| Revision as of 17:18, 24 December 2015 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →API attributed quote: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:50, 24 December 2015 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits →API attributed quote: No, its a quite inaccurate paraphrase. If you're unable to understand that, you need to find another article to play withNext edit → | ||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
| : Why do you keep writing ''In 1998, Exxon created and funded the "Global Climate Science Team...'' when you know its not true? ] (]) 08:40, 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:18, 24 December 2015 (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) | ||
| ::: No, its a quite inaccurate paraphrase. If you're unable to understand that, you need to find another article to play with ] (]) 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general == | == Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general == | ||
Revision as of 22:50, 24 December 2015
| 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: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | 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 |
 | Vistamaxx was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 December 2008 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into ExxonMobil. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| The contents of the Exxon Mobil merger page were merged into ExxonMobil on 2012-02-26. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| 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: 3 months |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005014316/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil_glance to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_oil_glance
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —Talk to my owner:Online 05:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN
There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages, including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.
-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Dec 2015 related edits
The outcome of the above discussions was only a consensus for the inclusion of the factual elements of the MJ article. The inclusion of a list was considered to be editorial in nature and there was not an agreement for inclusion. The cited RFC from another article using the same MJ article only concluded for inclusion but the closing editor noted that the method of inclusion was not settled. Springee (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
In December 2009 Mother Jones said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.
- Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015.
Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.
- Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015.
- Your personal interpretation of the noticeboard discussions, as agreeing with your personal position, is unfounded. "among the most vocal" was found, by a clear consensus of the participants in the RfC at Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:_Mother_Jones_source, to be a neutral, accurate, complete paraphrase of this source. Your preferred paraphrase is non-neutral, incomplete, and inaccurate. The consensus of an RfC is determinative. Your edit of this article to reflect your preferred paraphrase of this source is disruptive in rejecting the consensus of the RfC, please stop. Another RfC for the same paraphrase of the similar content from the same source at this article is not necessary. Hugh (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- HughD, please focus on the topic, not the editor. We have gone around on this point before. I summarized the views of the other editors on another talk page. The recent RFC only concluded on inclusion. It specifically noted that how to include was not decided. How to include would also have to factor in the RSN discussion. You are welcome to ask that it be brought back to life if you disagree with my summation. In the mean time other editors on this topic as well as the NPOV and RSN discussions do not support inclusion of the opinion aspects of the article. Please stop the disruptive editing related to the topic. If you disagree then I would suggest you start a discussion about the source that isn't on an individual article talk page. Notify those who were involved in the various discussions regarding the source and then hammer out the answer. Trying to sneak in changes that have been repeatedly rejected by other editors and aren't supported by consensus is unproductive. Springee (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no basis in policy or guideline for softening a source that says "the subject is among the most" to "the subject is a." Your preferred paraphrase is a blatant violation of our neutrality pillar. Your interpretation of the preliminary noticeboard discussions is unfounded, and in any case the RfC is determinative. Hugh (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually there is. Consensus is a policy. You can't cite any consensus that supports your preferred version. A number of editors have said that isn't an acceptable entry which means there is currently a consensus against your edit. You can claim my interpretation was wrong but when I asked you to offer your own summary you declined on the very article RFC you are citing. The RFC that says inclusion but the form has not been agreed upon. Again, the best option for you would be a RSN discussion to decide what can and can not be used from that article. You are welcome to start such a discussion. Springee (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I may not be completely correct as to the conclusion of the RfC, but Hugh is completely wrong. The RfC found that some statement should be included, but there was no consensus for any specific phrasing. And Hugh is banned from making adding the material, because he said it's related to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- If true then he should self revert his recent additions of the material to other articles. That and his recent Watchdog.org request may be found upon by the admins. Springee (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- He didn't say watchdog.org was related to the Kochs. He did say that this MJ article was related to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note that my stepping in make take this out of the realm of WP:Third opinion, unless someone wants to claim that Springee and I are clones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
OOPS. The topic ban (which is apparently not an AE topic ban, in this instance), was extended to Watchdog.org on December 11.I haven't been actively watching Hugh lately, but I was correct as to the scope of the topic ban as applied to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- If true then he should self revert his recent additions of the material to other articles. That and his recent Watchdog.org request may be found upon by the admins. Springee (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I may not be completely correct as to the conclusion of the RfC, but Hugh is completely wrong. The RfC found that some statement should be included, but there was no consensus for any specific phrasing. And Hugh is banned from making adding the material, because he said it's related to the Kochs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually there is. Consensus is a policy. You can't cite any consensus that supports your preferred version. A number of editors have said that isn't an acceptable entry which means there is currently a consensus against your edit. You can claim my interpretation was wrong but when I asked you to offer your own summary you declined on the very article RFC you are citing. The RFC that says inclusion but the form has not been agreed upon. Again, the best option for you would be a RSN discussion to decide what can and can not be used from that article. You are welcome to start such a discussion. Springee (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no basis in policy or guideline for softening a source that says "the subject is among the most" to "the subject is a." Your preferred paraphrase is a blatant violation of our neutrality pillar. Your interpretation of the preliminary noticeboard discussions is unfounded, and in any case the RfC is determinative. Hugh (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- HughD, please focus on the topic, not the editor. We have gone around on this point before. I summarized the views of the other editors on another talk page. The recent RFC only concluded on inclusion. It specifically noted that how to include was not decided. How to include would also have to factor in the RSN discussion. You are welcome to ask that it be brought back to life if you disagree with my summation. In the mean time other editors on this topic as well as the NPOV and RSN discussions do not support inclusion of the opinion aspects of the article. Please stop the disruptive editing related to the topic. If you disagree then I would suggest you start a discussion about the source that isn't on an individual article talk page. Notify those who were involved in the various discussions regarding the source and then hammer out the answer. Trying to sneak in changes that have been repeatedly rejected by other editors and aren't supported by consensus is unproductive. Springee (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers
 |
|
Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section:
In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.
- Harkinson, Josh (December 7, 2009). "The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015.
Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
- Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015.
Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.
Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as the topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions WP:ARBCC.
Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions
Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th ]
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th ] Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Survey
Please indicate support or opposition to inclusion of the above content and a brief statement use in this subsection. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection, please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments. Please adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility. Thank you.
- Support inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
- Oppose inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
- Support inclusion Proposed content is a neutral, complete, and accurate paraphrase of a noteworthy, reliable source. Reliable source is attributed in text for possible bias in conformance with WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. A similar paraphrase was recently endorsed by the clear consensus of a similar request for comment at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#RfC: Mother Jones source. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (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 WP:WEIGHT. I feel my view aligns with the limited consensus of the recent noticeboard discussions. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Springee and William M. Connolley. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment Since this same MJ article was added by one editor to a number of WP articles it should be discussed not in an article talk page but at the RSN or other forum since it concerns more than one article at a time. Furthermore, any formal decision on this RFC should take the recent RSN and NPOVN discussions into consideration. Those discussions resulted in only a consensus that the factual content of the article (X said or did Y) not the editorializing by MJ was reliable. Since this RFC is attempting to supersede those discussions the involved editors should be notified. I would suggest that HughD notify them as the editor who created this RFC. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a valid RfC and this RfC proposes adding content to this article. You seem unclear on the roles of noticeboard discussions and requests for comment. The source is a feature article by a staff writer, not an editorial. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The Monckton RfC conclusion was that the statement should be in the article in some form; it did not find consensus for Hugh's wording. Furthermore, Hugh's claim above that the noticeboard discussions are not precedent apply even more strongly to RfCs relating to different articles. In other words, the noticeboard discussions might apply to this article; the Monckton RfC arguments cannot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC publicized at WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- HughD, please ping the editors involved in the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions as they were in regards to all uses of the MJ article in question, not the use in a specific article and thus discussions there would apply here. 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd oppose inclusion, because its just not very useful. MJ isn't neutral in this context. However, more importantly, this is all down at the trivia level compared with giant biases like the inclusion of "These charges are consistent with a purported 1998 internal ExxonMobil strategy memo, posted by the environmental group Environmental Defense, stating: Victory will be achieved when..." which are poorly sourced and far more prominent William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
In 1998, Exxon created and funded 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, 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'." Exxon executed the plan, running advertisements in major newspapers on themes such as "Unsettled Science."
References
- Cushman Jr., John H. (April 26, 1998). "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
Industry representatives confirmed that the documents were authentic
- ^ "Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. February 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2015.
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
- Childress, Sarah (October 23, 2012). "Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change". Frontline. PBS. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
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.
- Mooney, Chris (May 2005). "Some Like It Hot". Mother Jones. Retrieved April 29, 2007.
...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
- ^ Hasemyer, David; Cushman Jr., John H. (October 22, 2015). "Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Exxon Sowed Doubt about Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty". InsideClimate News. Retrieved December 22, 2015.
in 1998 Exxon also helped create the Global Climate Science Team
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)
- 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)
Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general
This section is poor; its a collection of anecdotes, not an overall story. The overall story, as I know it (though I couldn't necessarily find sources for all this) is
- funding of research on GW in "the early (naive) period"
- 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)
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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- 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
- Unassessed Brands articles
- Unknown-importance Brands articles
- WikiProject Brands articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles
- WikiProject Climate change articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Dallas County, Texas
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment