Talk:ExxonMobil climate change denial/Archive 3

Why is the Esso Atlantic in this article?
It seems to me that the Esso Atlantic does not have weight for this article. Why mention it? It was restored here with the edit justification that it was "highly relevant". How is it relevant? The three references are not independent. Two reference the same article series by ICN. The third is wired restating what ICN said. Are we trying to say this is the only way Exxon collected data? Is this their only climate experiment of the time? How is this entry encyclopedic? , since you restored the passage please justify it's weight. It seems that NO sources that aren't simply restating what ICN reported have mentioned this ship. Why is it "highly relevant"? Springee (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources saying the same thing is the very definition of due weight. Here are some addition, supplemental, independent, noteworthy reliable source references which are not yet in our article which clearly support the due weight of this content:

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking into account WP:TOPIC (The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information.), but also the good article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).) and our policy named What Wikipedia is not (While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.), I don't support this inclusion. Beagel (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the research on board the good ship Esso Atlantic is highly relevant to the topic of ExxonMobil's climate change activities. Here are the sources currently in the article supporting this one-sentence content:
 * Please read the sources, but for god's sake the relevance is obvious without reading the sources; just look at the titles. The editorial boards of Wired, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American all agree on the relevance of the Esso Atlantic research in the context of Exxon and climate. Hugh (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is relevant to the topic of this article? Being published does not necessarily mean it should be included. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources, but for god's sake the relevance is obvious without reading the sources; just look at the titles. The editorial boards of Wired, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American all agree on the relevance of the Esso Atlantic research in the context of Exxon and climate. Hugh (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is relevant to the topic of this article? Being published does not necessarily mean it should be included. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is relevant to the topic of this article? Being published does not necessarily mean it should be included. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please explain how this background material contributes to the article topic. That several sources, all of which are simply reiterating the ICN story, mention does not justify it's inclusion.  Furthermore you really should read your sources before adding them.  The first doesn't mention the ship by name and is only reiterating the findings of ICN.  Thus it's not an independent source to your primary source.  #2 is again just retelling the ICN story and again does not mention the tanker by name.  #3 is an interview with the authors of the ICN article.  How can you possibly claim that is independent?  Look, it's really easy, tell us how this contributes to the WP article.  A internet search for "Esso Atlantic" prior to mid 2015 just brings up articles talking about the size etc of the ship.  Remember WP:Topic.  This article is about Exxon's denial efforts.  It is not about all the various research projects that ICN thinks are attention getting.  You need to justify how this material adds to the topic of the article.  Note the topic of the article is NOT "what ICN says."  Springee (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I hate contributing to the trend of complaining about something every day... the talk page is now twice the size of the article... but I don't understand this complaint at all. Why do you think the Esso isn't relevant to the topic? Summarizing our article: Exxon engaged in scientific research in the 70s, then began promoting climate change denial. They lobbied, were criticized, and then changed their policies a few times. We need to cover the first part - their initial scientific research - in sufficient depth, not just talk about their climate change denial nonstop. According to ICN, the Esso was "a crown jewel in Exxon's research program". How can we talk about their initial scientific research without mentioning one of their biggest projects? Who is this hurting to leave in?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good articles stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If these edits would be discussed before added to the article, there would be no reason to complain. Beagel (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have explained to you several times before, it is not unusual that our best sources reference prior art, and "independent" in Wikipedia sourcing refers to editorial processes, and multiple reliable sources saying the same thing is due weight and use by others. The Washington Post is not the only source for Watergate. Since it is abundantly clear you will not hear it from me, may I respectfully suggest you ask for clarification of your interpretation of "independent," perhaps at WP:RSN. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have explained to you several times before, every reliable source on ExxonMobil since 2015 offers their readers significant coverage of ExonMobil's carbon dioxide research, and our best sources go into considerable depth. It is inextricable context. For example, the section on investigations is impossible to evaluate absent this context. Since it is abundantly clear you will not hear it from me, may I respectfully suggest you ask for clarification of your interpretation of due weight, perhaps at WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And as I have said, if all the sources are simply repeating what the original source says then they aren't independent. They didn't each reach the conclusion independently.  I would suggest you read the PBS article about why they didn't repeat the ICN findings when they were first published.  Your second paragraph is not true.  Those articles have their own subject.  This article is about the controversy related to Exxon's efforts to hide, distort etc.  So a story about a single research project who's output is unknown to us is hardly significant.  The reports from internal scientists are sufficient.  Springee (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , per your reversion comment, yes, we did discuss it here. The discussion seems to be those who felt it was totally out of place because it's role in the larger article topic was unclear at best and those who felt we should keep it because it was mentioned by ICN and those who re-reported the ICN story.  My objective with this edit was to come up with a more streamlined compromise that keeps the references in the article yet doesn't leave readers wondering why the ship was ever mentioned.  If you read through the WP article the mention seems very out of place.  We have a lot of discussion of the views of Exxon researchers and what they did and didn't know.  We then have a one line mention of a boat with sensors.  We are never told why that boat was mentioned or why we as readers should care.  Why does it exist in the article?  It's purpose is to emphasize that Exxon was taking the research seriously.  We still get that with my edit without leaving the reader feeling like this was a character that was introduced 1/2 way through a movie and then quickly dropped two scenes later.  Note that even the other articles that mentioned the tanker didn't bother with the name of the ship.  It is clear that what it was meant to convey was that Exxon was doing serious research.  Anyway, I think it really just reads badly.  I'm open to other suggestions to better integrate the material but the "as is" is terrible.  Springee (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What about changing from: "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling. Exxon budgeted more than $1 million over three years to outfit their largest supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans." to something like "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling including outfitting a supertanker with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans."? Springee (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My position was never that it should be included because it is mentioned by ICN. I think you should reread what I wrote. Leaving the source but cutting the content is even worse... because now we have no mention of it, and we have a redundant source that doesn't back up any content. Several sources, not just the ICN, discuss the Esso. If our content on Exxon's initial scientific research is not covered in sufficient detail to be sensible, then we should expand it, not cut what we have.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We are editing at the same time so hopefully no edit conflicts! Anyway, ICN is the first one to mention the ship.  The other mentions come from articles that are citing ICN.  We have no idea what the ship's research yeilded.  It's not that clear why ICN mentioned the ship other than to emphasize that Exxon was doing serious research.  Normally I would agree that the earlier edit would have left the reader high and dry except that the citation tags actually contained the needed information if the reader was interested.  So basically the information was there but it didn't stick out like a sore thumb.  Hopefully my new suggestion (above your reply) addresses your concerns.  Springee (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a benefit to removing the name, but I don't have a problem removing the budget; "Exxon did X" is what we're communicating, not so much the funding and timing of X. How about: "Exxon launched a research program into climate change and climate modelling including outfitting a supertanker, the Esso Atlantic, with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans." Here's another source we can use:
 * Does that work for you?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that is better and thank you for the effort. I still don't believe the discussion of the ship is important to the article (note how hard it is to find any mention of the ship's scientific work prior to September of last year).  However, I think the compromise sentence addresses the bad flow issue which was bothering me the most.  It both fits in better and tying it to the previous sentence makes it more clear why the reader should care.  Would you like to make the change? Springee (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The budget $1 million in 1980's dollars, and the span 3 years, are highly relevant to conveying to our readers the scale and magnitude of Exxon's commitment to carbon dioxide research. No reason our article should admit a reading of a lone scientist sentenced to a boat ride-along. No reason to hold this significant quantification from our readers. Article is well short of long. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, you are over stating their importance and I think editing this article is now in violation of your TBAN. Springee (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on content on this article talk page WP:FOC; other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your opinion on the due weight of Exxon's research is clear, long before your recent section blanking; unfortunately your preferred edit is contrary to our neutrality and due weight policies and a mountain of reliable sources, see above. Hugh (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on content on this article talk page WP:FOC; other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your opinion on the due weight of Exxon's research is clear, long before your recent section blanking; unfortunately your preferred edit is contrary to our neutrality and due weight policies and a mountain of reliable sources, see above. Hugh (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Made the changes described above. I couldn't find a good copy of the conference proceedings Jess had mentioned but found a different IEEE journal source instead.  Springee (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oil shale development
The latest addition about synfuel development is questionable. It says that "oil shale development released 1.4 to 3 times more carbon dioxide than the equivalent in conventional oil". This is grammatically incorrect using past simple instead of present as the properties of certain oil shale from the the area do not change over 30-40 years. At the same time, the past simple implies that Exxon processed oil shale which is incorrect. The source itself uses "would release" which is more correct. The other issue s that ICN seems to make a false conclusion that the fact of higher emissions from oil shale is something which was discovered by Exxon. I am sure this is correctly reported that this information was included in their estimates but for that time the properties of Colorado oil shale were well known in America as all oil majors were engaged in oil shale research and development for decades. In general, ICN is good for facts but we should be careful while giving interpretation to these facts, and we should avoid using the narrative of ICN. Beagel (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK striking that as well. As I've said, cut the early research section down and combine with the operations section.  The shale oil sentences can go. Springee (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your alternative summarization of the source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why have it at all? Springee (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also fail to see the relevance of this information. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)



"ExxonMobil integrated the then-current scientific understanding into its corporate operational planning. For example, in the early 1980s, oil scarcity was a concern, and Exxon promoted synthetic fossil fuels, such as liquified coal, oil shale, and tar sands as a plausible solution. Internal Exxon documents said that oil shale utilization releases 1.4 to 3 times more carbon dioxide than the equivalent in conventional oil, and that development of oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases."

I understand you strongly feel it is unflattering to ExxonMobil to cover both their applications of their extensive research expertise to their operational planning, and their extensive support for climate denial, on Wikipedia in one place. However, all recent reliable sources do exactly that. Also, as you know, this article is not about ExxonMobil, it is about the controversial history with respect to climate change; ExxonMobil has its own article, and I agree in-depth coverage of how ExxonMobil demonstrated its climate expertise to the area of synthetic fuels might be undue in the parent. You supported the split. This article is well within article size guidelines. The source is neutral and relevant and noteworthy. May I respectfully ask again, what would you suggest as an alternative summarization of this source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , please cut out uncivil statements like "I understand you strongly feel it is unflattering to...". It is a back handed way of questioning the motives and editorial integrity of others. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can discuss in depth what you understand and what you misunderstand but this is not the point. I don't buy our argument that this is relevant because it reported by ICN. This is not the case here. Once more about Exxon's oil shale activities. The Colony Shale Oil Project started in 1964. Exxon joined the project only in 1980 and the project was ended on 2 May 1982. Do you really believe that the amount of released by processing of Colorado's oil shale was discovered by Exxon in less than two years while nobody else noticed it during the previous 16 years (even more, taking account the oil shale research history in the United States). So, releasing 1.4 to 3 times more  was not discovery of Exxon as you try to imply (Internal Exxon documents said blah-blah-blah) but common knowledge of that time. Even more, if these had been data from the Colony plot, the possible range had been smaller as "1.4 to 3 times more" takes into account the varieties of oil shale through the whole Green River Formation. The second issue is the sentence "that development of oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases." While "1.4 to 3 times more  than conventional oil" is not dependent of the produced amount of shale oil, the five years thing makes only sense if the exact amount of shale oil and the time period is linked to it. However, there is not the link to amount in the source which makes clear that the journalist did not understand the information in the documents and just picked up impressive figures to support his narrative without a proper context. Producing one barrel of shale oil hardly accelerates the doubling of  by 5 years. I think that this figure applies maybe to the commercial scale project which was planned to be 46,000 barrels per day but for what period? Over the project life time? Without knowing this, that information in the article is just misleading. Third, there was no commercial production at the Colony project, only the pilot plant which produced over 18 years less oil than the one week production of the planned commercial scale project. Exxon was linked to it only less than two years. So I really can't see the relevance here other than framing Exxon for considering sources which are more  extensive that conventional oil. Beagel (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Prefer not to debate syn fuels here, thanks. Wikipedia is not making a claim about whether oil shale is more or less CO2-y than oil; the current article text does say that Exxon engineers told their management oil shale released more Co2, and as such true or false it is highly relevant to this article as another good example of EM demonstrating through their actions their sophisticated understanding of the greenhouse effect by applying that understanding to their operational planning, years before their denial campaign. Verified by primary docs and noteworthy as covered by ICN. EM demonstrating their understanding through their operation planning is a theme in both the ICN and LA Times 2015 reporting. No one is framing anyone. I am not framing EM and ICN is not framing EM. ICN is reporting what EM knew and when they knew it, and we can, too. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ICN and the LA Times reported on internal documents that show EM's foreknowledge, but the story is more than that; EM acted on the knowledge, and that is highly relevant in this article; it's not just obscure papers flying around inside a massive corporation that no one read or understood; there's no way EM can say so what? no one read the reports or no one understood them. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But nobody is debating that oil shale is more carbon intensive than conventional oil–this is the common knowledge and you should not to be a climate scientist to know this. And I don't buy your claim that we should add another example that Exxon had understanding about climate change. Nobody has questioned the fact that Exxon had studied emissions and climate change and this is well included in this article. If the only reason is to show that Exxon had ophisticated understanding of the greenhouse effect, this is an overkill as this is already established. Also, for this you don't need out of the context claims such as "oil shale would advance by about five years the time to double atmospheric greenhouse gases." which is a clear nonsense without giving context which was in the original document but was not given in ICN (why it is nonsense, I explained in details in my previous post above). To get the result you claimed being your purpose, it would be enough to say that "At the beginning on 1980s, Exxon extensively studied the impact of the oil shale industry to greenhouse gas emissions" or something like this. Something being published in the news story is not an argument for inclusion per se, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, this whole article could be summarized "Exxon knew." As a matter of fact, #ExxonKnew is the exact twitter hash tag version of this Wikipedia article. However, we are not twitter, coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, and numerous reliable sources provide their readers with considerably more depth of detail than that, and we can, too. We are expected to provide context in our articles. You supported the split, arguing this content was undue in the parent, and I am disheartening that you make the same arguments here in the child, but I am heartened you propose a summarization of the source, thank you! We agree about one sentence is about right. For our purposes here relevant to this article, the one sentence summarization should tersely describe EM's application of climate modelling expertise in an evaluation of a business opportunity and include specifics about what EM projected might happen. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This addition seems like another off topic addition to a section that should be reduced, not expanded [] Springee (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Could anyone find the original report, so we would be able to understand what is missing in the ICN story? Beagel (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Second this. I've found at least one case where the quotes in the ICN story which our WP article and the ICN article seemed to attribute to Black were no where to be found in his report.  Not good when direct quotes don't appear in their sources.  Springee (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to clarify what is "the time to double". There is a need to clarify what means "development of oil shale" in this context. Does it "advance by about five years" in the case of developing of all global oil shale resources, in the case of the U.S. resources, or in the case of developing the Colony project? This is not clear from the text, and it is not clear from the ICN source. To give any meaning to this, we probably need to find the report itself which was used by ICN. Right now, the current sentence have as much meaning as saying "Ford Pinto saves to you five years". It may be correct in some context but if we don't know the context, it says nothing meaningful. Beagel (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the original document. Placing this sentence into the context of the original document, it became more clear. It is also clear that original documents talk about the effect of replacing synthetic fuels globally by conventional petroleum, and it was not oil shale specific. It also provides the timeframe doubling 1980 level by 2065 versus 1980 level by 2065. Previously there was no indication for how long it will take for doubling the level and what 5 years means in this context.  Once more, thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard Discussion related to this article
Not sure why the initiating editor didn't notify the article talk page. Springee (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

, the noticeboard discussion did not result in a consensus to change an article claim of "more than 50" articles to a less precise description. []


 * I've edited the article section in question to address the concerns HughD might have had. The recent edit did not accurately reflect what the NYT article said.  It added a negative slant that wasn't in the article's phrasing.  The article now has the NTY as a source for a claim of "dozens" and Exxon providing the list of "over 50".  It is quite likely the NYT chose the word "dozens" as an editorial choice vs ICN and EM which say over 50.  Springee (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A company blog is a citation?
Springee, please explain your rationale for repeatedly reverting against consensus and providing dishonest edit summaries? 1) Your initial open reversion(1) with the edit summary of "No it does not." was more honest, but less in line with WP policy on the matter since it's already your second consecutive reversion. 2) Apparently realizing this, you falsely claimed in your next edit summary that you were making a "compromise"(2) which is a reversion in all but the name you give it. It uses a few words of the original, but substitutes a company blog for an RS reference. It completely mischaracterizes the existing references, essentially changing it from "did research showing the harms of climate change" to "did research" (on what?). It also renders meaningless the only significant string of words you left in place (in the mouseover reference description), "Company scientists have contributed to dozens of scientific papers that supported this view and explored the extent of the risks." If left in place, your "compromise" would soon need to be deleted because it's altogether meaningless. 3) Aside from the fact you're substituting a company opinion-piece blog for an RS reference, the blog entry's only actual comment on the matter is "And while you are at it, check out this 10-page document listing the over 50 peer-reviewed articles on climate research and related policy analysis from ExxonMobil scientists from 1983 to the present." 4) This company blog "reference" is only a reference to the degree that it links to ExxonMobil's archive (which is later linked separately under the section header "Selected ExxonMobil climate research collaborations"). Did you, or did you not, support removing a NY Times source based on the opposite premise? Your priorities with regard to reliability seem a bit misordered. ~ Rewording clear statements to tepid ones(3) or confusing ones (4 - "promulgator"? really?), and tepid ones to meaningless ones(2) that later have to be cut because no one remembers what they meant in context, weakens the article. Deleting an RS source and substituting one that's worthless weakens the article. Continuing to whittle off as many references as you can (despite multiple admonitions from uninvolved editors that you're completely misconstruing WP:OVERCITE) is tendentious at best. And a glance back at the history shows that you've been doing this quite a while. I regretfully have to ask this in all seriousness: Will any degree of weakening the article's evidence and wording be enough for you, or will you not be satisfied until the article is gone altogether? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, if you wish to engage in extended talk discussions please register/sign in. I don't care for your claims of bad faith editing.  Second, it appears you have not followed the original discussion regarding the changes HughD was attempting to make.  It is reasonable to use ExxonMobil as the source for that claim.  ICN was originally used as the source for the list.  However, since the list is a document provided by EM, it is reasonable to allow EM to explain what it is.  Either way we get the list.  Third, HughD's claim that the RSN supported his edit is not correct.  The RSN question was asked in a way that did not specifically address the discussion here and did not notify the involved editors here  No consensus was reached as it relates to the way the material is used in the article.  That leaves us with the discussions here.  Since you are accusing me of changing my views, I actually prefer the earlier versions which simply said EM has published over 50 publications and provided a reference (ICN) and list (ICN and EM).  However, for what ever reason HughD wanted the less precise claim provided by the NYT, "dozens".  Note that the NYT most likely got that number from the ICN article they referenced as a main source for their article.  Where did ICN get their number?  The EM list.  Since no one was questioning the reliability of the list why would we go from a more specific number to a less specific number?  Note this isn't the first time such a question has come up and in the other case the consensus was use the more specific number so long as it isn't challenged/obvious not reliable.  My "compromise" solution was in fact a compromise.  It allowed the inclusion of the NYT article which seemed important to HughD.  It also provides the list of references that was likely the origin of the claim (it was the ICN origin) and has EM verifying the list's authenticity and meaning.  The edit HughD added and you restored removes the EM verification of the list.  It also added some editorializing that was not part of the NTY source.  It reflected how HughD wants us to view the quote vs how the NTY actually stated it.
 * As a compromise solution I've added the ICN reference back. We avoid the issues with overcite since it's not longer an excessive number of citations on one sentence.  It also keeps the list as coming from EM with EM  authenticating it (vs ICN telling us what it is).  Really, for simple readability and to cut unneeded length from the article we would be better to go back to the Feb 17th revision.  Why use two sentences to say what can be said in one? Springee (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of any outside editor: This is Springee's third consecutive revert to either outright delete, render meaningless, or hide (in a mouseover instead of the body text) a sentence that says ExxonMobil's research demonstrated "effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society". This is the very point of the article, that they knew climate change was real and harmful (but continued to deny it publicly). In fact, this is about as weak a statement as one can make, but apparently nothing will do but to get rid of it in some fashion.
 * Springee -
 * 1) In a word: No. You have no right to make it a precondition that I create an account before I am allowed to voice concerns. Further, I'm curious: Why do you assert a right to "allow" or disallow edits?
 * 2) Yet again, your actions do not match your description of them. You're not even attempting to address the primary concern I've brought up. You're still trying to change what is essentially "did research showing the harms of climate change" to "did research" (on what?) -- a meaningless statement that would eventually need to be deleted when no one remembers the original wording. You can not have missed this, given that this is the change you're most insistent on making.
 * 3) Why are you so insistent on adding an opinion piece from a company blog -- completely worthless as an RS for controversial statements -- to "back up" an RS? This is especially suspect given your long-standing pattern of going back after the fact and removing "excess" RS citations and leaving weak ones in place, and given that your original "compromise" was to take out the RS altogether.
 * 4) I fully agree that "for simple readability and to cut unneeded length" you should stop padding your edits with extra material to obscure the primary edit you're insistent on making. (For example, turning "ExxonMobil researchers" into "Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators" or replacing "effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society" in the body text with "From the time the scientific community first began worrying about the climate issue in the 1970s, the company financed research on the topic, with its scientists generally supporting an emerging consensus that fossil fuel emissions could pose risks for society." in a mouseover.) I'm glad we can agree on something.
 * 5) You yourself participated in the [| noticeboard discussion] you claim doesn't represent consensus, as the second respondent an hour and change after it started. You had ample opportunity to convince the other participants, and repeatedly tried to do so over the next week. You did not. In fact, going back over it, I note that they brought up the further point (which you've been ignoring) that Exxon's potentially-self-biased claim of "over 50" should not be preferred over the secondary source's "dozens" -- which makes it strange that you're implying otherwise.
 * 6) Persistently trying to weaken the article does not demonstrate good faith, but you say you don't want to be told this. If you genuinely want to demonstrate good faith, I pose this challenge: Since you dislike "effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society" so much, perhaps you could come up with wording that better demonstrates the point of the article -- that ExxonMobil knew from their own research that burning fossil fuels and pouring CO2 into the atmosphere were going to have nasty effects in the future. If you can do that and leave it highly-visible instead of hiding it, I'll gladly concede that you're acting in good faith. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign in if you want people to discuss edits in detail. Currently two named editors favor keeping the EM citation, ie the company agrees with the validity of the list.  It is not clear if edits to this page violate HughD's topic ban. , this article this article is Donors Trust related.  I would suggest verifying that it is not within the scope of Koch, Tea Party, etc.  Springee (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kinldy respect all your colleagues, registered or not. Other forums are available to you for your concerns with your colleagues WP:FOC. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kinldy respect all your colleagues, registered or not. Other forums are available to you for your concerns with your colleagues WP:FOC. Hugh (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

→ William M. Connolley - Without addressing any of the concerns I've brought up, you mockingly address me indirectly as "it" and support Springee in continuing to make the same reversion for reasons that are unknown but have the clear appearance of canvassing. You may not be aware of this, but canvassing, blatantly uncivil editing, and | the following are all strongly deprecated on Wikipedia: • Working together to circumvent the three revert rule • WP:NINJA editing – terse comments, little talk page justification • Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. I strongly suggest that you review the above, and provide more than a vague hand-wave without explanation or a clear rationale before you continue to revert against a | 4:1 consensus that was opposed only by Springee. Even if we assume you would have supported Springee without question, the two of you would have still been against consensus trying to introduce weak (or worthless) citations as an excuse for deleting RS citations. → Springee - While I recognize that 3RR is (bafflingly) explicit in saying that only 3 reverts in 24 hours is against the rules, repeatedly making the exact same revert outside of 24 hours is as clearly against the spirit of the rule as it gets. I do not expect it to be heeded, but I do ask that you refrain from continuing to "slow-motion edit war", as I've heard it called. Further, please point to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says only named editors are allowed to point out that you're editing against policy and ask why. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * indirectly as "it" get an account and a sex and I'll use it. Choose to stay anon and you're "it" to anyone who can't be bothered to look more closely William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Context of impact of climate expertise on operational planning of Natuna gas field
Contended content bolded for emphasis:

Exxon also studied ways of avoiding emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. '''An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the .'''

Discussion
We are expected to provide our readers with sufficient detail to understand our articles WP:READERSFIRST. The topic of this subsection of this article is the many examples of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science into the operational planning of their corporation, in support of comparing and contrasting these activities with their lobbying and grassroots lobbying activities. ExxonMobil's studies of Natuna and their internal deliberations, conducted to the highest levels of the corporation, are very clearly a highly significant, clearly noteworthy example of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science into their operational planning WP:DUE. In order to make this first sentence clear, and for our readers to understand the relevance, we need to provide a brief description of the business problem, and ExxonMobil's response. Merely mentioning Natuna and wikilinking is grossly insufficient, poor writing, and non-neutral. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * integrating their sophisticated understanding of climate science - nah, that's nonsense. Stop making things up William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This was discussed just 2 months back. The community consensus was against.  What has changed? Springee (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

1957 onwards
So, yet another bunch of unconvincing stuff. I'm not sure how exciting this will become, but I cut it out. Because:


 * its wrong
 * its unbalanced
 * its "news". We should give things time to settle before adding them in here

But mostly, because its wrong. Why is it wrong? I explain this in detail at my blog (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/04/14/yet-more-exxon-drivel/) but take "Documents released in 2016 show that from 1957 onward Humble Oil (which is now Exxon) was aware of rising in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming." But the ref quoted in support of that actually says "The documents, according to the environmental law center’s director, Carroll Muffett, suggest that the industry had the underlying knowledge of climate change even 60 years ago. “From 1957 onward, there is no doubt that Humble Oil, which is now Exxon, was clearly on notice” about rising CO2 in the atmosphere and the prospect that it was likely to cause global warming, he said." So instead of the text added here - Exxon via Humble knew, stated as fact - the source only says that some bloke says that Exxon knew. Those two statements are very different.

Its also unbalanced. If you're going to quote "one side" you should also quote the other; in this case, Exxon saying "To suggest that we had definitive knowledge about human-induced climate change before the world’s scientists is not a credible thesis". Which is, errm, true.

As a slightly side issue I don't understand the 1957 onwards part. I can only see 1968 onwards in the dox. If anyone can clarify that I'd be grateful William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Colleague's contribution of new relevant content and new highly noteworthy, highly reliable source The New York Times moved to the body. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I support WC's concerns above. WC and Beagel's recent edits are appropriate.  Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved the new para to the end; there's no obvious reason for it to be at the top. I notice HD has no answer to any of my questions William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your recent edits look like a temper tantrum.  You are running around revisiting old material that community consensus didn't support .  Here in particular you gave a dishonest edit summary while restoring an edit that is not only against the advice you were given here (" just have to accept that the dispute ends here, and walk away. You don't need a formal IBAN to do that, although I would certainly suggest acting as of one had been applied going forward.")  I'm sure the intended meaning wasn't "revisit every past argument and edit and revert".  When multiple editors (none myself) revert your edits it's a sign that your recent edits are disruptive.  Please stop.  Springee (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning
Should the following, bolded for clarity, be added to ExxonMobil climate change controversy?

Exxon also studied ways of avoiding emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. '''An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the .'''

Source


Hugh (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Support inclusion as proposer.
 * WP:DUE The topic of this subsection Impact of research on operational planning of this article is the many examples of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in climate into their corporate operational planning, significant context in support of comparing and contrasting these activities with their public statements on climate change. ExxonMobil's studies of Natuna and their internal deliberations, conducted at the highest levels of the corporation, are very clearly a highly significant, clearly noteworthy example of ExxonMobil integrating their sophisticated understanding of the role of carbon dioxide in climate into their operational planning.
 * WP:READERSFIRST We are asked to provide our readers with sufficient context to understand our article content. In order to make the first sentence above clear, and for our readers to understand the relevance, we need to provide a brief description of the business problem, and ExxonMobil's response. Merely mentioning Natuna and wikilinking is grossly insufficient, poor writing, and non-neutral. The current article's lack of context is so severe as to leave the lone first sentence incomprehensible to Wikipedia readers and a target for deletion by Wikipedia editors.

Supplemental primary source:



This article is currently Prose size (text only): 19 kB (2913 words) "readable prose size", less than half of the length at which article length begins to be an issue as per our guideline WP:SIZE.

Other comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Notice to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force Hugh (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC) WP:WikiProject Companies Hugh (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) WP:WikiProject Environment Hugh (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC) WP:VPM Hugh (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: For what reason only Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force was notified and not other relevant Wikiprojects, such as WP:Companies, WP:Energy and WP:Geology? Beagel (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking again for what reason WP:Energy and WP:Geology have been not notified? One could expect that these are relevant WPs about the issue related to the content and development of the natural gas fields. Failure to notify all relevant WPs and instead of this picking up only WPs which may be more sympathetic to the nominator's POV is a classical canvassing. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking last time why you are ignoring the request to notify all relevant WPs? WP:Energy and WP:Geology are highly relevant if the issue related to the natural gas field is discussed. Selective notification is enough for speedy close of the RfC. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commitment to broad community participation. Are you asking for help with using the please see template? Someone at template talk or the village pump could help you, or you could copy one of the existing notices listed above. Hope this helps. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're approaching a WP:CIR problem here.  is obviously asking why you selected the particular WikiProjects to notify, and why you did not notify all the relevant WikiProjects.  I cannot see how anyone with a basic knowledge of English could possibly believe Hugh's interpretation of Beagel's statement.  However, I have been accused of having a limited imagination.  Please both answer Beagel's question and explain how you could have such an interpretation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We've already done this, above. Stop forum shopping. Also, stop poking at the boundaries of your ban William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC has not been done. An RfC is a Wikipedia process for WP:dispute resolution through broadening community participation, not forum shopping. Please focus on content WP:FOC. You are invited to comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. This issue was extensively discussed just three months ago and there was no consensus to support this inclusion (the consensus was actually other way around). Repeating the same proposal without taking account the arguments which were presented during the previous discussion is just disrespectful against fellow editors, and one could say even disruptive. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC is WP:dispute resolution, it is the opposite of disruptive. Please do not feel disrespected by broadening community participation; no disrespect was intended. You are invited to comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is not disruptive, of course; however, usage of DS instruments may be disruptive when used for WP:PUSH. Based on the edits pattern it seems to be the case. Beagel (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree, this is forum shopping as the issue was recently discussed and HughD was the only editor who wanted the material included.  I also believe this is a violation of your expanded topic ban as you are hitting on the political aspects of the topic and climate change denial/misinformation.  At the ARE,  noted that HughD's additions were inherently political in scope, "Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). "  Even if this is decided not to be a blatant violation it is clearly pushing the boundaries on the same day the ARE was closed.  It also is TEND because it's an example of one editor who can't take no for an answer.  HughD, please drop it.  Springee (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are invited to comment. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Springee, the actual topic ban discussion is at ARE or can be taken there. I'll have to agree with HughD that, regardless of whether the edits by a particular editor are permitted, the better point is to actually the content here and not to simply argue about editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not entirely correct. If the RfC is in violation of 's topic ban, it should be archived.  Otherwise, discussion of Hugh's  disruptive actions is counterproductive; however, his failure to note the previous consensus against his proposal is    grounds for closing the RfC and reopening one with neutral phrasing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been no clarity whether or not this is a direct violation of the topic ban. Climate change is technically a separate ARBCOM sanction. As such, arguing in the RFC about whether it is a violation is not productive to me. Now, failing to disclose or discuss the prior consensus is another matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the RfC proposed addition? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been previously discussed and rejected. WP:Consensus can change, but new arguments should have been presented. RFC's are not intended to overturn consensus, unless there are some changes, such as new arguments or new facts.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RFC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes..." An RfC is dispute resolution. Please do not disrupt dispute resolution. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec x3) As you should know by now, RfCs can be disruptive, especially if not phrased neutrally, or if they ignore previous discussions. You now avoid a non-neutral statement by proposing specific text without comment, but your failure to note the previous discussions, and your refusal to allow a neutral pointer to the previous discussions in the statement of the RfC, is often disruptive. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Support: It appears completely relevant to the topic of the article, and is a very interesting part of the story. SageRad (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How exactly it is relevant, particularly taking account that the proposed addition fails to say anything about what was the content of the studies but instead is insisting of usage a quote from INC to imply that the field is the largest source of ? Beagel (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It does make clear the context, and it is quoting "Exxon's top climate modeler, Brian Flannery, and his boss Andrew Callegari" via INC to say that at the time the field would have become the largest point-source of . SageRad (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support, as relevant to the topic, and supports mainstream climate science, follows WP:DUE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify if you support inclusion in general or do you support exact wording as proposed by nominator? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose expansion of the Natuna thing in general per WP:UNDUE and oppose particularly the proposed wording per partly incorrect and failing to provide the adequate overview. I agree that studying potential release of from Natuna D-Alpha block is relevant to the topic of this article and it should be included like it is at the current version. What concerns details, they should be included at the first place in the East Natuna gas field article which is accessible through the link in this article. Notwithstanding the fact this has been said during previous discussions, the nominator has made no single edits to the East Natuna gas field article to include information there, so their reader first concern seems to be not sincere. What concerns the proposed wording, it has several problems. It relays on the ICN article only while there are lot of publications in the scientific publications which describe Exxon's work to deal with  issue at the East Natuna field. Second, the quote "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2" is missing two "ifs" from the original quote, namely: if the field were developed, and if  were vented vented to the atmosphere. However, the field is not developed yet, the contract with EM was ended and although EM is a part of the consortium now, it is not the leading partner any more and not responsible for the development. It was discussed during the previous discussion; however, it is missing from the proposal. If included, it should also include information what methods were studied to avoid venting  to the atmosphere. 70% of  is also not the precise figure but rounded figure. The proposed addition makes impression that the  content of the Natuna field was discovered by climatologists while all fields are studied for the composition by petrologists. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We agree, Exxon's actions with regard to the at Natuna are relevant, and Natuna D-Alpha block has its own article. But wikilinking is wholly inadequate. Guideline WP:LINKSTYLE asks us, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links...Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence...The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Here, the lone sentence is entirely inadequate for comprehension of the relevance of the issue by our readers. In the context of this article, the relevance is ExxonMobil's process, spanning the scientific staff to the board room, in applying their understanding of  to a business problem, in the 1980s. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And this is the reason not to include the information in the article about the East Natuna gas field? Really? Beagel (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exxon did not just "study" the at Natuna; Exxon's understanding of the role of  in climate was not restricted to the lab or academic journals, it was integrated into their corporate decision making at all levels, in the 1980s. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And you exactly this justifies proposed addition about the content of the gas field and quotation without integral parts of it? At the same time, you refuse to include what exactly was studied or what is the status of the gas field. Beagel (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have room in this article for additional detail on this, such as"The Natuna gas field has yet to be developed as of 2015."...same source. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose per Beagel above; and I'd like HD to stop using this article to push his POV William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Beagal as well. Well that and the disruptive nature of the proposal. Springee (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Beagal's points. Nothing else much to say here, as per the editors above I guess it would also be nice for the POV pushing to end. Davidbuddy9  Talk  04:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The source cited do not establish the connection with the article subject, namely controversy. By the way, the whole section "Impact of research on operational planning" does not belong here either, per WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to AGU
A link from the American Geophysical Union article was added to this article, given connections to ExxonMobil reported at this source. Seems like content that may be useful to integrate into this article as the AGU is not mentioned on this page at all. It is related to the controversy reported by this article. SageRad (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil climate change controversy, "not about climate change"?
Why did you delete a well-sourced sentence about global warming, with an example reference titled "A New Debate Over Pricing the Risks of Climate Change", and leave a comment "not about climate change"? Another reference titled "SEC Probes Exxon Over Accounting for Climate Change"; an excerpt from another reference "Environmentalists cheered the S.E.C. inquiry in hopes that regulators were escalating their enforcement on the oil and gas industry to include more rigorous reporting to investors on the potential risks of climate change to their businesses."; and another reference excerpt "An added twist is that the SEC is also reportedly interested in how Exxon factors potential carbon regulations into how it values its reserves, dovetailing neatly with several state investigations into whether the oil major covered up knowledge about the impact of climate change."

Please go back to Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You added one sentence paragraph saying: In September 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission requested information from ExxonMobil on the company’s longstanding policy of not writing down the value of oil reserves, as other energy companies have done in the recent past. Notwithstanding what other information the sources may include, this sentence says nothing about the climate change. This sentence is also not related to the previous paragraph, so the context of mentioning this stays unclear. It is the obligation of the editor who ads information to make clear that the information is about the topic, is relevant and it is verified. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consolidating the discussion here (from User talk:69.58.42.90 (see comments there) and User talk:Beagel).
 * Do you wish to work together on the wordsmithing? 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

-doings,
 * Since User:Wavelength opted-out and User:William M. Connolley & User:Beagel haven't responded in over a week, I will attempt to craft wording myself. 69.58.42.90 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is what I crafted
 * "In September 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission requested information from ExxonMobil on the company’s longstanding policy of not writing down the value of oil reserve assets in light of future climate change regulations that may force fossil fuel companies to keep oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, in contrast to other energy companies that have done so in the recent past."
 * 69.58.42.90 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking into these sources and a lot of other sources about the SEC inquiry (one additional source may be for example Financial Times), it seems that two things (questions) are completely messed up (particularly in the case of The New York Times). . The writing down of the value of oil reserves is mainly related to the current oil price and not to the climate change. Another question in the same probe is how the company discloses the potential impact of future regulations on climate change to its business (future cost, value of assets). So far, these are inquiries and not accusations of any wrongdoings, so there is no controversy and am not sure if it belongs here. In the case of writing down (or not) oil reserves this is about the oil price, not climate change. EM has said that the company had used very conservative approach which corresponded the actual oil price even in August, not taking about the today's price. Don't know, let EM and PWC to answer the probe and the SEC to make its decision. As for the inquiry about calculating climate change regulations' cost, lets wait the SEC official announcement. Beagel (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

From the 1980s (to mid 2000s), the company was a leader in ...
I hadn't really noticed this statement before; how were any of the components of the sentence cited? And it follows, what is the citation for changing it from "After the 1980s, ..." to "From the 1980s to mid 2000s, ..." ? X1\ (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Until just recently, it said "From the 1980s" . But I thought that was unreasonable, so changed it. I think that during Lee Raymond's tenure it is a plausible statement reasonably well backed up by the "Funding of climate change denial" section. The change is, again, reasonably well backed up by the "Acknowledgement of climate change" section William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding too that Lee Raymond was a significant part of the change, but don't we need a reference regardless. Or maybe it (either dates) is already in the other article references?  X1\ (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article said "LR leaving meant that..." then we'd need a ref. But it doesn't say that (I think). It merely notes a change of policy; it doesn't note the coincidence William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Tangentially related to the above, I would suggest we remove the "reception" subsection. It seems to break up otherwise related material. Some of it is redundant and some should be integrated above. I also cut some of the overcite in the paragraphs above as well as offered more detailed replies from Exxon/the industry. Too often the replies are snips from sources that are sympathetic to the original accusation rather than a source that offers a detailed reply.Springee (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I'm trying to consolidate some of the material that was referenced more than once in the section. Most of the reception material is redundant. I've removed the lawsuit since it's mentioned in a later section. The response to ICN was moved to the paragraph were the original article was mentioned. There is still one more paragraph to go. I'm trying to decide the best place to fit the first part of the paragraph. The "The Nation" article is redundant and should be removed. Springee (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC) X1\ noted the removal of a PBS news hour article. It it provides additional information that I missed I see no reason not to restore it. We shouldn't simply cite a number of different sources that say the same thing. If they are saying the same thing then the extra sources aren't needed. Adding a reply from an industry trade group is appropriate since it provides a more detailed reply. The previous source used to provide Exxon's reply was another article largely stating the original allegations against the company and providing only a limited reply statement. It's better to provide a source that gives the more extensive reply and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Springee (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Copied from X1\'s comment above You aren't "consolidating", you are deleting and replacing with fossil fuels lobby PR. Not RS.
 * As I mentioned, restoring the NPR article is fine with me as long as it contains new information. Remember that the ICN article and Harvard articles are the original sources for the claims and thus are the ones we should cite.  If the others are just restating the same claims they aren't adding to the article.  The trade group is certainly a biased source.  However, it's also a source that has a detailed discussion of the topic.  It would be a NPOV issue to leave out EM's reply.  There is no reason why we should leave out the reply of a trade group.  I would rather reference the Bloomburg article that the trade group references but it's behind a pay wall.Springee (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , You have reverted my edits based on the claim that I left out a single NPR article. I've stated that I'm not against restoring it assuming it adds some new information to the article vs simply restates what the Harvard study already says.  Now please restore the balance of the edits I've made.   for a second opinion.  Springee (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, looking at the first paragraph of "reception"; the first sentence mentions three people. Oreskes is a co-author on the Harvard paper and already mentioned above.  The referenced article for her was published at the same time as the Harvard work and covers the same thing.  Mann, is a HuffPo article that reports on the ICN article.  It doesn't contribute to the article beyond the original ICN report.  If bolstering the ICN article is needed then the supporting references should go in that paragraph vs in this reception catch all.  Krugman is a NYT op-ed.  I think it's worth including but I'm not sure where.  Krugman has standing and his opinion came out in 2006 vs the other material around it (2015-2017 time frame).  I would suggest moving it to the a paragraph near the top of the section.  Springee (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Finished changes. The material from the reception section was either removed as redundant or integrated elsewhere.  The PBS News Hour reference was retained.  Springee (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)