Wikipedia

Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 4

< Talk:ExxonMobil
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers

Latest comment: 8 years ago56 comments23 people in discussion

The strongest arguments made here were for support of a statement from a statement that ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers. There was support for inclusion of the statement "In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers." However there was also enough talk about the exact wording, that it would be worthwhile to discuss the exact wording more. as it could vary from the proposal. Opposers stated that the information was not useful and not neutral. Supports claimed that omitting the statement would be non-neutral. So the neutrality argument seems to apply to both point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a request for comment is our project's primary mechanism for assessing community consensus, interpolating unsigned comments into the head of an RfC, days before its close, after numerous of your colleagues have contributed to the discussion, is a particularly onerous form of disruptive editing. A reminder, this topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions by the arbitration committee of our proect WP:ARBCC. Exemplary talk page behaviour is required. Please stop disrupting this RfC. A reminder, you have a survey section and a threaded discussion section available to you below to express your views on this RFC, including your recommendations to the closer regarding what you believe are important aspects of the RfC question. Move your comment. Hugh (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC question

Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section:

In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers.

  • Harkinson, Josh (December 7, 2009). "The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
  • Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.

Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as the topic of climate change is under active discretionary sanctions WP:ARBCC. Hugh (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

End of RfC question

  • Note: Per noticeboard discussions below, article currently includes the Mother Jones reference as follows:
"A December 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine included ExxonMobil as a promulgator of climate disinformation."

Recent Relevant Noticeboard Discussions

Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [[1]]

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th [[2]] Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate support or opposition to inclusion of the above content and a brief statement use in this subsection. Please do not included threaded comments in this subsection, please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments. Please adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility. Thank you.

  • Support inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
  • Oppose inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
  • Support inclusion Proposed content is a neutral, complete, and accurate paraphrase of a noteworthy, reliable source. A very similar paraphrase was recently endorsed by the clear consensus of a very similar request for comment at Talk:Christopher Monckton. Reliable source is attributed in text for possible bias in conformance with WP:YESPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Source Mother Jones (magazine) is noteworthy for its decades-long commitment to in-depth investigative journalism on environmental issues. Noteworthiness is further clearly supported by the use of this source by others WP:USEBYOTHERS, as in:
One of the founding papers of the study of organized climate change denial within the scientific discipline of environmental sociology. It is highly significant that a 2009 mainstream media article was clearly, unambiguously cited as a reference in this 2011 academic paper before there were many academic papers on organized climate change denial to cite. Another Mother Jones article is cited as well. The record is clear that Mother Jones helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study.
Exclusion of this content and this source from this article would be non-neutral. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the where used claims above, please note that the Oxford reference does not mention the Mother Jones article in question by name or any list of organizations from the MJ article. It only references that others are making claims. The Oxford source is not citing MJ as a factual reference and not in a way which endorses the MJ content as reliable. This point was previously discussed as part of the RSN discussion [[3]]. Springee (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Previous NPOV and RSN as well as several related article talk page discussions reached a general consensus that the MJ article is a mix of reliable information and editorializing. The list is based on the views of MJ's editorial staff, not a reported event. No information is given as to what criteria was used to create the list other than the opinions of the author or perhaps the MJ editorial staff. A list based on the editorial opinion of the magazine might be worth including if the list itself has weight. In this case, and especially in comparison to the more significant sources talking about ExxonMobile there is no compelling evidence that inclusion on the list is in and of itself notable. Thus we have an opinion that doesn't rise to the level of a RS and we have the fact that EM was listed on a list that carries no WP:WEIGHT. I feel my view aligns with the limited consensus of the recent noticeboard discussions. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Springee and William M. Connolley. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC) This sentence is an editorial opinion. Being an editorial opinion does not disqualify it per se, but taking account the fact that this is an article about the worldwide company with more than 100-years history, this opinion about one specific aspect related to the company, voiced by non-mainstream magazine, will have undue weight. It may be relevant in some other article (e.g. focused to the climate change denial financing), depending the context. Also, information about financing is already included and this subsection is already too long. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Include, obviously I'm not sure why this is even an issue. It's informative and relevant and it is well documented with suitable references and citations. Ob course it should be included. Damotclese (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    Which references and citation are you referring to? The proposed single sentence, a slight modification of the current version in the article, has only a single source which was the subject of both a RSN and NPOVN discussion. The currently the article has a very similar sentence that excludes the mention of the list (removes "most" and replaces it with something like "a"). That was based on the limited consensus of the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    Move this last comment to the threaded discussion section below as per the clear RfC instructions above. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion Per HughD, Seems to be reasonably NPOV as it is attributing to the source. Cocoaguy ここがいい 20:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion per the comprehensively stated arguments by Springee above. - tucoxn\talk 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose inclusion, because its just not very useful. MJ isn't neutral in this context. However, more importantly, this is all down at the trivia level compared with giant biases like the inclusion of "These charges are consistent with a purported 1998 internal ExxonMobil strategy memo, posted by the environmental group Environmental Defense, stating: Victory will be achieved when..." which are poorly sourced and far more prominent William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - section already too long, and the phrasing as shown seems vague (what does "among the most" mean ?) and that MJ complaining at someone (let alone one of a dozen) just does not seem all that noteworthy. Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - very relevant and notable and well-sourced. SageRad (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion especially if the alternative is to not use the source at all. The Atlantic found the list helpful, so we should definitely include it per NPOV. How best to include it is unclear. I think it's better than the "A December 2009 article in Mother Jones magazine included ExxonMobil as a promulgator of climate disinformation" currently in the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion per above. They are fossil fuel producers, of course they will do as much as they believe is legally allowable, including encroaching on fraud, to try to protect their sales and supply chain. EllenCT (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. Very notable critical analysis offering comparison within the industry. Highly appropriate and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - It's attributed, and a notable opinion, which as Ronz points out, some very high quality RS have themselves deemed worthy of mention and discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Fencesitting. I would support inclusion if used as part of a wider 'Exxon has been criticised by multiple parties for denying blah blah', but would oppose as question has framed it above - with MJ as a sole source. 'List of' sources are always going to be problematic given their inherant op-ed nature. And very few people can deny that MJ has a clear opinion on this subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See the NPOV discussion, which did not result in consensus. By the way, I believe Springee did the right thing by notifying me and other parties. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion with condition. I think including the sentence is okay if it is followed by another sentence that starts with "However, according to" and then provides some text from another source saying a different viewpoint. As long, of course, if the source isn't Exxon Mobil itself. I'm a fan of a sort of "on one hand; but on the other hand" approach to controversial content on W. Geraldine Harris (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion for now, as the proposed line doesn't convey much useful information. Presumably, people who have read such literature as the MJ articles will understand what is being implied, but this line here is lacking specifics. "Vocal" in what way? "Most" by what quantifiable measure? What specifically are they denying? Perhaps a topic for another discussion, but the section is already filled with many such gaps. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion - As per reasons stated by Hugh and others. Darknipples (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, per HughD. Seems like a notable opinion that should be included in the article. APerson (talk!) 03:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, the phrase is accurate (Mother Jones said ExxonMobil was a climate change denier) and relevant. Whether Mother Jones' accusation is truth or false, whether it's positive or negative, it shouldn't be a concern for us. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Rereading the RfC it is a bit confusing. The article already contains basically what you said. The RfC came about because the originating editor was unhappy with the current including sentence. It's late but I've added the current statement to the RfC opening. Springee (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion, or more specifically, I oppose exclusion on the grounds it is not neutral. Several sources list Exxon among a very short list of organizations supporting climate change denial, so this isn't an outlandish claim. The proposal also attributes the author, so I can't see any neutrality issue. I don't know if this is the best source for the claim, or if this is the best wording for the content, but I don't see a policy-based rationale for exclusion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The policy based reasons were discussed in the RSN and NPOV discussions about the same MJ article. It came down to people seemed to agree that MJ was reliable in terms of facts (Exxon did X on such and such a date) but questioned the overall tone of the article as editorial and noted that the article didn't offer a method by which they decided an entitiy should be on the list. Furthermore, the list in and of itself wasn't notable and thus the list was editorial content. Thus the rough consensus of the NPOV and RSN discussions was that the facts reported by the article were reliable but the list and the editorial opinion of MJ was just that, opinion and would have to be reported as such. For some of the target organizations it might be WP:DUE to mention that MJ thinks they have spread climate change misinformation, for one the size of ExxonMobil there are certainly higher quality sources that say the same thing. If you read the actual MJ article (the RfC makes it look like two articles but it is in fact just one) it is very emotional (editorial opinion) in its presentation of the material. This was also noted in the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. So "Mother Jones listed Exxon..." represents it as an opinion of MJ. I agree with you that we should have higher quality sources to use, and I'd prefer those. But editor time is a finite resource, and if no one wants to track down those better sources right at this moment, I don't see a problem with using MJ in the meantime. When they arrive, we can replace this sentence, or use MJ as a 2nd cite, or whatever else seems reasonable at that time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we are agreeing. Currently the article says something like "MJ says EM promotes disinformation". That was, based on earlier discussions, considered to be factual. The "one of the dirty dozen" or "twelve most" or basically anything where MJ's opinion is used to imply a ranking was considered to be editorial opinion and thus not included. This RfC was phrased in such a way that it reads like the MJ article wasn't mentioned at all and the sentence was just a natural way to summarize the article. In fact the objection was over inclusion of the editorial portion of the article. You are right about editor time and the like. However, as the article stands, I think the MJ reference is already redundant since quite a few sources are saying the same thing. MJ is just one more voice saying EM was fighting a disinformation campaign. Even though I think the whole reference is redundant in this article (less so in some of the other 11 entities mentioned by MJ), I didn't think it was worth trying to fight that when others want inclusion and honestly I think WP should err on the side of inclusion when in doubt. The RfC here probably exists not so much to get the editorial content in here but as a springboard to create the precedent for the editorial content to be added to the other eleven subjects even if that runs contrary to the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Springee (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations I think the information is relevant and should be included. I am not certain which is the change however, and I feel that "promulgating" and "disinformation" have an emotional tone that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. My ideal in this situation would be something like EM in the (time period) took the position that (summary) according to sources one two and three... I think Mother Jones is a credible source and its proclivities are known and unlikely to surprise the average reader, but also that there are likely to be other sources aout there and the statement wuld be stronger if they were included as well. Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, As the subsection under question was split out into a separate article ExxonMobil climate change controversy, this RfC here does not have meaning anymore. I propose to close it. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Since this same MJ article was added by one editor to a number of WP articles it should be discussed not in an article talk page but at the RSN or other forum since it concerns more than one article at a time. Furthermore, any formal decision on this RFC should take the recent RSN and NPOVN discussions into consideration. Those discussions resulted in only a consensus that the factual content of the article (X said or did Y) not the editorializing by MJ was reliable. Since this RFC is attempting to supersede those discussions the involved editors should be notified. I would suggest that HughD notify them as the editor who created this RFC. Springee (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a valid RfC and this RfC proposes adding content to this article. You seem unclear on the roles of noticeboard discussions and requests for comment. The source is a feature article by a staff writer, not an editorial. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The Monckton RfC conclusion was that the statement should be in the article in some form; it did not find consensus for Hugh's wording. Furthermore, Hugh's claim above that the noticeboard discussions are not precedent apply even more strongly to RfCs relating to different articles. In other words, the noticeboard discussions might apply to this article; the Monckton RfC arguments cannot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Regarding "where used" claim added on Dec 29th The MJ article was cited by the peer reviewed journal above. However, it was not cited as a source of fact nor did the citation make mention of the list (ie the editorial content of the article which is the addition this RFC is trying to add). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society did not mention the article or Mother Jones by name. It was cited as an example of an article which made a claim. That is, the Oxford text simply says the MJ article exists and covers a subject. It does not say the content of the MJ article is correct, accurate etc. The Oxford authors were not relying on the MJ article as a factual reference. Given the article is almost 7 years old it does not appear to be widely cited especially as it related to ExxonMobile in particular. Springee (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC publicized at WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC) WP:VPM Hugh (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, please ping the editors involved in the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions as they were in regards to all uses of the MJ article in question, not the use in a specific article and thus discussions there would apply here. 15:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is to ping the editors who were involved with the previous RSN and NPOVN discussions incase they aren't looking for the notices added to those noticeboards. This ping list may include editors who have already commented. As this is a manual operation I apologize if anyone was accidentally left off. CypherPunkyBrewster,Fyddlestix,Koncorde,Blueboar,Brett Gasper,Peter Gulutzan,Darknipples,JzG,Binksternet,Only in death,MastCell,Ronz,Collect,Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Springee (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
HughD, why are you adding new solicitations 2 weeks after the original RfC was posted? This is looking a lot like your RfC at Americans for Prosperity where you added new solicitations after the fact when it became clear the RfC was not going the way you wished. This is yet another example, along with deleting my comments, the comments of others, moving comments and questionable articles tags, of your tendentious editing here. More importantly, this is disruptive to the talk page process. Springee (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of previous RSN and NPOVN discussions: As part of a reply to a previous discussion of this MJ source [4] I attempted to group the replies to the RSN and NPOVN discussions. Since those discussions applied the source, not the WP article in which the source was being used it seems to me they are relevant here. The following is a rough summary of the views expressed in the relevant noticeboard discussions. There are three groupings. The first is the MJ article is basically a pure opinion article and thus would need to be treated as such. The second is the MJ article is a mix of reported fact and editorial views. In this case the cited facts would be considered reliable but the views, interpretations etc of MJ would be considered editorial content. The third grouping is those who feel all aspects of the article should be treated as reliable material.

RSN[5]: The following editors seem to support treating the article as only opinion: CPB, Fds, Kon, Col, AR
RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the article as reliable fact with editorial grouping: SBHB, Spr, TFD, Rnz
RSN: The following editors seem to support treating the full contents of the article as reliable: Bin, Guy, HgD
NPOV,[6] opinion only: CPB, Fds, Blu, BrG, AR, Cap, PeG
NPOV, reliable fact, editorial grouping: Kon, Dkn (this one might belong in fully reliable), Spr, TFD, Mng
NPOV, fully reliable: Guy, Bin, MaC, Ron

I have moved a few of the replies based on those editors responses in this discussion. The overwhelming feedback was against treating the article as totally reliable. It was a more even split between those who felt the article was a mix of reliable and opinion vs those who felt the whole thing should be treated as opinion. I've included this information because I think that any uninvolved editor closing this RfC should consider the views of the two noticeboard discussions that covered this topic. Ideally, I think instead of trying the RfC we see here the noticeboard discussions should be reopened and then closed by an uninvolved editor (perhaps after a comment period) so we can avoid a series of RfCs attempting to insert the same source into multiple WP articles. Springee (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC comment

HughD, per WP guidelines you should not delete the talk page comments of other editors [7]. Your long addition to your original entry several days after the fact would be best in the thread discussion section. While I understand your wish to keep the votes and the discussions somewhat separated, the length of that material makes it a candidate for thread discussion where it is easier for people to specifically reply to it in a way that is readable for all. Also note, that the RFC guidelines do not specify the format you have specified. If you wish to move people's comments without their approval then please cite the guideline that authorizes such a move. If none exists then please leave their comments where they were placed. Springee (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Propose RFC closure date

Perhaps an editor who knows more about this process than I can suggest how we put a closing time on this RfC. I would suggest the 12th as that would have left the RfC open for 3 weeks. Springee (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this edit which unilaterally extends the RfC period is disruptive and should be undone. The standard period for RfC is 30 days and the time expired on 21 January. The RfC may be extended if there is a consensus for this but this was never discussed, not talking about that there is a consensus on it. Beagel (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; done. The edit summary was either deliberately or accidentally deceptive too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice about RfC

Unsigned editing the head of an RfC, days before its close, after numerous of your colleagues have contributed to the discussion, is highly disruptive. A reminder, this topic is under active discretionary sanctions and best talk page behaviour is expected. Please stop disrupting this RfC. A reminder, you have a survey section and a threaded discussion section available to you to express your views. Move your comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I moved it to the bottom. Everyone is of course entitled to contribute, but we shouldn't unilaterally modify the RfC after its already been running for a full month.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This notice is not modifying RfC in any way. RfC is ended and waits its formal closure. The notice is not disruptive but neutral. On the other hand, attempts to conceal the fact that the section which was commented is not the same which is included currently in the article may be called unhelpful. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This request for comment is not over. All are welcome to contribute to the survey and threaded discussion subsections. Please stop disrupting this RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The standard RfC runs for 30 days. The participants may agree to close the discussion earlier or prolong it, but there is no such agreement for this RfC. The RfC template was removed by this edit with an edit summary Removing expired RFC template. So, the RfC is expired. You yourself requested a formal admin closure by this edit. Beagel (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
HughD, I don't think you should be lecturing others about proper RfC behavior. Despite the fact that you created this RfC you made the disputed change to the split article without so much as a peep on the talk page.[[8]] Springee (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

Latest comment: 8 years ago62 comments7 people in discussion

Multiple neutrality issues span multiple sections and the lede.

  1. Deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection and multiple associate reliable source references from the "Environmental record" section is non-neutral as per WP:NPOV, WP:DUE.
  2. Inclusion of the subject of this article's well-documented, decades long campaign to frustrate environmental regulation under "Criticisms" section is non-neutral.
  3. Deletion of the "Foreign business practices section" and numerous reliable sources, offering no alternative summarization, is non-neutral.

Hugh (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you not reply under the section where you were asked to explain why you used {{NPOV}} but instead started a new section? Also, the description above is incorrect and non-neutral. The subsection covering climate change funding was not deleted, this subsection was moved from one section to another. Why you should write here something which is incorrect? Also, the line between informing relevant boards and canvassing is very thin. Informing one WP as you did here without informing all other relevant WPs and notice boards usually is not acceptable code of conduct. Beagel (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This is just revenge tagging on HD's part William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hugh; Your three bullets state your opinions as conclusions, without the slightest bit of logical reasoning, much less logical reasoning that is built upon pinpoint provisions in policy and/or pinpoint quotations from RSs. Argument-by-conclusory-opinion is not persuasive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the article wide NPOV tag has been adequately justified. It should not be restored without further review/input from others. Springee (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spent too much time looking, but what i do see indicates some serious wrangling here with editors with very different perspectives spending a lot of time tussling rather than discussing in good faith. I do see serious issue with the deletion of section headings like the deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection. I do think the "NPOV disputed" tag fits this article currently, and i urge everyone to please slow down, talk with genuinely good and honest dialogue, and decide what this article is going to say. Please, let's be honest and adult here. Let's remember that Wikipedia exists to serve the reader, not anyone's personal or corporate interests. We want to present reality in as honest a way as possible, based on the whole world of reliable sources available. If ExxonMobil funded climate change denial, then we go right ahead and say it. If they didn't then we don't. Simple as that. We're not here to serve the corporation any more than we're here to serve Greenpeace. SageRad (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, the issue has been discussed in different sections. It would be useful if you would explain why you think there is violation of NPOV. At the same time, making allusions that any edits here has been made for "personal or corporate interests" or that somebody serves the corporation more than Greenpeace is not constructive and without providing diffs supporting the claim that that kind of edits have been made, it may be considered even as personal attack. I kindly ask you to remove these allegations. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, a little touchy are we? I spoke my general reckoning and i'm not retracting it. SageRad (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss the content, not editors. Beagel (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what i've done, buddy. SageRad (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
If ExxonMobil funded climate change denial, then we go right ahead and say it - is it really too much to expect you to look at the article before commenting? The f*ck*ng lede says ExxonMobil has a history of lobbying for climate change denial. Please, get a clue before commenting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've got many clues. Civility, man. It's about emphasis and due weight. Saying "get a clue before commenting" as your edit reason seems unnecessarily uncivil to me. Luckily I'm a tough one. SageRad (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't waste everyone's time. If you can't even be bothered to read the lede before commenting, find something else to do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I have explained my concern and expressed my opinion. Apparently that is inconvenient for you. Sorry, not sorry. SageRad (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In your post at 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC) I counted 33 words stating a conclusory opinion with no reasoning or analysis on which it is based " I do see serious issue with the deletion of section headings like the deletion of the "Funding of climate change denial" subsection. I do think the "NPOV disputed" tag fits this article currently..." and over 100 words of noise pretty much lecturing on behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I, as a seasoned editor, can come to the article and do an assessment with fresh eyes, looking at the article and the recent talk page dialogue, and offer my reckoning. That is what i did. I saw an NPOV tag well-placed and justified, and justified concerns about the deletion of a topic heading that used to offer better due weight to the climate-change-denial funding by ExxonMobil that is now gone, and i offered these opinions here, as an editor. Your reactions, seeming to want to chase me away, are not collegiate or civil, and do not lead to the best outcomes for articles based on civil dialog. Calling my original post "noise" is not civil, and an edit reason of "get a clue before you post" is not civil. Overall there is a problem of incivility here, as well as problems in point of view bias in the article. That's my reckoning as an editor here. It's telling that you seem to want to chase me away with bully tactics. I'd love to be focused more on the content, but it's hard when every single response is one that seems to want me to go away because apparently you disagree with me so my presence is inconvenient. I think this was a bad edit, and the edit reason "rv waste-o-time revenge tagging. go to the article talk page and talk, instead of vandalising the article" was uncivil. I think people here have been really mean to HughD, who seems to have been another person who had a point of view differing from those pushed by William M. Connolley and cohort. In other words, there seems to be a teaming up and bad behavior with a bias in one direction here. That doesn't lead to good NPOV article, but rather to biased articles with content that's forced by a one-sided group. I came here by a notice on the NPOV noticeboard, and i understand why that notice was placed now. Please don't chastise me for being here in service of Wikipedia, to offer a perspective based on editing experience and observation. Methinks thou dost protesteth too much. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The tag documentation says the tag should be removed if the reason for the tag is unclear. A statement by you, or anyone, that there is a NPOV problem does not make the BASIS of your opinion clear to anybody. Hence, no tag. If you wish to provide logical reasoning based on specific text in policy and/or RSs, those concise comments would be welcome. Empty table-pounding is an unwelcome sign of disruption.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The basis of my reasoning is that i see a pattern of POV pushing bias here, and that is good reason for a tag. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • All, I don't think SageRad initially said anything that is over the top or should result in failing to AGF. I would take the subsequent discussion as misunderstandings. Let's all forgive, forget and move on. Springee (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I only said the tag requires a clear explanation and all he offered was unsupported opinion. If anyone wants to discuss Exxon's funding of climate denial via logic based on policy and RSs I'd be quite interested to hear what they have to say. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the dispute here? Is it that the article is too critical of ExxonMobil on environmental issues, or that it is not critical enough? Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If you think we are debating the appropriate level of criticism Wikipedia should express, then please re-review our policy on WP:Neutrality with extra care. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
So what are we debating? Biscuittin (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, nothing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I would say let's close the discussion, but I see User:HughD has been banned from editing for a week so I think it would be unfair to him. Biscuittin (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I see HughD has been banned for "US politics topic ban violations" which is odd. ExxonMobil is a company, not a government. Biscuittin (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That block had its origins in a different article(s).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not "nothing" -- it's a slow erosion of the article with bias in step by step fashion.

Here is what seems to be one critical step in that slow transformation of this article with a direction. It's not a random drift. It's not a drunken sailor's walk. It's a movement of the article slowly, over time, toward a state that is less critical of ExxonMobil, it seems on first review of the edit history. Of course it's complex, and could take a thesis to really analyze, but this is what editors do. We provide feedback and reckonings. So please don't call it nothing. The specific thing here is removal or renaming of section headings that are very direct and plain for the reader but critical of the company. I can't see into another editor's mind, but i can see actions that make the article more opaque. SageRad (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am reading the talk page section "Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general" above to see how this was discussed, and i'm not seeing a great discussion there. If there is other discussion around that edit, please let me know. It looks like there was not consensus. Looks like there were valid differing opinions on that edit. SageRad (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand that extensive edit. The edit reasons is "rv: please discuss first" but it appears to be much more than a revert of the previous edit, but a big reorganization of this article. Maybe in the editor's mind it was a revert of a series of past edits. If that's the case, please let me know that. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If there is a tangible proposal for maybe improving the article please restate the proposal, and then explain with logic and applicable policy/RS references why it would improve the article. Until someone reboots the discussion with such a statement, there is smoke but no fire. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You may say there's smoke but no fire, but what i've been saying shows a lot of fire here. Anyway:

Proposal for changing a section heading

The collapsed part is a bunch of back and forth while we established the specifics for this proposal.

Tangible proposal: We bring back a section heading called "Support for climate change denialism" in the article. SageRad (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We could add it between Genesis and Leviticus for secret reasons and citing invisible sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
SageRad has put forward a serious proposal and you have ridiculed it. Please take this seriously. Biscuittin (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you now claiming that headings need references? Biscuittin (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm claiming this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow. ... so you're accusing me of being disruptive and of not explaining reasons etc? Reason would be that a heading would make it more clear where the information is about a major aspect of this company's public interface, that's been covered significantly in the major media, and that the reader would often be looking for and want to find, which would be easier with a heading appropriately named. ... simple and I thought obvious reasons. Now may I all be here without being accused of crimes sir? SageRad (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Since "it's obvious" is nonresponsive, my opinion has not changed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you're telling me i do't have a right to e here and that i'm disruptive, when i'm here in dialog with you responding to your questions. This dialog is very poor. Can't we discuss the content? So, as i was saying, i think the subsection heading that actually names funding of climate change denial is a useful one, as it directly speaks to an important subtopic of this article's subject. That's simple enough, right? Please don't evade actually discussing the content. SageRad (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal above and support the current section heading per WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOV. Information in this subsection has a broader scope than just the activities to support the climate change denial. Therefore, the current heading is more precise than the proposed heading which cuts off all other aspects related to the company's attitude towards climate change, and as such, violates neutrality. Beagel (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
You're assuming that's what SageRad wants to do. He merely uttered a phrase saying he wants to stick it in at some unknown place as a section heading. You seem to have assumed the details of his proposal. You might be right, but its for Sage to complete the thought (or not). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. If there is an obvious cluster of details about a subtopic of an article's subject, as there is in this one, then it makes sense to have an appropriately named subsection. We hopefully strive for the most direct and concise way of naming subsections, without concern about the PR image of a company or any other subject (except for having a bit of discretion in a BLP perhaps). So, i think that a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. It's a pretty large trope for this topic over the course of the past year, and there is a lot of material that would fit. We're not in the business of watering down or whitewashing images of companies here. So let's state the obvious facts plainly. SageRad (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Where, exactly? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
What was exactly removed??? Beagel (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed; please post WP:DIFF so there's no miscommunication. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
[9] in which heading was removed/changed. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You wrote: a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. You clearly implied that the subsection was removed. Now you are talking about changing the title which is a different thing. I am assuming a good faith and I believe that this was not an attempt to manipulate but please, before making your comments, be sure you understand the issue and your claims are precise and correct. It would be polite to your fellow editors. Beagel (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to a subsection header. Sorry for your confusion. I was speaking about the way that subheadings can make a difference in the readability of an article, and how direct and honest language in subsection names is important. In the diff i just provded, there is some major changing and deletions of subheading titles. I think we need to look at this in depth and make sure the article is as clear as possible for the reader. SageRad (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Where exactly do you want to insert the section heading "Support for climate change denialism"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You see the section called "Attitude towards global warming" under "Criticism"? That could be changed to a subheading to the effect of "Climate change denialism" -- as that is what the criticism actually is about. SageRad (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In the collapsed section above, SageRad (talk · contribs) pointed to a diff when a section heading was changed, and now proposes that, using this version as a starting point, the section heading be changed from

Current "Attitude towards global warming", to
Proposed "Support for climate change denial"

Sage, if you are proposing something different, then please be specific.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Opposed for now, because the section, which does contain text about climate denial, also contains text that is not. If that problem is corrected, either through article edits or a revision in the proposal, I would be glad to revisitActually, I have changed my mind. I have no problem with inline attribution asserting that so characterizes Exxon's efforts as climate change denial. Indeed, in the flap over how to characterize Anthony Watts I defended the concept of inline attribution for the "denial" characterizations. Since WP:Neutrality also applies to section headings, and since inline attribution in a section heading is impossible, I favor neutral wording in all section headings. Saying in WP:WikiVoice that Exxon shows "Support of climate change denial" is not neutral. This isn't a question of my POV; just that wikivoice should not be taking sides, end of story. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because the criticism (this is under the Criticism heading) is indeed that the company supported climate change denial. That's the criticism, and the central theme of that whole passage. Other content in that section is part of narrative supporting this central criticism. "Attitude towards global warming" is vague and off-point, in my estimation, the sort of watered down language that we at Wikipedia wish to avoid. We want to use language efficiently and as directly as possible. I think that the text of the section could use some work, made a bit briefer and to-the-point, but i see no reason why that ought to hold up changing the subheading title. We do things in parallel here. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose per various threads I've contributed to already: too much of the content in that section doesn't actually fit under that heading; I like NAEG's "principle" of neutral section headings; justifying this change on the grounds that this is in a "criticism" section is dubious because the crit header is itself dubious (update: for example, compare DuPont#Controversies; update2: or indeed in this article the "Environmental record" isn't called "Criticism of the Environmental record"); and overall, because its just not necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The section is explicit about climate change denial, and it used to be called that until you changed it, recently. So what's necessary? Nothing is "necessary". We want articles to begood and right. What would serve the reader best? Why did you change this recently to the current generic watery language? SageRad (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be saying the text uses wikivoice to take sides in the controversy over Exxon's role, if any, in climate change denial. That sort of POV problem in the text hardly justifies wikivoice taking sides in the section heading. Just attribute whatever the sources say on this controversial label&topic to the sources themselves. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No that is not at all what i am saying. The text ought to use Wikivoice in a neutral way to reflect reliable sources. Having an accurate subheading is not "taking sides" -- sometimes an obscured or watery subheading is taking sides. Imagine if the article on Union Carbide had a section "Bhopal disaster" and then someone came along and changed it to "Indian operation".... how would that seem? SageRad (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose but... I don't like the idea of a subsection that specifically says denial because that limits the section to only information about denial activity and also implies the denials are not based in reason. That said, I don't like the higher level change where a "criticism" section was created. As I recall "criticism" is generally a frowned upon section title. Basically I'm not convinced the new is much better than the old. I think the best bet would be to try again. Springee (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I too don't much like the crit, but note that its not newly created; it was there back in 2014 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, since I looked, the section whose title we're discussing was created by this William M. Connolley (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

archiving

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I've never been able to figure out the archive templates, but I note the 90 day filter is not working. Would someone please fix that, so the threads with no activity for 90+ days go to archives? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It was last archived on 12 October 2015‎. Currently, there is only one thread which is not edited during last 90 days. All other threads have been edited during last 30 days. I don't know why the bot is not archiving this one thread. It is possible it needs at least two threads to be archived. You can contact User:Σ who is the owner of Lowercase sigmabot III. At the same time, I propose that we change temporary the archiving time to 30 days instead of 90. Beagel (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
As the talk page is growing too long, I change temporary the archiving time to two weeks. Will change back for a longer period when the page is more static. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I changed the archiving time temporary for two weeks to avoid this talk page growing too long. It was changed back without explanation. I will not undue this at the moment but I still think that for a time being we need a shorter archiving time. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming impossible to navigate. Could we please to shorten the archiving time temporary to 14 days of no edits, and increase it gradually back to 90 days if the discussion is becoming less active? Beagel (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I shorten the archiving time temporarily 14 days to get the talk page shorter. Would be changed back later. Beagel (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I sort of thought 14 days was too short, but i recognize this is a long talk page. Hugh just changed it to 60 days here. Could we perhaps keep 60 days, or discuss it further here, and perhaps manually archive the first four sections of this talk page, plus this section, if we reach an agreement? SageRad (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the second time that editor changes the archiving time without any discussion. The proposal was here for more than 9 days without any feedback but when implemented it was changed by one hour. I don't understand the logic behind 'let's keep the long archiving time but at the same time archiving manually'. I propose 14 days until we down to ten threads, then 30 days until down to six and then back to 90 days. Beagel (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, i know the thread was here for a while with no responses. I'm not saying that's great but such is what happened. May i propose that we set it to 30 days and leave it there, and let the older threads wash away when they do, and i will also ping HughD to ensure that he's in this dialogue and has a chance to respond explicitly, so that we don't get the same thing happening again? SageRad (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, lets put it on 30 days and any further change will be discussed separately (I mean that accepting this proposal I withdraw my previous proposal for a gradually increasing the archiving time depending the number of discussions at the talk page). Beagel (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NOTE TO OTHER EDITORS -- I've tried to check this archive link but it fails for me -- blank screen only. Is there any other source for the intended document? SageRad (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried to find this source but without success. I think that the information which is worth to be kept from that section could be verified by other sources. Most of it is already included in the history section. Beagel (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Alas, same here. Thanks. I wonder where that document may be found. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The link is http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/0000950103-99-000247.txt Beagel (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Graeme Bartlett#Questions about ExxonMobile RfC closure

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Graeme Bartlett#Questions about ExxonMobile RfC closure. Discussion continued off this article talk page without notification to participants. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose to restore a section subheading

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Same as section "Proposal for changing a section heading" above

Proposal: We restore a section heading called "Support for climate change denialism" in the article that was recently deleted or changed. SageRad (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. If there is an obvious cluster of details and narrative about a subtopic of an article's subject, as there is in this one, then it makes sense to have an appropriately named subsection. We hopefully strive for the most direct and concise way of naming subsections, without concern about the PR image of a company or any other subject (except for having a bit of discretion in a BLP perhaps). So, i think that a simple subsection about climate change denial funding would make sense. It used to be here and it was recently removed. It's a pretty large trope for this topic over the course of the past year, and there is a lot of material that would fit. We're not in the business of watering down or whitewashing images of companies here. So let's state the obvious facts plainly.
The preexisting subheading was changed/deleted in this edit with a bunch of other changes. Imagine if the article on Union Carbide had a section "Bhopal disaster" and then someone came along and changed it to "Indian operations".... how would that seem? SageRad (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There is also discussion on this above, but i opened a new section to make it very simple and direct, here, on the talk page. Some people didn't like that but i think it's better to have a simple discussion in new section. Note also, this is not an RfC and it's not a vote. I wrote my comment in a vote format but it's not s voting discussion. We are here to work on finding consensus through discussion. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, use the existing section above: To avoid fragmenting the discussion lets use the section above. Springee (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I purposefully opened this new section to simplify it and bring it away from a longer section on neutrality in general. Your comment here kinda derails that. Now i'll propose we do an actual RfC on whether to restore the heading about climate change denial. I think this is important and it'll be important to get fresh eyes, so i'll say let's not use this section or the above section. Let's call a real RfC. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with fresh eyes but the problem I see is that we don't have a good choice. I don't really like any of the above. Please don't take what I'm about to say as anything against you or your concerns, I'm only speaking from things I've seen in the past. Often, and I think HughD does this quite a bit, when the group isn't agreeing with the views of an editor it is easy to run to the official RcF plan. We still have one open above. If you want to use the RfC to get the views of others and suggestions, then I'm all for it. However, if, like our current open RfC above, you wish to provide outside parties with a binary choice then I'm opposed because I suspect the best answer has yet to be proposed here. So I think other views would be good but let's focus on the comments, not on the "vote for my idea" as we had with the petty MJ RfC above. Springee (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I can appreciate that, Springee. Perhaps there is another option that some previously uninvolved editor will propose. That is a good thing to hope for. Meanwhile, i think fresh eyes are useful. I originally came to this article by way of Legobot from an RfC. I made an RfC and there is a simple question proposed, but editors are free to comment in any way, and propose alternatives... hopefully the collective mind will find the right way to structure the article. SageRad (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I would ask that you change the RfC to state what it was, what you would suggest but also make it clear that we are open to other suggestions. I would also make sure you include a pointer to the above discussion since it is relevant. This shouldn't be a voting type RfC but a comment type. I would ask that, as the originator, you make the changes. Springee (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a decent idea. I did add a comment to the RfC below to express these things. I hope it makes sense to you. If you wish to add another comment there, be my guest of course. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Don't forget that Wikipedia attempts to be informative as well as encyclopedic, and more information is better than less provided there are suitable references and citations which support the associated text. The issue of oil industry funding of climate change denialism is likely widely known, widely accepted as obvious, and even more importantly

the extant documentation provided on the network is suitable for legitimate, vetted, testable use as references. Damotclese (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time for an actual RfC. Need random sampling of editors. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive_4&oldid=1045675556"