Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 2

Oil spill
The new para on the oil spill seems totally one sided. It takes a lawyers press release and then adds on more unsourced stuff. http://www.nysun.com/article/58622 for example presents Exxons view William M. Connolley 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is a much more balanced source. Ben Hocking (talk 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i reverted it. as well, it misrepresented the size of the spill, claiming '2 to 4 times larger than exxon valdez' - whereas the reference to the press release stated it was estimated at 17 million gallons, as compared to exxon valdez 11 million gallons. funny math! Anastrophe 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The 17 and 11 million numbers are in WMC's article as well. I don't see in that article any mention of "2 to 4 times larger than Exxon Valdez", so there appears to be grounds for compromise here. Ben Hocking (talk 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is a statement from Exxon said to be a more balanced source than a press release from the Attorney General of New York? The Attorney General is not just "a lawyer." I object to the fact that three times today, factual statements, properly footnoted, that I added to this section have been deleted, with no explanation here. Is this another example of Exxon editing the page? Wiki14840 03:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * trivial and obvious POV edits, or those that don't conform to other standards and policies, are normally noted within the edit summary, as i have done. simply review the article history to read them. your coy suggestion that this may be Exxon editing the page is uncivil. please refrain. it is a baseless accusation, which is intended to impugn the editor rather than the edits. see also WP:AGF. Anastrophe 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming a company that has a vested interest in editing a page is not uncivil. It is rational. It has happened before.BFBbrown (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not make accusations. I have no reason to believe that Anastrophe is working for Exxon, although he does have a particular POV (we all do). I trust he recognizes that he has a POV and is willing to work with us on reaching a compromise here. Ben Hocking (talk 12:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The main Exxon Valdez oil spill article says 10.8 million (edit: gallons, not barrels) were spilled; this article states "more than 11 million (edit: gallons, not barrels)" in the history section. These are mutually exclusive statements. (There's another reference in this article in the Environmental Record section that says "approximately 11 million gallons" which is at least closer to the number in the main oil spill article.) Please figure out which number is right and make a consistent reference. Thanks Dylan38 (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Exxon Valdez's capacity was only 1.5 million barrels. It would be impossible to spill more than you can carry. One barrel is 42 US gallons at 60 degrees F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.28.142 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction to this article contains this sentence:

"ExxonMobil has been accused by major scientific organizations of waging a misinformation campaign aiming to create uncertainty on the issue of global warming.[12][13]"

This statement seems to me to be using the propaganda technique of unstated assumption. Exxon could "create uncertainty" only in an environment where none existed independently of their actions. In fact, the whole discussion about "global warming" has become highly charged and full of propaganda on both sides of the issue. Certainly there are many reputable scientists aware of the potential for "global cooling", as disciplined research on "deepwater ocean currents", "sunspots" and "the Maunder Minimum" will reveal. The implications of this subject, including new taxes, new institutions such as "cap and trade", and new industries such as carbon dioxide sequestration, will have impact far beyond the aegis of this company, its employees, investors and customers.

If it is appropriate to introduce such a subject in the introductory paragraph, shouldn't it also be appropriate to mention peak oil? Discussion of the "peak oil theory" (which I contend is "fact", not theory, the peak having occurred in 2003) has generated just as much controversy and propaganda. In the long run, many experts believe that peak oil will have far more impact on civilization than global warming.

(disclaimer: I am an independent investor, specializing in energy; I read a wide variety of material on related subjects every day. My bias comes from various positions taken in the past 10 years which have proved fruitful.) Chistletoe (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claims of expertise have no weight here - there is no way to verify your identity.BFBbrown (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of Balance video
Add to External Links.
 * Out of Balance Video, ExxonMobile's climate change impact. --DuKu (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For such a major corporation, there are remarkably few people watching this talk page :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they start to throttle their campaign, which clearly damages their reputation. --DuKu (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * [Redacted. - 2/0 ] --DuKu (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like WP:COATRACKery to me. Actually, looking at the amount of environmental stuff in this article about the company, it seems that it might be better to split the environmental aspect off to a new article, with key points summarized here. Also, note the spelling of Mobil. Awickert (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. and i meant earlyer "sanction" - i tried to add another history entry, which apparently not counted (did not changed content). --DuKu (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK - now I understand. But if you are interested in working on a "Environmentalism and Exxon Mobil" article and exporting material from here, then a lot of what you're trying to do would fit better, have its own place, and we'd be able to summarize it briefly here and link to it instead of just relegating it to a mass at the bottom of the page. Awickert (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a section in this regards. I think this section just needs to be extended. --DuKu (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actualy i don't see your point in removieng this particluar link with the provided reason to make a new article. Please first create an article, than start moveing parts or removeing them. Please readd the link to the article again, till you worked outr your idea with an extra article. --DuKu (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't revert you for the moment, but until there is a new article, it is coatrackery. I mentioned the new article as a productive suggestion related to my removal of this. Awickert (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we put it somewhere else? Just don't delete it without providing another palce for it. Thanky you. --DuKu (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Add me to the people disagreeing with having that link at that article. That's an advocacy video by an advocacy group (a Greenpeace-related org advocating against Exxon). That belongs to Greenpeace or to any article that lists the campaigns made by Greenpeace, or that lists ecologist campaigns, or whatever. Of course it can be deleted if there is nowhere adequate to place it, and it can be added to the enviromental split if/when it is done. There is no reason to keep a link in an inadequate place. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought: why don't we just add the link as a simple reference to the hitherto unreferenced Criticism subsection ExxonMobil? DVdm (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. --DuKu (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Climate Killers
Add to External Links. Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming Posted Jan 06, 2010 8:00 AM http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/4 --DuKu (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no. Only 1/17 of the story is about EM, and it's a pretty POV title. Awickert (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to electric cars documentary
I'm removing the bit about the Who Killed the Electric Car in the preamble because it's poorly worded, the link doesn't mention Exxon by name, and it would belong in Criticisms in any event. If someone wants to rework it with more content that'd be swell. Tensorpudding (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010: ExxonMobil oil spill in Nigeria
May 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzl (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Link to Out of Balance: ExxonMobil's Impact on Climate Change

 * I am removing this link because for its obvious POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TL36 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Exxon Chemical Headquarters Darien, CT
Does anyone else have information about this headquarters? This is what I've found thus far: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f-cgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L24FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4317,3229086&dq=exxon+headquarters+darien&hl=en

Twillisjr (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved -- there are reliable sources for both versions, and instant vs. ngrams do not agree on a winner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

ExxonMobil → Exxon Mobil – - common name. The most common usage according to Google Instant (Edit: in St. Louis). A cursory search for Exxon on Google News reveals a preference for Exxon Mobil. A search for Exxonmobil had an equal amount of returns for both. Google Trends has Exxon Mobil on top worldwide and in English. Forbes Fortune 500 also uses the non-portmanteau. Marcus  Qwertyus  02:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment using "Google Instant" is wrong, it depends on what google version you are using. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My locality is St. Louis. It may be different where you are but keep in mind this is an American company. Marcus   Qwertyus  09:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

>I'm an ExxonMobil employee and the correct term is without spaces. The use of space between Exxon and Mobil is wrong as ExxonMobil refers to the corporation itself formed from the merger. 189.58.131.150 (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Google Ngram Viewer shows a significant advantage to the portmanteau since the merger. Powers T 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're not so much concerned about which is correct, but rather how third-party reliable sources render the name. Powers T 20:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More sources
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarnoff, Nancy. "ExxonMobil campus grows to house 10,000 employees." Houston Chronicle. June 6, 2012.

Book Value vs Market Value
Why do companies on Wiki use the balance sheet's stockholder's equity when giving equity value? Wouldn't a more accurate measure be the market capitalization of the equity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.24.73 (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplication
Should the "Environment" and "Funding of climate change denial" subsections in the "Criticism" section be blended into the "Exxon Valdez oil spill" and "Funding of global warming skeptics" subsections of the "Environmental record" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.61.216 (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.  petrarchan47  t  c   17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect citation and/or incorrect information
Citation number 5 is used to support the statement: "The company is ranked #3 globally in Forbes Global 2000 list in 2012." Which is not true, and the citation links to the fortune page showing that exxon mobil was #3 in the fortune 500 for 2011. Exxon Mobil is ranked #1 in the Forbes Global 2000 list in 2012. (http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/)

This is my first "edit"/contribution, since this is the first time I noticed a citation did not match up with the sentence (and that the sentence was false). On that note, I wouldn't know how to correct this issue even if I wanted to, so I'm bringing it up so someone, who is better able, can take care of it.

Thank you for your time.


 * Thanks, and welcome! You did the perfect thing. Next time, go ahead and edit the page yourself. You could do some reading about how to edit Wikipedia, and people will help you along the way. I'll make the correction, thanks again!   petrarchan47  t  c   23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Top Company in Revenue?
We seem to have an inconsistency between this page and List of companies by revenue. Both claim to be 2012 revenue figures, but are different. The reference in the infobox on this page lists the 2012 fiscal year despite the SEC filing being from 2011. The number on the aforementioned page is referenced from the 2012 filing. Also the statement being the highest revenue in the world might be inaccurate if the figures on this page are correct, as they are lower than Royal Dutch Shell.Emann15 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed the problem but did not have time to follow up... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the 10K listed on the List of companies by revenue page and those figures are correct. So, I will change over the infobox on this page...in addition, I will make an edit to the intro on Royal Dutch Shell as the second highest revenue company (unless I can find an error in their 10K referenced). Emann15 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Shell page, the revenue they list in their infobox is strictly revenue, while this page has the revenue plus other income in this infobox. Regardless, the scheme used on List of companies by revenue and on other companies' pages I checked is to use the revenue plus other income both in the infobox and on the list. Emann15 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in Lede
Recently all criticism was removed from the Lede, in violation of WP:LEDE. Coverage in the Lede is to let readers know what is offered in the article body, which is roughly 1/3 controversies, but which is not covered adequately in the Lede. Edit summary for removal of all criticism from lede was "Relocated paragraph: a summary of an investigative book review seems more appropirate in the "Criticism" section than in the lede. Added excerpts from other reviews to provide a more balanced overview."

This edit summary seems less than straighforward, as it does not mention why the other parts of the criticism were also removed, including: ''In terms of its environmental record, ExxonMobil increasingly drills in terrains leased to them by dictatorships, such as those in Chad and Equatorial Guinea. The company was widely criticized by opponents for the speed of its response to cleaning its 1989 Valdez oil spill in Alaska.''

I removed the mention of the book from the Lede altogether since it was a source of tension, but editors working on this page should try and summarize the entirety of the controversies in the article for the Lede. As it stands now, this is sadly lacking attention and seems to be a sore spot for some editors.

A good review of WP:NPOV might be in order. Attempts to make an article more attractive for the company can, and often does, have the exact opposite effect, as obvious violations of Wiki guidelines tends to bring extra attention to the page.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Petrarchan47, thanks for your actions—and your comments. I agree. And, yes, I removed too much the first time. It was simpler and quicker than rewriting it, and I was under deadline pressures from my day job—and, perhaps most importantly,I'm newly active on WP. I have no problem with valid criticism of any company, organization or person; it’s unbalanced reporting that I don’t care for. Also, to WP:LEDE’s point about a summary of criticism; what we had was not a summary or accurate. The most offending piece was the quote taken out of context, which also contradicted the author’s overall conclusion. The other parts of the former lede were also not summaries, but were detailed accusations. I redid the criticism in the lede. How does it look? Desertroad (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that you have made a good start on the lead. I agree that the extensive info from a book was a poor choice to use for the criticism.  I'm going to make a few tweaks and see what others think... Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Desertrose, It's tough when you're just getting started to know the right move. It's best to wait until you have enough time to really dedicate to the article, rather than to make a sweeping deletion. Also, if your paying job is in the industry or perhaps with this company, please let us know as there may be a few restrictions on your editing. Even with a WP:COI, if you spotted a problem such as the misuse of this book in the Lede, non-COI editors will help make it right. You simply make a request on the talk page explaining the problem.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm learning fast. And, no, I don't work for ExxonMobil, never have and (although anything can happen in the future) it would be unlikely for me to. As you know, it takes a while to learn the balancing act between acting bold and taking other actions. Time pressures aren't just work related: life seems a fast pace for most people. Today it was running one kiddo around town for his activities and family errands. Tomorrow...who knows? But it'll be something that no doubt will seem urgent. Wikipedia is a nice diversion that's becoming a bit of a hobby, and I like to give back in thanks for all the help that it's given me over the years. Desertroad (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://constructioncitizen.com/blog/project-delta-aka-exxonmobil-black-box-projects/1107061
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What is ExxonMobil doing in sustainability engineering?
I would like the major fossil fuel company articles to indicate how they intend to transition to carbon-neutral fuels such as this work and "power to gas." I need to know whether they support emerging chemical engineering research such as catalysts for carbon-neutral transportation fuels, whether they are working on compressed air energy storage such as and, airborne wind turbines such as , and on extracting carbon from seawater such as this PARC method in order to solve their long-term corporate viability issues. I do not believe it is possible to have a truly balanced article on a fossil fuel company without some indication of their long term prospects. Tim AFS (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also need to know whether they are developing electrical grid energy storage in their existing expended oil and gas caverns along with mineshafts and mines for pumped-storage hydroelectricity where ordinary hydroelectric power is unavailable. Tim AFS (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Who added the financial data in the Info box?
Was it a bot or does somebody manually do this for every corporation? I would really like to talk to whoever does this because I would like to recruit them for my grant proposal project. The project can be found here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Economic_Map. This project aims to upload vast amounts of economic and corporate data into Wikidata. Thank you Mcnabber091 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Largest shareholder information
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] 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)

Investigative book: Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power
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?  petrarchan47  t  c   01:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

J Bryan Williams case
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)

Press releases as WP:SELFPUBLISHED
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)

"Most hated company"
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)

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

Trouble archiving links on the article
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.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
 * http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/history/about_who_history.aspx

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)

Trouble archiving links on the article
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.

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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)

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.


 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard

-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."




 * 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, 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 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)

API attributed quote
[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, 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,, 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. , an administrator of our project, asked you to cease your harassment , 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 and fund 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. ExxonMobil is a leading member of the API. 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'.'  Exxon executed the plan;  for example, running advertisements in major newspapers on themes such as 'Unsettled Science.'"

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)

POV hatnote
HughD tagged this article with NPOV. As the template is liked with, 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)

Change in article project quality without discussion
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)

Foreign business practices
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 e6acre off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 Goilbbl of crude.

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.

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)

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


 * 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 ? 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)

Recent history (1998 to present)
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)

Investigative book: Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power
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. 

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)

Split-out
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, 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 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)