blame". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- While I do appreciate the advice on how to be careful with adding academic research into the article, there was a recent interview on February 27, 2024 with Fortune magazine, by the CEO, Darren Woods, where he said...
- “People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of and pay the price,” Fortune
- Whether that statement is referring to economic or moral responsibility is not something I was trying to speculate on. My first instinct was to keep it short and more concise, but if others find that to be informative and there is consensus to add an actual quote, I'm open to it.
- However the peer-reviewed research from 2021 is obviously indicative of that rhetoric and seems to have more WP:WEIGHT. DN (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I just came to make a few comments which I though might be useful. I don't need to be in on any decision but anyone please ping me if they would like anything more from me on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Controversies
It would seem the best placement for it would be between the third and fourth paragraphs in the Controversies section, where it mentions Greenwashing. Perhaps something along these lines?
- ExxonMobil has used its own website to attack Exxon Knew, claiming that it is a coordinated effort to defame the company.
- >A 2021 peer reviewed study by researchers at Harvard University showed that for the past few decades ExxonMobil and other oil companies have been shifting the narrative of responsibility for climate change towards consumers rather oil companies.
- In December 2022, U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney and U.S. House Oversight Environment Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna sent a memorandum to all House Oversight and Reform Committee members summarizing additional findings from the committee's investigation into the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign to obscure the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.
I'm open to tweaks and other suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I declined the request at 3O since I see four participants so far, but I'll make my voice #5. I don't think "peer reviewed" is necessary and the verb should be something like "said" or "stated", not "showed". I'm unconvinced though that due weight has been established given that the secondary sources are pretty news-of-the-day for an article about the company. I suggest a RFC to get broader input since several editors have already expressed editorial reservations about mentioning this at all. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I would note that one of the reasons this article failed it's last GA review was because #4 "The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil". Whether or not this helps address that issue may be debatable, but I disagree with your take on the quality and quantity of coverage this aspect is getting. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
William M. Connolley, here is the suggestion I received from NPOVN...
- Science historians Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have analyzed documents originating from Exxon and write that during the 2000s the company's public position shifted away from outright denial of climate change, but that they used rhetoric which minimized its impact and portrayed the responsibility as being due to consumers, not corporations. In Supran and Oreskes' view this shift mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry when seeking to disassociate itself from the harms of smoking.
Would you be open to it, or do you have any versions to suggest that might help us achieve consensus? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I still think you're one-sided; you're effectively channelling GS+NO by your "portrayed" language, and so on. And anyway, all this discussion is in the wrong place: it should be at ExxonMobil climate change denial, of which the bits here should be but a summary William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like a textbook bad faith assumption, but honest at the very least. Considering this article failed it's last GA review, what other improvements would you be open to? DN (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth half a year later, I agree with the request here. Likeanechointheforest (talk)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class company articles
- Top-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- B-Class Texas articles
- High-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class energy articles
- Top-importance energy articles
- B-Class Brands articles
- High-importance Brands articles
- WikiProject Brands articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Houston
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Dallas County, Texas