Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 3

Split proposed for Merger section
I propose to split the 'Merger' section into a separate article. This is detailed and useful, and certainly preserves to be kept but compared to other sections in this article it is too long. It is longer that all the company's history all together. Therefore, I think that it should be split into the separate article and its summary should be included in the 'History' section. At the same time, the history of the company needs more detailed coverage. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. You are proposing undoing a recent merge. The consensus at that time was that these topics are most easily handled together in one article. The article is readable prose size. The article is well short of our guideline for when length begins to become an issue. WP:SIZE Hugh (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so recent. And consensus may changed. My concerns are based on the fact that proportion of different sections is totally out of balance. I don't buy the fact which is assumed by the current state of this article that the most important thing about this company is the merger of Exxon and Mobil. Beagel (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are proposing undoing a recent merge - pardon? The merger stuff was added in 2012 . It looks to have come from Talk:Exxon Mobil merger but the discussion there is hardly full and doesn't bind us now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please explain as to why the article ExxonMobil, should not include the actual sub-section explaining the merger between Exxon and Mobile, respectfully, or otherwise be "split" into separate articles? Is it a MOS issue (being too long)? Asking because I'm reminded of WP:CFORK. Darknipples (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Information about merge should be included in the 'History' section, of course, by one or even two paragraphs. However, at the moment the problem with the current text is WP:BALASPS as the 'Merge' section is about one-third of the overall article. For one of the largest companies in the world with 145 years of history it is definitely out of the balance. It is also too detailed for this article, but could be appropriate in the special article about the merge. WP:CFORK is not a problem if WP:SS will taken into account. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "too detailed" The merger section is too detailed, at times devolving to a day-by-day account of the merger negotiations, but too detailed is just one of many serious problems with the merger section, none of which problems the solution is splitting. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It solves the WP:BALASPS problem here. Beagel (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Splitting this section does not solve any problem, maybe it makes it some one else's problem. The merger section does not need splitting; it needs good old fashioned editing. Please note there is no consensus here for a split; please do not boldly split without consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our balance policy refers to balance between our article content and reliable sources. We know there are many, many reliable secondary sources available on the merger, not used in this article. The sourcing of the merger section is so pathetic that it is impossible to form a judgement regarding the due weight of this subtopic within this article. If this subtopic were better sourced, we might agree it is too short! Again, this section needs work on sourcing and balance and encyclopedic style and level of detail, but not a split. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BALASPS: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don’t understand your application of WP:BALASPS to support your suggestion of a section split. I find no mention of splitting as a remedy at WP:BALASPS. Please clarify. Is the merger an isolated event? If this section is disproportionally long is not the appropriate approach to shorten it? How do you get to split from WP:BALASPS? Hugh (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * asked, "Is it a MOS issue (being too long)?" No, the article is not too long. The article is well within article length guidelines WP:SIZE. Hugh (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The section on the Exxon-Mobil merger in this article has severe editorial problems, including a much too heavy reliance on one source, the subject of this article's proxy statement, and too heavy reliance on sources too close to the subject of the article. The problems are such that the section is sadly ineligible for consideration as a stand-alone article. The neutrality and due weight of the subtopic of the merger in this article is difficult to evaluate from the currently deficient reliable sources in this section. The Exxon-Mobil merger was widely covered in noteworthy neutral independent reliable sources, including the business and general press, not included here. This subtopic needs significant editorial effort. A shortening of the current content in this subtopic is warranted by consideration of the sourcing issues. We should oppose a split until many new independent secondary reliable sources are added and the weight becomes unwieldy here. Hugh (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:RS and WP:V applies to all information in Wikipedia notwithstanding if it is included in the separate article or in the section of the more general article. The same principle is also included in WP:SS. Therefore, split of this sections will not change the sourcing requirements. Therefore I cant understand how the problem raised by you is an obstacle for the split. Beagel (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The merger section relies on very few sources, when it is sourced, and the most heavily used source is the subject of this article's own proxy statement. The merger section is non-neutral in that it largely tells only Exxon's version of the merger. The section is so bad on so many fronts that it has no chance as an article. A split absent significant editor attention is tantamount to section blanking. If the split were done, this article would still have a summary; why not trim this section and add secondary reliable sources? it would be an improvement. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome to trim and source this section. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you believe the merger section is sufficiently conformant to policy and guideline, including well-sourced, neutrality, balance, level of detail, and encyclopedic style, such that it is minimally acceptable as an article? If you do not, I would respectfully suggest it may be irresponsible to fork it just to get it out of here. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I currently have no opinion on the question of a split but does HughD's question really impact the question as to if the topic should be split off? Basically, is the current state of the article impact if it should be stand alone?  I would tend to say no.  If we judge that there is enough information available then I don't see how the current state of the article would be important.  However, that does assume that someone is going to immediately try to fix the article if it is spun off.  I do see merit to the idea that it is better to fix it here before spinning it off but I don't see it as a requirement which would seem to be HughD's implication. Springee (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Include New York Times article?
I fail to see how citing the 2007 New York Times article is "larding" the article as stated in the edit reason in this revert. Who thinks this article is worth citing? Why or why not? Let's discuss this. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement which is being supported in the article is in effect "the UCS says X" which of course is a claim that needs to be supported. Since the actual UCS article in which X is said is cited, the WP article statement is fully supported by the statement's source.  Additional citations, including those added to establish "weight" are WP:OVERCITE.  Springee (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Two sources for a contentious claim are not over citation. Citation supports noteworthiness as well as verifiability. One or more sources for verifiability and one or more sources for noteworthiness are a common citation pattern on Wikipedia, a best practice fully supported by policy. A New York Times citation is often the epitome of noteworthiness. Another pattern on Wikipedia, not as common and not a best practice, is removing citations then removing content. Hugh (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC) When the verifiability or noteworthiness of content is disputed, adding additional citations to noteworthy reliable sources is an improvement to our project. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't need multiple refs for each statement. The refs are there to provide a citation for the statement; not to add their own viewpoint; hence only one is needed. Also, there's a see-main of which this para is just a summary; add the lard there if you must William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline for your personal preference of one citation per sentence. Your multiple deletion of noteworthy, neutral, reliable source references, with your edit summary of "rm excess refs; pick one you like for each statement," is disruptive. Hugh (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. In cases where the references are used to verify the views/statements of a group such as the UCS then a single reliable reference, including publications of the group itself, are sufficient.  In cases where we are talking about reporting on an event or multiple groups expressing a similar view then I would agree that more than one source often makes sense.  Please refer to WP:OVERCITE.  Springee (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * HughD, What are you attempting to argue? Are you saying the views of the UCS are not reputable enough for inclusion?  That opens up a new can of worms.  If we had a more generalized statement and the NTY and UCS both, independently supported the claim then you would be right.  However, the specific claim being supported is that the UCS said X.  The most reliable source of that statement is the actual UCS report which made the claim.  A NYT article is simply repeating the contents of the UCS article.  It's like using more than one citation for a direct quote.  Springee (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

One additional problem here is, that this section should be summary of ExxonMobil climate change controversy, otherwise there is a risk for potential POV fork. When adding additional references, they should be added to the main article (ExxonMobil climate change controversy) and then also here, if necessary. Also all other addition should be done there first and then summarized here, if appropriate, by using sumamry style. But this NYT reference was never added to the main article. This is a problem. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your concern regarding the possibility of a point-of-view fork. In summary style, content in the parent article and the child articles have the same burden of citation to reliable sources. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Two sources for a contentious claim are not over citation - what contentious claim? No-one is challenging any of the statements or seeking to remove them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The subtopic of ExxonMobil's well-documented, highly significant support of climate change denial is contentious, please review multiple above talk page discussions and recent archives. Here is, many more diffs are available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, per WP:OVERCITE, it is not nessisary to include multiple quotes for the same fact/comment/statement if the fact/comment/statement is not in question. If someone is questioning if a particular statement is being given WP:UNDUE then a discussion of more than one citation may be relevant.  I haven't checked all the references that were removed so you certainly could make a case for why the extra citations are needed.  However, in the case of the UCS quote, you have not made a valid argument for the extra citations.  Springee (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * one particularly explicit example: no, that's not an example. Because the veracity of the statement is not being challenged there. What is being challenged is whether the statement belongs or not; a reference is irrelevant for those purposes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations support due weight as well as verifiability. Hugh (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the essay that Springee meant to cite is WP:OVERCITE, for WP:OVERSITE is about the Wikipedia slang term for redacting. Anyway, i agree that the NY Times article is not needed for this content, but it could be nice to leave it in. I understand about not over-citing. Seems like it's an editorial decision. I generally like to have a couple citations for things when it's possible, as there is not much additional toll on the reader's eyes, but i understand when there's a string of 5 or 6 citations that it looks burdensome. Anyway, i have no preference and this seems to be a stylistic preference. I don't think the NY Times article adds any new material, but it does confer a weight to the content, that the NY Times chose to print this story. That is what the additional citation confers. SageRad (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are correct! Springee (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Given there is now a subsection should the second paragraph of the section be trimmed? The first paragraph could be expanded with some of the most important points but the summary seems to be that EM was doing legit research, changed their tune for a while and has since (maybe) changed back. Springee (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on what reliable sources say, both in terms of content as well as weight of coverage. My survey on the literature is that the climate change denial support got a lot of coverage, since the story broke up until the present. Even when i just did a Google News search on "ExxonMobil climate change", i see the huge bulk of stories as recently as 10 hours ago on this topic of their support for climate change denial. SageRad (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The coverage of the subject of this article's activities related to climate change are many, many times more prominent in reliable sources than other current content such as say the number of parking garages at the world headquarters. This article is well within readable prose size. Hugh (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not a newspaper William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I agree with that. But what are you trying to imply, William? The policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia regarding WP:DUE specify that:
 * This seems to be what editors are saying above. I do agree that the coverage of ExxonMobil's climate change denial confers much weight to the topic and therefore merits significant coverage in this article. SageRad (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be what editors are saying above. I do agree that the coverage of ExxonMobil's climate change denial confers much weight to the topic and therefore merits significant coverage in this article. SageRad (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that we have a right discussion at the wrong place. After split the main article about this issue is ExxonMobil climate change controversy. That means that all additions should be done there first and then summarized here if the addition change the summary. According to WP:SYNC, to keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. According to WP:DETAIL, the parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects. That means we should avoid to becoming too detailed here. But, of course, if any of ExxonMobil climate change controversy aspects is not summarized here properly, please explain what is exactly missing and what we should change to be in line with WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding us that there is other stuff on Wikipedia. The article you link to has many problems, starting with the title; please discuss that article, including your suggestions about sources that are not yet included, on its talk page. Thank you. Meanwhile, the issue of due weight here in this article is independent of any other article. The coverage in this article of the subject of this article's activities related to climate change are grossly under-represented in proportion to the vast coverage in reliable sources. Coverage of the subject of an article in the The New York Times is generally considered noteworthy by most Wikipedians. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That article was split from here and here is a summary of that article. It is not "other staff exists". Please read WP:SS. If you think that the summary does not summarize some important aspects, please make a concrete proposal. You also seem not understand that there is no WP:RS issue with this NYT article – the issue is WP:CITE and not following WP:SS. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are big articles, please be more specific about specifically what parts of those articles, quoting if necessary, may be applied in your view to exclude adding a reference to The New York Times to this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this text from the top of this section where it was placed out of typical talk page order. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) "In 2007 the Union of Concerned Scientists said that ExxonMobil granted $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming, and 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.'"



Contended second citation:



Clifford Krauss

Hugh (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, please stop this WP:Tendentious talk page editing. Editors have said why they removed the citation.  You have said why you think it should stay.  Consensus hasn't supported your view.  The addition above does not respect talk page nesting and wp:bludgeons the discussion.  Please respect the talk page and discussion.  I support any editor who decides to collapse the above as well as my reply.  Springee (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

End of text that i have moved to restore the structure of this talk page section. SageRad (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , The reasons for replacing the NYT reference with a link to the UCS report also apply to your edit here []. Again, please respect the consensus process.  Springee (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Does climate change fit into Criticism or Environmental record?
I reverted a good faith edit that moved the Climate change section from Criticsm to Environmental record. There was discussion in regard to renaming the section to "Climate change" in the above which referred to the logic of its location under "Criticism" casting its meaning clearly for the reader. It fits better under "Criticism" as it's general critique of the company on an ideological or political level, whereas "Environmental record" is about specific interfaces of the company's operations to the environment. I appreciate the edit's boldness so in accord with WP:BRD essay recommendations, i would love to discuss it further here. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your mistake is to think that the CC section is a "general critique of the company on an ideological or political level"; it isn't, and it shouldn't be.
 * Criticism sections are bad in general; the less in them the better, as a move towards removal William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, . That makes no sense under a "criticism" banner William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In general I think we should avoid having a "criticism" section so I guess by default I would put it into environmental record. However, I'm not sure I would want the climate change stuff in there either.  I would typically think of environmental record in terms of things like oil spills, chemical leaks etc.  Basically, local, direct harm to the environment.  Global warming related information seems to fit as much into a political type issue as anything.  Basically EM could never spill a drop of oil and contain all of their chemical wastes but the simple consumption of fossil fuels results in carbon output.  I guess I see a distinction the way I do with car emissions.  A 30 mpg car from 1965 gets better gas mileage than a modern pickup truck pulling a trailer (say 15 mpg).  So in terms of "global warming" it's got bad emissions.  However, in terms of emissions that have a local (regional) effect (acid rain, soot, smog) the truck is much better.  So when we talk about Exxon and their environmental impact I'm not sure I would want to put it into "Environmental Record".  Perhaps if we changed "Record" to something else that could include things like pollution related to spills and the like, efforts to help the environment and a carbon impact/global warming section.  The GW section would then talk about the issues of denial or what ever we choose to call it.  This isn't meant to bury the topic but put it in a logical hierarchy. Springee (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to move the stuff from the 'Criticism' section into the 'Corporate affairs' section as was proposed by one editor at the RfC thread. I also think that the 'Environmental record' needs some work. At the moment, it is mainly the list of recent random events (except the Exxon Valdez which is one of the largest oil spills and not so recent) which includes some not so big accidents (e.g. Mayflower and Yellowstone spills made a big headlines but 3,190 or 1,000 barrels is not so much compared to some other pollutions by Exxon which are missing from here). The Mayflower spill, having its subsection here, was settled for $5.07 million but the article is even not mentioning the $250 million settlement about Bayonne and Linden sites pollution. I agree that these event should be mentioned and linked to their own articles, of course, but no need for separate subsections. That section is also missing overview how many and how big are spills (e.g. per year or per decade or per any other certain period), how big are different emissions (there is some information for the US operations which is out of date) or how big is the company's carbon footprint. And, of course, the comparison with other oil majors would be useful. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; there is too much that is quasi random. Some editor noticed a thing, found a newspaper article about it, and thought to add it to the article. Its kinda OK for a bit; but some synthesis and consolidation is needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been a serious violation of the WP:BRD norm of editing in this reversion which constitutes edit warring. I reverted with very clear indication that there were reasons, and pointed to one of those reasons, and then said "let's discuss" so immediate re-reversion was edit warring.

Now, in the above section of this talk page, i had written:

That is what i referred to in that the position of that section in the "Criticism" section is important for its meaning to be clear, at least in my eyes and as i have said here.

So, i would like to ask you to self-revert, and to then discuss it here. I'd like to be working collaboratively, but it's hard when there's a contentious feeling in the air.

I think it makes more sense in the "Criticism" section than the other section which is essentially a list of specific incidents of environmental damage, whereas the "Criticism" section is about global concerns of a more philosophical/strategic/behavioral nature. Anyway, let's please discuss. Can you please give me some background on your statement that criticism sections are bad? What's bad about them and is this a generally agreed upon norm at Wikipedia supported by an essay or guideline? I'm open to hearing that, but i think there are reasons for "Criticism" sections and i see them in many controversial articles.

'The current state of the article is not the status quo''. I am not going to engage in edit warring, but it's the result of edit warring.''' SageRad (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITICISM. Oh, look. It isn't a redlink. That was really hard to guess. How about you try to avoid needing spoonfeeding in future? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. You failed to address nearly everything i said. We have a failure to be civil here. SageRad (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. A lot of articles do have criticism sections, and this article currently has one as well. As long as it has one, think this fits better there. It's not a huge point, but i would like to see that we are able to discuss and work on this article as equals, in a civil way, with rational and good-faith discussion. SageRad (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How about in a section on political activities or some such? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could be, or both "Climate change" and "Human rights" and "Political influence" could be main subheadings. The "Environmental record" section could be renamed "Environmental incidents" as that is more what it focused on until the addition of "Climate change" there. There are many options. I would like us to be able to discuss it in a positive way, with the good of the reader in mind as the main goal. What would serve the reader best to know about ExxonMobil, and how could we make the article as logical and simple to read as possible? SageRad (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of renaming 'Environmental record' I prefer that the section would be reworked to give a full overview about the company's environmental record. Beagel (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a natural list of seven incidents. I would prefer "Climate change" to be a main subheading of the article, as i think it is of great weight in terms of WP:DUE in this article. SageRad (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a political activity. It is not an environmental issue, as those are all spills and the like. I'm agnostic as to whether it should be on its own, included in criticism, or under political activities (which could use more focus in this article IMO). Guy (Help!) 20:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would put it under a political section. Climate change isn't about cleaning up spills or how much toxin leakage is OK.  The big issue is what regulations/laws will be passed and what can EM do to impact those rules and regulations in a way most favorable to EM.  What ever counter science, misinformation, muddy water etc is there to cloud the political issue and impact political action.  So that makes it political vs environmental.  Springee (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, i've held off on making this change as to where the "Climate denial" section fits, but i think it ought to be done soon. This edit for one thing (which was then reverted seems to depend partly on where the section is located). Do we have something of a consensus or general feeling that this section would fit well under a "Political activities" section or something like that? I would appreciate it if thoughtful editors would read this section of the talk page and make suggestions or make the edit they feel is needed. It's currently in a state that is not status quo but is rather the result of an edit war.
 * Some resolution soon

My strong feeling, after some days of thought on the subject, is that "Climate denial" should simply be a main subheading of the article. This is a very weighty aspect of the topic of "ExxonMobil" in relation to most readers' interests, by my reckoning of the weight of reliable sources, especially the mainstream respected media. It's a very significant sub-aspect of "ExxonMobil" as relates to most readers. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your view that public interest would suggest promoting that section vs others. It makes sense in terms of providing the information we believe the readers want as quickly as possible.  That said, I'm not sure if I would agree given that WP is meant to be encyclopedic.  In 50 years would reader interests change and thus would this topic still demand a top level section?  I think fitting into a broader political actives section is more logically structured.  The only exception would be if EM has basically no other political activities of note.  If a category is populated by only e a single sub-category then perhaps the sub should be come the category.  Clearly I'm suggesting a hierarchical vs public interest structure.  Does anyone know which WP guidelines might apply when making this sort of decision? Springee (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand concerns about WP:RECENTISM but in this case, i really think it's a good encyclopedic decision to make it a top-level category. The sheer volume of media reporting on this topic is an indication of its great weight. We cannot predict the future, but this does seem to be an issue of great concern to people at present and in the future, for obvious reasons. This is not an edit for the public interest, however, except insofar as we are here to serve the reader. I'm thinking encyclopedically and by the principles of Wikipedia here. And i don't think we need to serve the projected reader in 50 years, so much as the reader over the next few years. We don't have a crystal ball, but we must make do with lowly human minds. There are some other political aspects to ExxonMobil in the article currently, but i don't see enough to make a clear and logical list, so i think this would best fit as a main-level heading. I would love to hear further suggestions, but think we should move on this soon because the article progresses, and it makes sense to get the structure right, so further editing makes the most sense. SageRad (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to continue to disagree but I think you make a good argument none the less. Others should take it under consideration when making their recommendations.  Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your point, as well. It seems to be a judgment call. As evidence against WP:RECENTISM, there is this article in the New York Times from January 2007, which shows that it's been a newsworthy part of the story of ExxonMobil for some time, and quite newsworthy at that. That's been 9 years now, perhaps enough time to judge its notability with some reliability. SageRad (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  where the "Climate denial" section. Pardon? There is no such section William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it's called "Climate change" out of some sense of politeness, but the actual central theme of this trope is "climate change denial" so i guess it was a simple slip of the mind. Thanks for looking out. To be clear, the central element of this aspect of the ExxonMobil topic is indeed their support for climate change denial, and their actions in attempting to delay public perception and governance in that regard, as reflected in the January 2007 New York Times article:
 * While it may be polite to ExxonMobil to call it "Climate change", "Climate change denial" might be more accurate. I don't see a reason to not be as accurate as we can be. SageRad (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have many separate discussions of this same point on this page, and none of them have gone your way. Trying to slip in your desired change via a "slip of the mind" won't work either William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not agree with your characterization of discussions here, and i was not trying to "slip in" anything. It was an honest slip, but it actually is supported by sources. But when it arose, i realized that the actual most honest language would be to simply say what it is. Anyway, we have consensus for "Climate change" as a category, for now, and i'm not in the mood for a long debate. It is interesting, however. SageRad (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the criticism section is deprecated generally at wikipedia, and bulking one up with additional "climate change" section, would not be a positive addition. I see no consensus for such a section. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, here we have discussed finding ways to get rid of the criticism section, and therefore where "Climate change" would fit, as it used to be under "Criticism" and now is the odd item in a list that is otherwise specific incidents. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, here we have discussed finding ways to get rid of the criticism section, and therefore where "Climate change" would fit, as it used to be under "Criticism" and now is the odd item in a list that is otherwise specific incidents. SageRad (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I previously supported inclusion of climate change activities under 'Corporate affairs' but I also agree with inclusion under 'Political activities', if and when created. But, of course, also other political activities of EM should be added to the article. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about a simple subheading under the article itself? It seems noteworthy enough to me to be a main subheading. It seems like a messy proposition to group it with anything else. It seems like it could be simplest as follows:


 * 5	Environmental record
 * 5.1	Exxon Valdez oil spill
 * 5.2	Exxon's Brooklyn oil spill
 * 5.3	Baton Rouge Refinery benzene leak
 * 5.4	Baton Rouge Refinery pipeline oil spill
 * 5.5	Yellowstone River oil spill
 * 5.6	Mayflower oil spill
 * 5.7	Sakhalin-I in the Russian Far East
 * 6	Climate change
 * 7	Human rights
 * 8	Foreign policy

SageRad (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your proposal. The above proposed outline non-neutrally endorses the point of view that greenhouse gases are not a pollutant. Just because carbon dioxide is odorless and colorless and is not black and sticky does not mean that this content and these reliable sources are not a key aspect of the environmental record. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hugh, of course i know that carbon dioxide (and methane) in this context are a pollutant, in that these gases have negatively affected the ecology. My reasoning is that:
 * The climate change denial part of the story is not on a par with specific local spills and incidents.
 * In the list under "Environmental record", a more significant aspect of the subject, according to weight conferred by coverage in media, is misrepresented. As a main-level subheading, this aspect of the story that is so central to what defines ExxonMobil in the world, as serving the reader best in their use of Wikipedia, would be best served.
 * The fewer sub-levels in a table of content, the easier to take in the article for the reader.
 * I hope you can consider these points. I'm really trying to make the article as neutral and easy to read as possible. Of course i agree with you that greenhouse gases are a pollutant and do affect the environment, but that's very clear in the section's text. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and your contributions to this article and talk page discussions. In particular, thank you for your bold commitment to neutrality in rescuing the subtopic of the well-documented climate change related activities of the subject of this article from burial under "Criticisms." In terms of easy to read, I think including the well-documented climate change related activities of the subject of this article under environmental record makes it easier to read. Placing this subtopic outside the environmental record section exposes our readers to the possibility that they might skim the environmental section, find nothing on the subject of this article's well-documented activities to slow our specie's response to the understanding and regulation of greenhouse gases, and arrive at a false impression that they understand the environmental record of the subject of this article, and leave with an incomplete understanding. As far as "on a par," already the subtopics under environmental record are not on a par the each other in terms of impact. As far as number of section headings, that is not changed regardless of where a particular subtopic is placed. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh, i fully hear your comments, and understand them, but oddly, the list under "Environmental record" is the one place where i would not like to see the section on climate change. I think it's actually buried there, in a way. It's also a much different thing than the other items of that list. The others are incidents. The many aspects of ExxonMobil in regard to climate change are a long political story about the company's intentional doings, whereas the accidents are just that -- accidents. They may be the result of negligence but they were not intentional and not political in the same way that the company's support for climate change denial was. They were time-specific in regard to weight, whereas the climate change story is very long-term, both in media coverage as well as in global import. In terms of section heading organization, by eliminating the "Criticism" container, we do in fact reduce the count by one, as well as reduce the amount of nesting, which in my experience makes an article easier to read. Lastly, i personally like "Criticism" sections but they're deprecated and so we can work toward removing that section by making "Climate change" a top-level category, and the other contents of "Criticism" could be the same, pending further discussion. Thank you for a civil discussion. I appreciate it. SageRad (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, i would prefer the "Climate change" heading be called "Climate change denial" as you can see in above dialog, but i don't think that would fly right now with some other editors. I don't think we'd find an easy consensus for that. But i think that would be the ideal structure for this article, making the reality most accessible for WP:READERSFIRST. SageRad (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If the climate change section is broad, not just criticism then I think I would be OK with that. My impression is not 100% of EM's activities related to climate change are negative.  Also, if there are reasonable groups that say things like "EM's concerns are legit" etc then those should be included along with the criticism.  Note that this section should be quite short (at least the denial part of it) since there is now a specific article on the subject.    Springee (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Truly, not all of ExxonMobil's climate change related doings have been about denial. The support for denial is probably the most notable part, but the section as it currently stands does begin with ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change has varied over the decades. From the late 1970s through the 1980s, Exxon funded research broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. And as it currently stands, the amount of content on climate change denial is brief as it does point to the other article on the ExxonMobil climate change controversy. I would definitely want the section to retain the same "Main article" tag, as that controversy is the main aspect of "Climate change" as relates to ExxonMobil. Shall we do this change? I don't want to jump the gun, but also don't want to let things hang too long. SageRad (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would wait a day or so for more feedback. I would have said if you get no objections then go for it but HughD voiced concerns.  Let's see what others say but if there are no strong objections they I would say go for it.  Note, for future reference I think it would fit better in a Political subsection instead of a main section but if we don't have other political material to fill that section then the only subsection gets promoted to a section.  So if other political activities material is added I may change my view.  Springee (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Refined subsection structure proposal

Environmental record
 * Spills and leaks
 * Exxon Valdez oil spill
 * Exxon's Brooklyn oil spill
 * Baton Rouge Refinery benzene leak
 * Baton Rouge Refinery pipeline oil spill
 * Yellowstone River oil spill
 * Mayflower oil spill
 * Sakhalin-I in the Russian Far East
 * Climate change denial

What do you think? Hugh (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I lean towards opposing this structure. First, "climate change denial" inherently limits any discussion of Exxon and climate to denial.  It sounds like not all of their climate related activities would fit into that category.  Second, climate change is very much a political activity.  Even if there is full agreement on the science the question of what to do is a political one.  Lobbying efforts related to climate change are relevant to this subject area.  Lobbying against say a carbon tax is not denial yet should be discussed.  Research into ways to reduce greenhouse gas output would also fit into this section.  I agree with SageRad that even the largest of oil spills are not political actions.  They are also for the most part local in their impact (local might be all of the Gulf of Mexico but that isn't global).  Furthermore, now that we have a separate article on the climate change denial activities the climate change denial section in this article should really be no more than a paragraph with a pointer to the new article.  EM's efforts related to carbon taxation, carbon credits/exchanges, policies, even non-denial research should fill the rest of the Climate Change section.  Springee (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * At the moment I don't support this structure proposal but rather for some specific issues and not because I disagree with the general approach. My first concern is the third level sections which may be sometimes useful, but usually splitting the topic too much. At the same time I think that having the second level section named 'Oil spills' would be useful. As I already mentioned somewhere above (and we need to maintain the talk page readable to find information), we are missing the important information about the number of leaks (e.g. per year), about the amount of leaked oil (e.g. per year) and comparison with other oil majors. At the same time the current list of oil spill subsections is not representative and has a problem with WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Some of them like Mayflower and Yellowstone made a large headlines but actually were rather limited accidents while some older and several times larger accidents are missing. Therefore, combining leaks into a single subsection would be good idea (but, of course, we should preserve all links to the more specific articles about these accidents. We also need a separate subsection about different emissions (not only emissions, but all others, caused mainly by refineries. And one issue is related to the section title about climate change. I think that the present title is a good compromise. Beagel (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support the proposal to get rid of the criticism section. Beagel (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support of a reduced criticism section, that means a lot to me. Best is to integrate controversies, that's what we do. The volume of an oil spill is certainly noteworthy, but is not determinative in terms of article coverage; coverage in reliable sources is. It may seem counter-intuitive at first but in Wikipedia a small spill with large coverage is due more weight than a large spill with less. Three levels of subheading is nothing to be avoided, it is fully supported by our MOS, and is an aide to our readers in navigation MOS:BODY. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not due to WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Beagel (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Made a change
I made a bold move to simplify the article's structure, getting rid of the "Criticism" section as everyone has agreed on, and made "Climate change" a main-level heading. I also renamed the long section to "Geopolitical influence" as i think that's the actual abstract noun for the main point of that section. I hope you find it useful. Please discuss. SageRad (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)