Talk:ExxonMobil climate change denial/Archive 1

Origin of this article as a split from ExxonMobil
This article is the product of a group discussion on splitting the ExxonMobil article to make it more concise, and to be able to include more details in this sub-article that would nicely fit into the main article about the company. SageRad (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this section needs a proper introductory paragraph. Any one want to volunteer? Springee (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

, as was discussed here with your involvement, the best source for the statements made in a report by the UCS is the actual report. Unless someone is claiming the entire reference should be removed there is no reason to use the NYT short article as the reference. Replacing the link to the report with one to an article means you are no longer linking to the most reliable source for the claim. Linking to both in a case when the weight of the claim isn't being questioned is OVERCITE. Doing this after just going through the process in the last few days on the parent article is bludgeoning. Please be respectful of the process. Springee (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Funding
I suggest to move the funding related content to its own section. prokaryotes (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ExxonMobil's grant making activity is one of if not the most significant subtopics of this article, with numerous noteworthy reliable sources for sue weight. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok :) Does this mean you approve of moving all the tidbits about funding to a separate section? prokaryotes (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. Maybe eventually. Right now the funding is just one paragraph. I would like to try to avoid one paragraph subsections. The context of a major corporation with significant research and expertise in climate and understanding of climate is important context for the funding of climate denial as per multiple reliable sources. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV, subheading title
"Era of leadership in climate change denial" is not a NPOV title. The previous time frame title should be used. Springee (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree these section titles are not helpful or neutral. Its not only Early greenhouse gas research, and i dont like the Era ... section name at all. Personally i prefer year numbers and as i suggested above, new sections on funding, i.e. Funding of climate change denial, or something like that. prokaryotes (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Move?
User:HughD moved page ExxonMobil climate change controversy to ExxonMobil climate change related activites, giving as reason more accurate title given arctile contents. I'm not terribly convinced by that; also moving a page known to be controversial without even pretending to consult is very rude, so I've undone it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The editing is contentious among some Wikipedians, but the article content is not controversy or controversial. For example, the article does not include a criticisms or controversy section. The content is not a description of a controversy. The content is activities of a corporation, a neutral balanced telling of well-documented events in the history of ExxonMobil. The events are generally supported by summarization across multiple reliable sources. "Controversy" in the title non-neutrally connotes doubt about the article content. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "ExxonMobil climate change controversy" over "ExxonMobil climate change related activities" because it's easier to say and declares a "controversy" at least, which indicates some criticism. Truly, the honest to goodness title would be "ExxonMobil climate change denial" as that is what the article is actually about. What say we? SageRad (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article content justifies "controversy" in the title. Nothing in the article is controversial or describes a controversy. The events and activities described are not contested in reliable sources. The closest this article comes to controversy is Exxon denying funding climate denial, completely expected, completely unsurprising; again, not controversial. The story may read as exposing some aspects corporate hypocrisy, with respect to the differential between what the corporation knew compared with how it behaved in public, but that does not justify an article title of "controversy." The last paragraph reports on the initiation of two investigations, again without engaging in any controversy. Please do not confuse material perhaps considered by some as unflattering toward a subject as necessarily a controversy. We should here endeavour to avoid the the same mistaken editorial judgement that recently got this material incorrectly exiled to a "criticism" section in the parent article.  Titles ending in "controversy" should be reserved for articles which document controversies. This article does not. Hugh (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The existing article title was the result of a discussion here . Change the title without even notifying the other editors is tendentious editing.  I certainly do not support any unilateral title change. Springee (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hugh, I agree with you entirely... but I also hate "ExxonMobil climate change related activities". It's bulky and generic and doesn't really get to the heart of what we're describing. Do we have other options? I can't think of one I'm in love with.
 * ExxonMobile's history on climate change
 * ExxonMobile's position on climate change.
 * ExxonMobile lobbying on climate change.
 * just "ExxonMobil climate change activities" would be better, but I'm hopeful there's something better. Any ideas?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 #1. ExxonMobile's history on climate change Thanks for the ideas. Fundamentally it's "history." "Positions" non-neutrally under-represents the content, it's not just positions it's events and activities, documented stuff EM did. Lobbying is only part of the story. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The main thing here is ExxonMobil's climate change denial. There are some details other than that, but it's mainly to situate that. Denial is the main noun here, the main subject. It's what caused the article to be split -- the huge amount of sources and material on their climate change denial activities. And it's the main thing about this. That is a controversy, of sorts, because that's the more polite way to say it. We should not have to be polite, either. We should call a WP:SPADE a spade. So, i say let's call it "ExxonMobil's climate change denial" and be done with it. I'm seriously against all the other alternatives proposed above. Remember that "neutral" in Wikipedia's policy WP:NPOV means "representing reality as best possible according to reliable sources". SageRad (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We've already been through that. NPOV section headings logic applies to NPOV article titles too William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We can continue to discuss. We've not already been through this specific discussion, and we can talk more about it even if we have. So, let's discuss it.
 * You reference WP:NPOV, but WP:NPOV means that headings and content follow sources, without apologism or superficial politeness to water down the actual content. "Neutral" in the NPOV guidelines means "following sources accurately with due weight" and the sources on this topic indeed do simply call it "ExxonMobil's climate change denial", so to follow sources -- to be neutral in Wikipedia's special usage of the word -- is to say it like it is, to call a spade a WP:SPADE. To not do so is non-neutral, in fact. It is to bias the POV in favor of the corporate agenda. We call it what it is, or else it's POV. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article only exists because the activities are controversial. In fact, ExxonMobil's activities are particularly controversial, as the article clearly establishes. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. We should not conflate "controversial" with "noteworthy" or "considered unflattering to the subject by some." For example, it is not controversial that EM outfitted a supertanker as a science lab. No reliable source says they didn't do it, or that it was a bad thing to do. No reliable sources say that EM's lobbyist did not try to get the US delegation to the IPCC fired, and no reliable sources say it was a good or bad idea. No independent reliable sources says Exxon did not fund climate denial, and no reliable source says it was a good move. There's simply no controversy, certainly not enough to justify "controversy" in the title. What there is is noteworthy events. WP has many "...controversy" articles and this is not one of them; fundamentally this is a history article, a neutral balanced telling of related events. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What aspect of the history is most central in this article? SageRad (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the nut of this article is the funding of denial. However, that's not all there is. I don't know but I imagine our readers will be coming to this article, why is NY investigating EM? or, what's all this about what EM knew and when they knew it? Denial is too narrow to do the topics justice. As soon as we call it denial someone will demand a split of for example the research. This is a good example of where denial, research, grant making, lobbying, and grassroots lobbying are better treated as one article. The research is integral context for the denial activities. We are fishing around for a terse title that reasonably encompasses diverse but closely related activities, best so far is simply "history." Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So let's call it what it is. This article split from the ExxonMobil article because of this very nut, which gained a lot of press and details that was too long for the main article. That's what the article is about. There is a topic of focus and we can stick to it without losing the forest for the trees. SageRad (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * HughD, Some of your arguments are reasonable. However, you used the exact opposite arguments when trying to OVERCITE several references.  Furthermore, unilaterally changing the article title was disruptive.  I would suggest proposing a few titles and then explaining what should fit within the scope of each title.  I think your concern about "controversy" is valid but I also think that we should be careful about creating an article that might be based on a large number of unproven accusations.  I haven't read the sources so I can't say which are solid and which are more questionable.  Regardless, if you are going to claim that we don't have a "controversy" here please don't use "controversy" to justify edits in other places.  Also, please note that general climate research conducted by EM was discussed in the parent article and the consensus of the time was that such material would go there.  This article was only about accusations/evidence of climate change related lobbying etc.  Basically if you want to change the scope of this article the best place to do it is at the parent article where the scope of this article was defined. Springee (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please start your own thread for your personal concerns regarding citation. By now our whole project understands you feel all my contributions are disruptive, you need not repeat yourself over and over. Please read the sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Should climate research collaboration be in this article or the parent?
If the research collaboration is done in a positive way (not denial but legitimation research), shouldn't that information fit in the parent article per the parent talk page reasons for splitting this article off? I recall that being part of the discussion at the time. Springee (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EM climate research is included in multiple reliable sources on EM's climate change related activities. Multiple reliable sources recognize that it is important for their readers to understand EM's climate expertise as inextricable context for understanding EM's later and concurrent funding of climate denial and lobbying against regulation. You recently swept through this section and deleted some of these reliable source references with no consensus and with no basis in policy or guideline. I look forward to collaborating with you to improve the coverage of the broader topic of ExxonMobil's many diverse research activities at the ExxonMobil article and talk page. Please take this suggestion there. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Being in RS doesn't mean it should be in this article. The scope of the articles to which you are referring (without specific examples) doesn't define the scope of this WP article.  The examples of OVERCITE I removed did not change the content of the article.  If the removed sources had extra information that was important then that material should be added. Springee (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What has happened
The lede used to be:

The lede is now:

What happened over time is that this article used to be focused and now has become generalized. It used to be about the most significant aspect of this history, the aspect that has a huge amount of reliable sources speaking to it, and the aspect that is the reason why this article split in the first place.

The definition of this article has changes over time in a significant way, to encompassing everything about the history of ExxonMobil and climate change, and therefore the focus has changes. I support changing it back to the original focus.

This is what we get from lack of calling a spade a WP:SPADE and this is the cascade effect of being too polite and not just calling this article ExxonMobil's support for climate change denial.

Anyway, i support following policies and guidelines and restoring this article's focus, and changing its name to the most obvious accurate noun that describes the topic. No more beating around the bushes to be "polite" for the sake of a company's interests. We have the interests of the readers of the world at stake and we are not here to be "polite" to any "side" in a conflict. SageRad (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't waste all of our time with i support following policies. We all do. It's just pointless waste-of-time boilerplate William M. Connolley (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I think either title is better or worse. I do support the narrower definition of the article topic.  It was not split off to be an article for anything that EM did that might be climate change related.  I agree that the Natuna gas field section is out of place since it has never been developed.  The one place where I would suggest caution is the spade part.  Most of the sources here are not sympathetic to the company.  That can result in honest bias in what they report.  As an example, I saw the Greenpeace article that claimed EM was still giving to denialist politicians.  This was used as proof that EM is still promoting denialist.  The problem with such a claim is we don't know why EM donated to those candidates.  Consider this hypothetical example.  A close senate race in OK, candidate A is for a pipeline that EM has been wanting for years.  Candidate B is against that pipeline.  A is bearish on things like Kyoto for various detailed reasons.  So A gets labeled as "denialist" by GP simply because they didn't embrace a treaty they felt was problematic.  EM wants A not because of a global warming position but because they support a pipeline project.  GP says money given to candidate A was "funding denial candidates".  This sort of thing happens a lot in political life.  Many who were against the Affordable Care Act were labeled as against health care reform when in fact they were against the specific bill, not reform in general.  Anyway, my point is we should limit the scope but we should also be neutral in our reporting and remember that many of the people reporting may be looking for a story as much as trying to be honest in their reporting.  (As another example of this sort of thing look at how GM and the saddle mount gas tank controversy was handled by the media before and after GM proved Dateline rigged their test) Narrow but neutral is how we should play it. Springee (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for comments and contributions to this article and others. It is conceivable that the topic of EM's support for climate change denial will grow and in turn be split off from here! But I hope you will agree that our best most recent sources all position the topic of EM's support for climate change denial firmly in the context of a sophisticated scientific understanding, and Wikipedia should, too. BTW In my humble experience it is something of a Wikipedia faux paus to express concern for the state of world on a Wikipedia article talk page; readers, sure, but the wider world, no. I understand your observation that some article edits and talk page commentary may be interpreted as favorable to EM. I hope you will continue to engage on improving this article. Please add content and references that support your view (body first). The lede and the title are not going anywhere. I look forward to collaborating with you here and elsewhere. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The new lede is more detailed, which is good in my book. Specifically the this here "surrounds allegations", sounds misleading. prokaryotes (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. This is what comes from reluctance to call a spade a spade. SageRad (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Please, let us collaborate together on the body, in particular the support for climate denial. Grab one of the possible sources listed above or another. Write in article space! Later we can tweak the lede and title. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2008 and onward timeline
I just removed a couple of in-text attributions here and here. I did this because i believe that for facts, the citation is enough to show the source, and brevity is key to readability. For opinions or judgment calls, i think that in-text attribution can be useful, but for facts i think the fact itself is usually enough. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, so if you think otherwise, please revert and give the edit reason. SageRad (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a sufficiently strong source for facts that in-text attribution is unnecessary and distracting. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seams reasonable to me. I'm not sure that sentence currently reads better.  It does seem to be a textual juxtaposition to have the Mother Jones opinion followed by a scholarly statement that what MJ said was no longer true.  What are we expecting the reader to get out of that paragraph?  What I read was as of 2008-2009 things were in flux.  I don't think the version with MJ called out reads as nicely as the way SageRad left things.  Springee (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to kind of go back on what I just said. In reading the whole paragraph I honestly think the way I rewrote it was better than as it stands.  Here is the issue.  Before I made changes the paragraph had 4 sentences and read something like the old joke about "that's good, that's bad, that's good, that's bad".  We start off with the Guardian saying that Exxon was backing away from funding disinformation.  Then we have the Guardian saying that wasn't the case.  We follow that with the rather randomly placed MJ opinion reference then finally a scholar who's research says EM did back away from disinformation.  Note that the scholar's work comes out before MJ which actually draw's the MJ work into question.  Anyway, I tried get the paragraph to flow together better.  It was important to say the Guardian was the source of the "they are better... wait not they aren't" statements because it's basically the same source saying things were not as they said a year earlier.  The MJ article is simply an accusation and seems to only exist in this paragraph because it has the same year.  The best way to make it flow was to state the two "that's bads" back to back.  Since MJ was just a statement of opinion the name of the source is less important.  Finally, since we mention the scholar several times his view which contrasts the others is significant.  It supports the mixed message that we are seeing in 2009.  Note that this attempt to make the paragraph flow better resulted in a bad faith accusation of edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried another version of the paragraph. Please let me know what you guys think.  I believe it flows better than my earlier version.  Springee (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , The section you are editing is being discussed on the talk page. Please try discussing your changes.  BRD, we are now at the discuss part of the process.  You claim that adding the single word "However" was OR .  That is VERY questionable.  Please self revert the edit.  Springee (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, i renamed this talk page section to discuss this topic, as this is what it's become. I made this edit to correct a misinterpretation of the Guardian story. Previously the content said that ExxonMobil was still funding such organizations in 2009, but the article really refers to the financial data from the 2008 year. I inserted a "but" to make a contrast to the other claim by the Greenpeace source. I also changed the attribution from "Brulle" to "a Frontline report" to be more understandable to the lay reader. I hope these make sense to everyone. Still i suppose there is more to work out as to the timeline of 2008 onward in regard to ExxonMobil's funding or lack thereof of climate denial organizations. SageRad (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (Other editors may note that the above edit actually is to the benefit of ExxonMobil's image, and may show that i am dedicated to accuracy and reality, and not to pushing a POV, in case that was suspected by anyone here.) SageRad (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for this edit which expanded the attribution to the Frontline article to be more accurate. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite HughD's bad faith accusation that I "feel all of his edits are negative" (or something like that), I also agree that he was right to attribute the statements to Brulle, not Frontline. Springee (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Exxon's replies
EM has a website where they have replied to some of the claims made by InsideClimate News. A quick search and it's clear EM has replied to several of the ICN articles used in this WP article. I haven't checked for other reports or looked in depth into EM's arguments. Either way, if EM has replied to any of the facts we have quoted from the various articles then we should include those replies as well. Yes, they are not RS in terms of fact but they are RS with regards to what the company has to say about specific allegations. Certainly this should be seen as the arguments put up by the defendant but it would be a horrible article that refuses to publish the counter arguments of the defendant. Springee (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Exxon and ICN are essentially equivalent but opposite in terms of "fact" in this discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Questionable or weak references
OVERCITE has been an issue with this article so far. This is a list of citations that we should probably look at replacing. That doesn't mean the citations contain bad information but that the citations aren't authoritative. A typical example is a new source that is reporting on the content of a report by an organization, effectively acting as a repeater for the primary source. These should only be used if weight is in question. I've also noted links which reside behind paywalls as they are often difficult to verify. (Note if other issues with sources come up those can also be listed here)


 * Herrick, Thaddeus (August 29, 2001). "Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's Stance On Global Warming Causes a Stir". The Wall Street Journal. : Paywall, limited access.


 * Lorenzetti, Laura (September 16, 2015). "Exxon has known about climate change since the 1970s". Fortune. Retrieved October 14, 2015. : This is a short article that basically quotes PBS's Frontline then tells readers to watch the show. It's cited 3 times.  Citations should probably just be replaced with links to Frontline report.
 * Removed per OVERCITE in all 3 cases. Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Former Exxon Employee Says Company Considered Climate Risks as Early as 1981; New Report Finds that Despite Decades of Scientific Warnings, Fossil Fuel Companies Continued to Mislead Public, Policymakers". Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of Concerned Scientists. July 8, 2015. Retrieved January 23, 2016. : This is a press release by the UCS promoting a UCS report. We should link to the report directly (link provided in the article:


 * "Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved April 24, 2009. : 404 Error. This would appear to be another press release by the UCS discussing another of their own reports.  I think we already have this link elsewhere in the article.
 * Removed per OVERCITE and as a dead link Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Royal Society and ExxonMobil". The Royal Society. Retrieved April 24, 2009. : Bad link
 * Removed per OVERCITE and as a dead link Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved October 15, 2015. : Duplicate link


 * "Exxon still funding Climate Change Deniers" (Press release). Greenpeace. May 18, 2007. Retrieved 30 September 2012. : This one looks to be on the weaker side of things. However, my quick skim isn't enough to say one way or the other.


 * Harkinson, Josh (December 7, 2009). "The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine. This is effectively a lead in for the other Harkinson article.  Only one of the two should be retained since they are in effect the same article.
 * Removed per OVERCITE. The material about EM is contained in the link to the other Harkinson article.  This one adds nothing of value. Springee (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Exxon Mobil Acknowledges Climate Change Risk - You Read That Correctly". Investing.com. 1 April 2014. : Duplicate citation

I've noticed that InsideClimateNews.com is cited quite a bit. How reliable are they in terms of presenting a complete vs an advocacy POV on an issue? Springee (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * InsideClimate News has a Pulitzer in their office and is generally regarded as a reliable source. Deleting supporting mainstream sources such as the general press and the business press may not be your best tactic for your case against InsideClimate News. You are misapplying essay WP:OVERCITE. We editors are expected to carefully consider whether addition noteworthy content may be drawn from a source before removing a source contributed to an article by a colleague. We editors are asked specifically NOT to remove a reference with a bad link. Sources need not be available online for free. But you know all this. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you have shown they are reputable. I asked because much of the WP article is based on several of their reports.  I did not misapply overcite but you are welcome to bring up examples where you think I did.  The bad links were removed primarily because they were not needed due to the strength of the other links.  Please do not accuse others of bad faith. Springee (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been doing some additional searching regarding ICN and similar sources. While a Pulitzer is certainly something to be proud of we shouldn't forget that Mother Jones got one for their Ford Pinto reporting.  In retrospect most of the Pinto article turned out to be misleading and false.  However, the degree to which the Pinto article was garbage wasn't really obvious until years after the Pulitzer was handed out and MJ's sloppy work had caused great and largely unjust harm to Ford.  We should always be careful when dealing with sources that are trying to be "unbiased reporters" yet are also advocating a position.  Here are some articles discussing that concern, .  Here is an article discussing specific concerns with ICN .  I'm placing this stuff here not because it should go in the article but mostly to remind that ICN should probably be treated as a RS but perhaps not a very reliable source when we are reporting on their interpretations/views (as opposed to direct quotes).  Springee (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, please don't edit your comments in a way that changes their meaning/scope after someone replies to the comment. Note that when I said the content was behind a pay wall I didn't say removed it.  I only suggested that if the information existed in a more available RS then perhaps we should use that instead.  Please cut out the accusations.  Springee (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked, "InsideClimateNews.com ... How reliable are they" then seemed to be unaware of their Pulitzer. I thought this was odd because their Pulitzer is mentioned in the banner in the header of every page of their website, and also mentioned in the 3rd sentence of our project's own article for your reference located at InsideClimate News. It is almost as if you raised questions regarding the reliability of this source at article talk without reading any sources, or even the most rudimentary of due diligence on your own part. For your information another thing most of us would have done is search the WP:RSN archives. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, Mother Jones got a Pulitzer for the Pinto article which has turned out to be almost total BS. I raised the question initially because they are not a mainstream news source.  I later brought it up again because I've found several articles that are question their objectivity.  One talked about their cloaked funding (an issue you have raised when talking about conservative organizations).  The other talked about the potential for COI when an advocacy group is also acting as the reporter.  The ExxonMobil site also offers a number of replies to ICN articles.  We should add those later.  Please drop the accusations of bad faith.  They don't help your arguments.  Springee (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Springee, an unavailable link is not per se a reason to delete, content is stored in web archives, or the URL changed. Either tag unavailable content or make a google search. prokaryotes (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that just being a dead link isn't a good reason to get rid of it. However, if you look at what the links I removed were actually supporting or stating removing shouldn't have been an issue.  One, to the best of my ability to tell, was linking to a report that we cite elsewhere.  Thus nothing was lost when we cut the citations down.  The other I would have to go back and double check but I recall it was to a summary of a letter/report rather than to the exact report.  Again it was one of a large number of sources and thus should have been cut as OVERCITE anyway.  Springee (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential sources
h/t


 * Weart ✅ he doesn't discuss Exxon much, except to identify it as the largest company still funding in denial in the early 2000s. Integrated.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hamilton
 * Monbiot
 * Sample
 * Goldenburg
 * Farrell
 * The Royal Society via secondary sources The Guardian and InsideClimate News Hugh (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Gore
 * Antilla
 * Revkin
 * UCS
 * Banerjee (InsideClimate News) Hugh (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lorenzetti Hugh (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whitman (International Business Times) Hugh (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Herrick
 * Mooney (Mother Jones, 2005) Hugh (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Foley (The Independent, October 20, 2015) Hugh (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mann ✅ A few mentions of funding, which can replace theguardian/etc as sourcing, but that's about it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Washington
 * Oreskes
 * Dunlap/McCright - ✅ A few passages on stock prices, one mention of Exxon's lead in climate change denial, and discussion of Exxon's role in spreading climate change denial internationally. I incorporated the last bit.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Farmer/Cook - ✅ Verifies amount Exxon gave between 1997 and 2007 to denial organizations. Integrated in place of the guardian.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hogan
 * Sinden
 * Begley
 * Jacques/Dunlap/Freeman
 * Brulle via secondary source Frontline interview Hugh (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fischer
 * |Warrick Links to Yale paper talking about studying the impact of corporate funding on climate change denial. Exxon mention is tertiary but the article seems to get to the real scientific proof that explains how companies fund denial efforts.  (This is not a pro-Exxon source)

Collaborations welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hugh! About 1/3 should already be integrated, since I pulled them from the EM article. We should be able to get new content from Weart, Mann and Dunlap in particular. They were pretty instrumental to improving climate change denial. I'll see if I can put some time together to pull quotes from each and start integrating.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ExxonMobil Perspecitives: An EM run blog where the company posts official replies to various topics including several of the sources above.
 * Politico expressed concerns over the quality of reporting in the major LA Times and ICN stories about Exxon. Springee (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles from EM which respond directly to several sources which this WP article draws on heavily:
 * Fox guarding the henhouse at Columbia
 * More backtracking by InsideClimate News
 * When it comes to climate change, read the documents
 * More climate history distortion (LA Times and Columbia University related)
 * ExxonMobil’s commitment to climate science Springee (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sources which discuss the politics and other issues associated with the NY ATG and other government lawsuits.
 * | William Connolley comparing EM to Peabody
 * | Robert Samuelson discussing free speech concerns related to the cases
 * |New York Attorney General Turns up the Heat on Exxon Mobil
 * | New York's dangerous crusade against ExxonMobil: Bloomberg View
 * |Eric Schneiderman Vs. Exxon Mobil
 * |New York Attorney General Goes After Exxon Mobil on Climate-change Stance
 * |Pseudo-Historians Erase Scientists’ Early Caution on Global Warming Springee (talk)
 * | Everything You Need to Know About the Exxon Climate Change Probe Springee (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil posted a critical response to the LA Times article...
Using the response is right. But its in the wrong section, and therefore incomprehensible. Because all the text in the previous paragraph is anodyne ; Exxon isn't responding to those bits William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am open to better integration. Really that applies to most of the article.  I stand by my earlier criticism that the article currently reads like a dump of facts taken almost exclusively from sources that are negative on EM.  I also think we are getting to the point where trimming is in order.  This is especially true of the intro sections which really don't support the basic claim of the article.  Springee (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * my earlier criticism that the article currently reads like a dump of facts taken almost exclusively from sources that are negative on EM - I agree. Not only that, but there is a tendency to source all statements - even quasi-neutral statements - from critical ICN coverage. Its like people are reading nothing but ICN William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Springee (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. InsideClimate News is a news agency. The content sourced to ICN sources is factual, the result of investigative journalism, not editorial opinions. Please do not confuses content you consider unflattering to the subject of the article, or content the subject of the article might object to, with criticism. Specific ICN-sourced content of concern can be supplemented with additional citation to noteworthy reliable sources and to primary documents, if necessary. Also, again, respectfully, you may consider raising your concerns at WP:RSN. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor doth protest too much, methinks. ICN is an advocacy group that is also acting as a news agency.  In general I agree with you but if ExxonMobil says the material was cherry picked and provides evidence then I think there is just cause to give more weight to both sides.  Also, we really should be careful when multiple sources are effectively basing their investigation of the investigation of ICN.  In this case WC is expressing reasonable caution while you seem to be taking his statements, and mine, and trying to create an extreme strawman in order to discredit any sources that don't embrace ICN's views.  Springee (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Specific concerns of bias with regard to InsideClimate News-sourced content can be easily addressed through supplemental citations to independent noteworthy reliable sources and to primary documents, if necessary. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what WC suggested we should do. Springee (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ICN's coverage seems reasonable and comprehensive. Would I use them to cite controversial statements that conflicted with other sources? Of course not. But I don't know of anything we're sourcing from ICN that isn't also indicated by another independent source. William, can you give me an example of something from the article sourced to ICN that's given too much weight? I don't disagree that our sourcing needs to be improved - that's being worked on - but I can only do so much in a given day. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about weight in this regard. What I'm pointing out it that references to even neutral or uncontroversial statements are routinely being sourced to sources that are strongly - in my view, too strongly - critical of Exxon. ICN is very clearly not neutral when it comes to Exxon; they hate it. They are also rather poor at understanding how climate research works, which means they've misunderstood much of what Exxon did (a point accepted here and now, I think; at least many of the corrections I've made haven't been challenged). My own views are somewhat written down, e.g. in http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/09/16/what-exxon-knew-and-when/ (note to the hard of thinking: no, I'm not proposing using that as a source) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "ICN is very clearly not neutral when it comes to Exxon; they hate it." May I respectfully ask, what is your evidence that ICN hates Exxon? ICN acquired and reviewed many documents, and interviewed participants, and reported facts that may be considered unflattering to Exxon, but I see no evidence that ICN hates Exxon. When investigative journalism targets a subject, and their report is not glowing, it does not mean the investigative news team hates the subject. Hugh (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have recently endeavoured to improve the sourcing of our article to address the concerns expressed here at article talk by some regarding the Pulitzer Prize winning source InsideClimate News, by identifying content sourced solely to ICN, and adding additional, supplemental citations to independent secondary sources and relevant primary source documents. More often than not, I found that content sourced solely to ICN was sourced solely to ICN because corroborating noteworthy relevant reliable sources had been recently removed. Often, I found my contributions to improving the sourcing of our article by adding supplemental citations to independent secondary sources and relevant primary source documents were quickly reverted. I believe adding corroborating sources is a reasonable, measured, collegial response to sourcing concerns. I believe misapplication of WP:OVERCITE is contributing to the sourcing concerns of some. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First, your accusatory statements do not AGF. Second, your claims regarding OVERCITE are long on proclamations but short on detail.  I have tried to explain each example of OVERCITE that I've acted on.  You certainly haven't explained how, for example, adding a second article by the same authors blusters the claims of the first, especially when no editors were claiming the first was wrong.  If PBS and ICN work together to produce an investigation then the two news articles covering the same investigation can't be considered independent corroboration of the facts.  Furthermore, if a secondary source doesn't actually support the claim being made it SHOULD be removed. I would suggest a better use of editing efforts would be taking the current mash up of article bites and turning them into a cohesive article while also working to remove copy-paste and close paraphrase examples from the article.  Another area for work is better integrating EM and other critical responses to some of the information in the article.  The article talks about the New York and other state lawsuits attacking EM but lacks any information from sources critical of the motivation behind those suits.  Finally, the early research and operational sections need to be recombined and greatly reduced.  What is sufficient for that part of the article is to convey that ExxonMobil was working on climate related research even in the 1970s and their scientists were concerned about POTENTIAL, but as of yet very uncertain possible future scenarios.  Springee (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A reminder, citation serves our core principles of neutrality, including noteworthiness, also known as due weight, as well as verifiability. Our project prefers secondary sources that support due weight, authorizes multiple citations for controversial topics, and allows primary sources that support verifiability. A primary source may perfectly satisfy verifiability, while offering little support for noteworthiness; a secondary source paired with a primary source is a common citation pattern on our project. Removing corroborating neutral, noteworthy citations to reliable sources, while at the same time disputing the due weight of content or the reliability of sources, may be considered tendentious. A reminder, this topic is under active discretionary sanctions, and exemplary editorial behavior is expected. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've stuffed far too many biased references into this article without even attempting any form of balance. You need to stop doing that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are asked not to edit article space to make a point or teach someone a lesson. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "without even attempting any form of balance" Your perception is inaccurate. I added "reputation for expertise," "more than 50 peer reviewed papers," "Exxon denied wrongdoing," "Exxon denied concealing," "no position on IPCC chair" and many other balancing edits. Please help us all focus on content here on this article talk page and kindly refrain from gross inaccurate mis-characterizations of your collaborators' contributions. Make your case for your preferred balancing edits without personal attacks, please. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the content currently reads:

... but there is no prior reference to the LA Times article. I assume it's still in progress, so if this is fixed, you have my permission to delete this comment. SageRad (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The LA Times was specifically noted earlier but WC, not without merit, felt that the comment about the LA Times was too remote from the reply. EMP is actually replying to the specific LA Times article and related content but currently I put the reply in a later paragraph to avoid an instant reversion.  I think the better solution would be integrate it right after the presentation of the material.  I also think the history and operations sections are way too long and contain a lot of unneeded information.  The whole section should be summed up with just a few lines stating that EM was an acknowledged and respected research entity during the 70s and 80s.  That would be what might be called the early to mid climate change research period.  The rest of the section, talk about gas fields etc (and the EMP replies to those discussions) really aren't relevant to the central topic of the article.  Let's cut them.  Also, WC is correct, HughD has been packing useless citations into the article left and right.  It's bad when it was 4 sources to support 1 uncontroversial statement.  It's really bad when the newly added sources DON'T support the statement.  Springee (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * William, regarding the "critical" nature of the sources... I would expect many of our sources to be critical of Exxon. The article is devoted to a controversy for which Exxon has received significant criticism. It isn't Exxon Mobile, which contains many unopinionated sources discussing its name, and budget, and programs. This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon, their actions that led up to that criticism, and their response to the criticism. So yes, the sources we're using are often critical. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to misrepresent your position. You think our sourcing should be improved, and I agree. Mann, Farmer/Cook, Weart, Dunlap, the NYTimes, and so on are a lot better than the guardian and ICN, and we should incorporate such sources whenever possible. But I also think you're identifying red flags that maybe aren't quite as red as they seem.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon...: no. It is about the controversy. Inevitably a fair amount of it will be critical. But also, please, read what I said, and what Springee has also said: that people are packing in citations merely because those citations are critical; not because they are useful references for statements being made William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding a secondary source to a primary source is useful. Adding corroborating sources to challenged content is useful. Adding noteworthy sources to content challenged as undue is useful. Please provide a diff of a citation added "merely because" it is critical. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "no. It is about the controversy." Yes, and it wouldn't be a "controversy" without criticism. I can't tell if you understood my point. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm certainly not adding sources "merely because they are critical". I'm adding them because they discuss Exxon and their involvement with climate change denial. True, such sources are unlikely to say nice things about Exxon... but that's the nature of the sourcing and the topic. We shouldn't avoid sources which also say nice things about Exxon and their activity on climate change, it just turns out there aren't many of those, so their respective weight is low.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My point was to rebut your point that This article's purpose is to document criticism of Exxon. If we're now agreed that is wrong - that isn't the sole point of this article - then fine. I'm certainly not adding sources "merely because they are critical": no, of course you aren't. Its HD who is, isn't that obvious? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If we have a disagreement on the scope of the article perhaps we should start a discussion section regarding what is and isn't within the scope? Springee (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with sourcing, kindly be specific here on this article talk page. Other venues are available to you for your concerns regarding editor behavior. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the article is to document the article's subject according to the universe of reliable sources, proportionately. In this sense i agree with . In effect, the article's subject is the relationship of ExxonMobil to climate change, and the reality of what happened in the world is that ExxonMobil acted in a way that gains most people's disapproval, and so most sources report with that disapproval, and therefore this is what we mainly report here, reflecting the sources neutrally, and in this i agree with . So overall i think we're in agreement, but coming to the same point from different semantic places. I do think further discussion on the article's scope is useful, so in this i agree with . I've already opened up that topic on this talk page in the section called "What has happened" and my opinion as one editor is that this article was intended to be about ExxonMobil's support for climate change denial, and rightly should have been called by that title, but due to some politeness (which is not neutral) we called it this as a sort of realpolitik compromise and that the scope has gotten a bit diffused but can be focused again if we choose so. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the focus. Having read a number of the accusations against EM, I think many are examples of people who want to see smoke finding smoke even if it's just the mist rising from the early morning dew.  That said, I agree with limiting the article.  Also, the bulk of the article is now just a dump of quotes and paraphrased passages with little coherence or narrative.  It would be great if other editors could clean up and corral the large volume of text.  Finally, I think few have put much effort into finding articles that defend/justify/explain EM's actions.  I did find several that talked about the less that transparent motives of the NY ATG's lawsuit.  To avoid a NPOV issue we should do the same for other parts of the article.  That doesn't mean equal weight or including fringe sources.  However, I see a lot in here that looks like things EM did could be explained by non-nefarious motives.  I again will draw a parallel to the Ford Pinto case.  Ford was accused of all sorts of deliberate and callus choices to maximize profit over lives and it was said Ford 'knew' the things they were doing were wrong.  Heck, MJ even got a Pulitzer, which we have been informed means the source is beyond reproach, for their Pinto Madness article that exposed Ford's cold blooded thinking.  Yet, here we are nearly 40 years later and what history and later scholars found was Ford's engineers didn't produce a death trap, the "memo" wasn't about the Pinto and Ford was actually acting in a reasonable way to the uncertainty of what they did and didn't know and the limited understanding of future regulations.  Consider that EM is likely knowledgeable about the practical impact of new regulations.  Yes, they might fight a new regulation because it costs them money but they also might fight it because they understand it won't work or will make consumers mad.  For instance, look at the snafu that corn ethanol requirements have become.  If EM was against ethanol mandates is that because they are greedy or because they honestly believe corn ethanol isn't a good idea.  This is a very big topic so its very easy to find negative comments but we do our readers a disservice if we don't also find other reliable views.  Happily I think we already agree on this and I'm preaching to the quire.  Springee (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues, Copy Paste, others?
, this addition to the article appears to be a cut and paste copy. The sentence has been carried over into this article after the split. The sentence is from the cited source. I have tagged the article out of concern there may be other similar issues. I would ask that someone who is familiar with detecting copyright concerns review the current article text. Springee (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding quotes from sources helps with this, as I've been doing. It makes it very clear where the content came from, and makes it obvious if the quote and our content is identical. A few of the quotes I added match the content a little too closely, so we'll have to clean that up. Thanks for looking into the close paraphrasing!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is also an area where trying to blend the "dumped" sentences into a textual narrative will help.  There may have been a bit of back and forth over this paragraph  but in the end the text reads much better, contains the same facts as before and there is no chance that it was a copy paste violation.  Anyway, I hope this was just a one off thing since the editor is a member of the WP copyright cleanup project!  Springee (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a direct copyvio but some potential close paraphrasing: Beagel (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming)
 * Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming)
 * ...who collaborated with Exxon's team as its early computer modeling confirmed the emerging scientific consensus on global warming. (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty)


 * HughD had addressed at two of the potential copyright items. However, I put the copyright tag back on the article.  I would like a third party to review and decide if the article is clean.  Springee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we can manage to clean up a few issues here and there without having to introduce a tag. This doesn't need to be a big thing. That particular tag is for articles which are entirely copy/pasted from another source, which doesn't apply here. At worst, we have some close paraphrasing. Let's just take care of that as best we can and move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the wrong tag. My concern is that the editor in question SHOULD know better and this issues has come up with his work in the past[].  It's understandable to make that sort of mistake when you are new to editing but not at after several years etc.  Anyway, I'm going to see if I can find any more issues like that.  I hope that anyone who added copy-paste phrases will quickly edit and correct the issue.  Springee (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yea, no worries! is the right tag, but I don't think it's necessary quite yet. There's definitely some issues, but we have some good editors on it so we should be able to clean it up. I'll try to review the content carefully as I'm adding more sources.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I would like to add some of Exxon's replies (from the corporate blog).  Do you have any suggestions for wording?  My concerns is how to present Exxon's arguments without accusations of bias.  For example, Exxon specifically comments on the ICN and LAT stories that are used as sources in this article.  If the primary sources say "Exxon VP told the board to suppress research."  How would we phrase Exxon's replies?  "Exxon responded to the allegations, '...' ".  The problem is "said" isn't exactly what Exxon did.  "Allegations" really is the correct term but it also is typically considered a loaded word. Another example is when Exxon specifically mentions a source they disagree with.  If in reply to the VP example Exxon says "ICN was wrong because..." do we mention that because they do?  In the case of Exxon mentioning a non-traditional news source (ICN, Greenpeace, etc) I think they should be mentioned.  I think readers should know if the source is outside of mainstream news (even if the source has a good record) and especially if the company mentions them by name.  What are your thoughts/suggestions? Springee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think their responses might be useful, and I'd imagine would have a place in the article. We just need to be cautious about is assigning the proper weight to their statements wherever they conflict with independent sourcing. Of course, that is going to vary depending on the statement and the sourcing, so it's not like we can make a general rule for all Exxon statements. Making up an example: if Exxon said they never gave any money to climate change denial groups, then we should mention that, but it deserves essentially no weight. We might have to use the word "claimed", and we'd be compelled to significantly emphasize the overwhelming evidence their claim is untrue. Conversely, if Exxon said they performed climate change research in the 70s, we can assign lots of weight. The biggest thing is not giving apparent parity to their claims vs. independent reliable sources. There is space to discuss Exxon's PR statements, but this isn't a debate page, or a vessel for their PR, so caution is needed. As long as we can balance the weight properly, yea, let's do it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "allegations" There are no allegations in this article. There are two state investigations in progress, and calls for a federal investigation, but no one has been charged with anything. The only lawsuits in this area so far have been civil, but they are not covered in our article. One subpoena has been issued, but the NY AG may subpoena financial records before charging. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

More examples of close paraphrasing from sources

 * From, , the sentence associated with "by failing to disclose truthful information..."
 * From, , the sentence associated with "mobil lied to the public or shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change possible " and " internal exxon documents suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s" and "general kamala harris is investigating whether exxon mobil", basically the whole paragraph in the WP article.

Interesting reference to Global Climate Coalition
I came across this interesting reference as "flak" to Global Climate Coalition which might warrant a mention and a link back to this sourced typology of propaganda efforts as the reckoning of one of the major scholars in this field. SageRad (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good section. One of the big issues I have with the current main body is a lack of depth.  It would be useful to focus on some of the alleged* activities rather than the volume of one line quotes.  *Note that when I say alleged I'm using it in the legal sense, many of the things that Exxon is said to have done have not been proven or alternatively it's not in dispute that they say questioned a new regulation.  What is in question was if the negative response was an honest review of the policy by a knowledgeable group or, alternatively, was the question raised as a smoke screen?  This is something that I do think has been lacking.  Either way, I think talking about that makes far more sense than much of what we have now.  Springee (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Natuna gas field
The current information about Natuna gas field does not provide the sufficient context and overview of that issue. First of all, the name of the gas field. First, although both used sources refer to it as Natuna gas field, the name name Natuna is ambiguous as it may refer to a number of gas fields in East Natuna and West Natuna basins. It would be more precise to use East Natuna gas field (current name) or Natuna D-Alpha block as it was known back in 1980s. Second, this article here is missing to mention that due to unusually high content in this field was never developed and even now, 36 years later, the development has not started. Third, it is missing that the attitude of Exxon's directors became: "This project cannot go ahead unless we remove the ." If we use one direct quote from the source, we may also use the another direct quote from the same source. Also describing different actions which were tested to avoid or mitigate emissions, as described in Iside Climate News, would be useful. I think that we can keep also that source as the NYT says nothing about the Natuna issue beside of the quote about the largest point source of. Beagel (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it is even part of the article. Other editors also seem to feel it's just out of place here .  I would be fine with removing it as off topic.  Springee (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The episode of the Natuna gas field is extremely relevant. It is included in multiple reliable sources on the topic of ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change. It is the archetypical example of ExxonMobil integrating their highly sophisticated understanding of climate change into their operational planning, before and while funding climate denial groups and lobbying Congress and the White House to frustrate the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't really a justification for why it fits in the scope of this article. Yes, they seems to understand the potential for CO2 release from developing the field but how is this an example of spreading misinformation or lobbying to prevent some climate change legislation?  Springee (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose removal of this topic from article
The discussion of an undeveloped gas field strays from the topic of this article which is the efforts EM made to create false information, mislead and lobby to block climate change action. The discussion of a site which was not developed and thus has not caused CO2 release and for which there is no evidence of EM attempting to mislead is off topic. Springee (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The episode of the Natuna gas field is extremely relevant in this article. The episode of the Natuna gas field is the archetypical example of the subject of this section, ExxonMobil integrating their highly sophisticated understanding of climate change into their operational planning, before and while funding climate denial groups and lobbying Congress and the White House to frustrate the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. According to multiple reliable sources, the episode of the Natuna gas field is inextricable context for the subject of this article. The episode of the Natuna gas field included in numerous reliable sources on the topic of ExxonMobil's activities related to climate change, including, but not limited to:



Our project's due weight policy clearly prohibits removal of the topic of the Natuna gas field from this article. Thank you for your proposal. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually the due weight policy doesn't prohibit it as the scope of this article is about Exxon's deception activities. Yes, this is used as an attempt to show they had an understanding of CO2's impact on the atmosphere.  At best it's background and should be seriously reduced.  More realistically it can be cut because it doesn't show Exxon trying to generate misinformation or skew public understanding.

Springee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove or trim substantially: Given the scope of this article this is a side story that is given too much weight. Other sources might talk about it but the scope of those articles is not the same as this WP article.  Springee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as the direct quote "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." stays, also the standpoint of EM board should to stay for a balance. The original addition of this gas field made an impression that Exxon developed the field notwithstanding the impact. I support to trimming this paragraph to one sentence, something like "In 1980s, Exxon studied ways of avoiding  emissions if developing the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) off Indonesia." because only this is relevant in this article context. Beagel (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the recently added following sentence: "In 2015, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil declined to comment on why ExxonMobil had yet to develop the gas field, saying “There could be a huge range of reasons why we don’t develop projects.”" It was restored by the following edit summary: add ExxonMobil spokesperson comment on reasons gas field undeveloped, with date, and reliable source reference The Guardian. However, the reason why I removed it has nothing to do with reliability of The Guardian. The reason why I removed it is that this is absolutely irrelevant in the context of this article as it as nothing to do with climate change denial or funding climate change sceptics. In addition, it makes a false impression as ExxonMobil is not longer responsible for the development of this field. EM is one of the partners of this project, but the operator and a company who is responsible for the development is Pertamina. I would kindly ask to remove this sentence. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we should expand this to most of the research history section. For instance, why mention that it cost Exxon $1 million to equip a tanker for research?  At some point, and we are past that point, this is needless detail.  Springee (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions to this article and for your engagement at article talk. Exxon's points of views are relevant to the extent they are reflect in reliable secondary sources. An earlier version of this section did not mention that the gas field was not developed. As you know, the reason why the gas field was not developed are complex and unclear in reliable sources, and would take probably a paragraph to cover thoroughly; environmental, engineering challenges, remote location, economics, jurisdictional, contracts, etc. For example, InsideClimate News reported that the lead scientist on the project said it was not developed because it could not be developed profitably. Once we mention that the gas field has not been developed, one thing for sure we do not want to do is leave our readers through omission with the mistaken impression that EM decided not to develop the gas field out of purely environmental concerns. This quote conveys concisely to our readers that EM had a recent opportunity to claim some degree of environmental motivation and declined. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. There is a number of reliable sources available explaining exactly the reasons. But this is irrelevant because this is not the topic of this article, particularly taking into account that there is a separate article about this field. Even more, you have ignored twice the fact that since 2007 EM is not responsible for the development of this field— 	Pertamina is. EM s just a non-leading partner. As I already said, we can trim information about this field what is really relevant for this article purposes down to one sentence and this will resolve also your concerns. Beagel (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. May I respectfully suggest a separate thread for your concerns regarding the due weight of the reasons why the Natuna gas field was not developed, separate from your concerns regarding due weight of the Natuna gas field episode. Briefly here, I agree numerous reliable sources cover the East Natuna gas field, including why it has not yet developed. Within those reliable sources are detailed reasons so numerous and complex as to frustrate terse summarization that is both accurate and neutral. Regarding EM's current status in the development team, Wikipedia does not document just the current state of the world; this article is fundamentally a history article. As you know, the gas field has its own Wikipedia article. In this article, the main aspect of this episode of note is of course that it clearly demonstrates EM integrating a sophisticated understanding of the greenhouse gas effect in its operational planning, as per numerous noteworthy reliable sources. However, if you believe the current status of the gas field, and the reasons for the lack of development, are relevant here, I would enjoy collaborating with you on a brief but neutral expansion. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I already suggested twice how we can to trim this thing to one sentence which is really about the topic of this article. Beagel (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I missed your two proposed summaries. Reading back, I'm afraid I don't find them, sorry. Could you please post your proposal here at talk? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I substantially trimmed the operations section. It's purpose in the article is only to illustrate that EM was thinking about CO2 outputs and climate change.  A single paragraph is sufficient to do that.  This section and the early research section (which also should be trimmed) should be merged.  The core of this article are the later sections regarding allegations of disinformation and to a lesser extent the government sponsored (and politicized) legal cases against EM. Springee (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your deletions are without consensus. Your near section blanking is not an improvement. This article is well within readable prose guidelines and well short of long article guidelines; what you call "trimming" is not a priority with this article and is completely without basis in policy or guideline. Your personal preference is not the arbiter of the due weight of this subtopic in this article; under policy of our project, due weight in reliable sources is. Your content removal is non-neutral with respect to reliable sources. As explained above, which you apparently did not hear, is that multiple reliable sources, in the context of writing about ExxonMobil's climate change related activities, go into considerable depth in providing context to their readers on the many examples of ExxonMobil's climate research and ExxonMobil clear demonstration of a sophisticated understanding of climate science in their operation planning. I'm sorry you are not happy with this content. Your expression of your views regarding a "government sponsored and politiziced legal case" is off-topic and suggest a lack of objectivity with respect to this subject. Wikipedia is not the place for you to mount your defense of ExxonMobil. It might be best if you step back. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Other editors, myself included, felt the two sections in question were filled with far to much detail given their purpose in the whole article.  The point of the article is EM's efforts to confuse, lobby and deny climate change, presumably out of fear of regulations.  All that needs to be said is that EM was well versed in the subject and even contributed to the basic research.  We don't need more detail.  Your comments about multiple reliable sources and the like don't come into play here.  Those sources are free to cover what ever they want.  However, this WP article has a central topic.  Background is fine but not when it goes into detail that doesn't support the central topic.  You basically summed up the only important point in the early research and operational sections in your reply above, "ExxonMobil [has a] clear demonstration of a sophisticated understanding of climate science in their operation planning."  Boom, done, link to a few articles which support that claim and move on.  Furthermore, unlike so many of the cases where lots of citations were jammed into a non-controversial or debatable point, this would be a good one to include 3 UNRELATED sources that would support the view.  We have plenty of sources for this.  My comments about the politics surrounding the NY ATG's lawsuit is not at all off topic.  You added the information as a kind of proof by accusation that EM was spreading disinformation and the like.  Articles which note the political motivations and the like ARE relevant, far more than information about a gas field that was never developed and thus had no environmental impact.  Anyway, several editors expressed concern about the needlessly long section.  I took action to address it.  In reply to your "which you did not hear" comments, please be civil.   Springee (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Every reliable source on Exxon and climate change since summer 2015 include the context of Exxon's research, and the best sources cover it in considerable depth, illustrated by examples. Exxon involvement in climate change goes back four decades. Every reliable source on the numerous recent investigations includes coverage of Exxon's climate expertise. A reminder, due weight in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The recent investigations and calls for investigations cannot be understood absent this context. Your recent near blanking of this section is unacceptable with respect to our neutrality pillar and with respect to our readers. Please self-revert. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reduced background material
Per the discussions above I have reduced the length of the background material (early research, operational etc). Basically these sections only need to say that EM was aware and planned around the potential issues with greenhouse gases. Per WP:Concise, we don't need to expand on all of this information as it doesn't help get readers to the core of this article, ie, the activities that Exxon was alleged/shown to have used to spread climate change denial etc. Springee (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We understand you agree with ExxonMobil, that their climate expertise, and their integration of climate change into their operation planning, are irrelevant to their program of climate denial. As we have discussed in detail above, and in other threads, vast reliable sources disagree with your assessment of the due weight of this content. Please refrain from disruptive section blanking. A reminder, this article is under active discretionary sanctions, and you have been . Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than accusing others of bad behavior, please use the talk page to discuss proposed changes and reflect on the concerns of other editors. Please note this article is under under active discretionary sanctions, and you have been notified.  Accusing me of disruptive blanking is not assuming good faith as is falsely stating my view on the background material.  Springee (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please collapse your own talk page comments whenever you want, but please self-revert your collapse of my talk page comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Article length and editing
The article in it's current form is too long and doesn't stay on topic. As mentioned previously, the introduction section is needlessly detailed given the scope of the article. All that is needed is to state with links that EM was involved with climate change research from an early date and that even early on they considered it in their operations. This should likely be no more than 5-6 sentences. The main body of the article is a quote/paraphrase dump. It largely consists of quotes but little substance behind any of those quotes. It seems the editorial intent is to overwhelm the reader with claims of Pulitzers and volume of negative quotes rather than deep substance. I think adding depth to the arguments made by the sources would make this a far better article. Despite it's length and large number of citations this article still needs a lot of help. Springee (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your feeling that this article is too long? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Concise Springee (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your last reverts, the content is actually beneficial for the image of Exxon. Before you remove information entirely, reword if required. prokaryotes (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the length is an issue yet but the real problem is that instead of encyclopaedic text this article here is a quote/paraphrase dump from news stories. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If written in encyclopaedic way, the substance of that section could be provided by five-six sentence without loosing any important aspect. This issue has been raised numerous times but has been just ignored by the editor who has added the most of these quotations/news texts. Beagel (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * YES!!!! This too! Springee (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. My issue is the article is getting way to long and this material is really off subject.  It would be helpful if HughD would explain what he wishes to accomplish with various sections and how that will fit into the overall story.  He should spend more time talking with other editors vs just dumping content into the article without group input.  Anyway, editor issues aside, given the length of the article (at least 20% larger WP guidelines) how does the material in that section support the controversy subject.  Yes, it does prove that Exxon had knowledge and considered CO2 impact but we can state that, provide links and move on.  Basically the article "doesn't get to the point".  Springee (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is 19kB of prose (or 2841 words), which would take an average reader 10 - 20 minutes to comprehend. Per WP:PAGESIZE, an average page (corresponding to the average attention span) is 30kB - 50kB, or double this article. That is an established guideline. Quoting from it: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length; see Content removal" Springee, you clearly don't like the article. I'm sorry that's how you feel, but you're objecting to something new every single day. That's a little tough to handle. This isn't a BLP; it's a small sub article spun off of a low-traffic topic... it's not likely to have real-world consequences on anyone in the coming months. I think it would be best if we just let the page develop, and if you'd like help with that development, without making such an effort to stall and cut back on progress. I get that you find the article objectionable... but this isn't the way to go about arguing that. An RfC would be, but RfC comments are what started this article to begin with. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)