Wikipedia

Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 5

< Talk:ExxonMobil
Latest comment: 9 months ago by 41.114.164.26 in topic ExxonMobil
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?

Latest comment: 8 years ago67 comments23 people in discussion
There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus for including or excluding the header. Either way the issue is now less relevant with the creation of the ExxonMobil climate change controversy page. Given how most of the information has been moved to that article now, there doesn't seem to be room for such a subheading in the main article section.Brustopher (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article?

Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section.

SageRad (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • oppose Waste of time; please use the section "Proposal for changing a section heading" above. Please stop disruptively starting more and more discussions in a desperate attempt to get your view rammed through William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I will just let that stand, as your opinion. I think that some fresh eyes are needed. I ask you to refrain from framing my presence here in the rather nasty way you just did. I'm simply seeking more eyes for an NPOV article. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Lets agree that more important from the fact who is commenting is the fact if and how their arguments are based on the Wikipedia policies, fresh eyes or not (and probably editors who have actively participated in climate change disputes and have certain bias, in one way or another, are not "fresh eyes" even if they have not participated in the discussion on this article talk page before). Beagel (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: It's a simple case of "if the shoe fits". The heading was created in 2011 here and has remained until a week ago. It makes sense, and it's the simplest way to name the topic for what it is. No reason to water down a section heading. It doesn't serve the reader. Reliable sources report the reality that we must reflect:
So, this happened, according to reliable sources. If we don't report it honestly, then we're in violation of WP:NPOV -- it's not neutral to water it down when it's a huge story in so many reliable sources, using exactly those word. They funded climate change denialism. That is what happened. Wikipedia reports what happened. Period. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not in as many words - (EDIT: I came here from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology‎) As I understand the existing arguments above, there are two main camps - 1) Section headings should be neutrally worded in accordance with WP:NPOV, and 2) Exxon's conduct has been so manifestly unethical that a neutrally worded section heading is itself a violation of WP:NPOV. With respect, the editors in camp #2 misunderstand NPOV. It does not matter how manifestly unethical a topic may be, WP still presents the topic in neutral point of view. A classic example is the question of whether to describe Adolf Hitler as "evil" - regardless of your views on the topic, Wikipedia should merely state the facts of what the man did, which leaves the reader quite capable of judging for themselves whether or not he was "evil". In this case, "support for climate change denialism" is clearly a NPOV violation, particularly the word "denialism". What exactly do you object to about a neutrally worded heading such as "Climate change debate", and allowing the facts presented within to speak for themselves? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Neutral" means following the reliable sources. It's got a special meaning within Wikipedia. Not following sources and watering down language is the opposite of neutral in this regard. Also please don't think there are "camps" here but just comment on the content please. It's not about groups or numbers but rather the evidence in the form of reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect, following reliable sources is WP:RS and WP:V, not WP:NPOV, which is summarised: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The "holocaust denial" argument is used as an example. Having a section heading "Support for climate change denialism" means Wikipedia is endorsing the view that Exxon does this. Exxon and others deny this is the case. Whether Exxon actually does this or not is beside the point. Wikipedia should not participate in the debate, but merely report that a debate exists.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: As an uninvolved editor here, I completely agree with SageRad. NPOV is not jeopardized as long as the context provided by reliable sources is clearly stated in the source's voice, and not Wikipedia's. Darknipples (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the section heading does imply that Wikipedia agrees that Exxon engaged in climate change denialism.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and that works because it's correct acording to many reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No... but I think what we should be doing is trying to come up with a better overall structure. The titles should be NPOV and that means they should not suggest an outcome or preference. "Climate change denial" is very much a non-neutral phrase. I think it would be better if people suggested a structure that would encompass several sections all at once so we could decide if it made sense. Basically I'm not endorsing the current structure but I'm not agreeing we should just change a single subheading and move on. As a group, please suggest what the subject structure should look like and what should go where. Springee (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thought experiment: would it be "neutral" in the NPOV sense if the "Bhopal disaster" heading at the Union Carbide article were changed to "Events in India"? Reality is the arbiter. Neutrality in the Wikipedia NPOV sense mears representing reality without bias. It does not mean neutral sounding or bland language. Bland language about a thing that's not bland can be equally non-neutral. Did all the reliable sources about ExxonMobil write "ExxonMobil's attitudes about climate change were not quite in line with the general consensus"? No, they wrote that ExxonMobil supported climate change denial. So following sources would be neutral. SageRad (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
First, this is hardly the same level of "disaster" as the UC plant explosion. Second, for WP purposes the Bhopal disaster can be neutrally referred to as the "Union Carbide Bhopal plant explosion". Finally, I don't see that there is a claim that there is a wide spread proper noun called the 'ExxonMobil climate change denial'. Basically I get what you are saying but that is an example of overwhelming evidence saying that an otherwise non-neutral name is the common name. We don't have that here. Springee (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I also get what you're saying, and appreciate our ability to disagree in a civil way. I do think climate change is a vast disaster, so large it's hard to see it as such sometimes. Secondly, that incident is referred to as a disaster in Wikivoice as it reflects reliable sources. Finally, there is a widespread "proper noun" referring to ExxonMobil's support for climate change denial -- see the sources that i listed in my support for this RfC, above. Some headlines directly contain this proper noun. Thanks for good discussion. SageRad (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Section titles should be NPOV, or at least not libelous. H. Humbert (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I don't think that an entire section should be devoted to it. A passage or two in the context of a section like "issue advocacy" or "public affairs" under "Corporate affairs" would be appropriate with a cross-reference to the Climate change denial article. The existence of a section like this is not universal among company article .. I had to search a bit to find an example. For instance, see Intel where there are several sections under "Corporate affairs" like "school funding" and "open source support". Also, Keurig Green Mountain, where there are subsections "sustainability" and "corporate social responsibility". A passage or _short_ section could be written in an NPOV manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that this s a good idea to integrate it into the "Corporate affairs" section. Support this proposal by Ceyockey. Beagel (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see why it would be inappropriate. The sources appear to amply suggest that Exxon has been a major player in supporting climate change denial. (Climate change denial is a real thing, by the way... it's not just a slur against Exxon). If we have a load of academic sources documenting a very real, uncontroversial history of Exxon supporting "x", I don't see why we shouldn't discuss it, whatever "x" may be. I'm not so much tied to "Support for climate change denial" as I am opposed to "Criticism"; we should name the section descriptively based on its contents. A documented historical trend significantly covered in academic sources is not general "criticism", even moreso given that such a title implies some kind of controversy, or "political opponent." I'd also be fine with "involvement with climate change", or "political activities" with a subheading "climate change", or "lobbying efforts", or whatever. Just name it descriptively... not "criticism".   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Isn't "climate change denier" just another way to say "quack" or "fraud"? Quacks and frauds are real things too. H. Humbert (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. Read climate change denial. It is the name of a movement aimed at discrediting the scientific opinion on climate change. There isn't really a "nice" name for it, in the same way that... say... "conspiracy theorists" don't usually like the label. It has negative connotations for some people (the whole point of the movement is to mislead the public and sway policy, so no wonder...), but that's the name for the subject we're stuck with. A "quack" can be described in other ways ("a discredited/unaccredited medical practitioner" or "a practitioner of alternative medicine" or "a naturopath"). We don't have so many options for "climate change denial". I made several suggestions... but we shouldn't shy away from being accurate and descriptive just because there isn't a "nice substitute".   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It may be a movement but is the term "climate change denial" a self identifying label and has ExxonMobil applied it to themselves? Springee (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a well-defined term. Entities do not need to apply a label to themselves for it to be correct. A murdered often does not call himself a murderer, either, and yet they still are called that by others. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What label Exxon decides to use for PR isn't relevant... we aren't their PR firm. The fact is the label is accurate, well sourced, and doesn't have a good substitute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note in those words. Yes, the section should be retained, but a neutral title is needed. The current "Climate change" is ambiguous (it might mean the company's effects on climate change, etc.) The earlier version "Attitude toward global warming" is a little iffy. Something like "Position on climate change" is probably better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Neutral" in WP:NPOV means to represent the sources accurately. SageRad (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@SmCandlish, the current heading is a subsection of "Environmental record", which I think gives us context. If we're going to expand the title, I'd prefer "Lobbying on" over "Position on". Climate change denial is more about lobbying and swaying public opinion than it is about simply holding beliefs on the topic. Would that be alright with you?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. The current subsection title "Climate change" is adequate but less than informative. Yes, the subsection under discussion is a subsection of "Environmental record," and so is a subtopic in the history of the subject of the article; the appropriate content of the subsection are diverse activities of the corporation. A corporation does not have an easily verifiable "position"; its board or executives or stockholders might but not a corporation, a legal entity. The subsection content is more broad than lobbying (attempting to sway legislators or other elected officials), and includes other activities including grassroots lobbying (attempting to sway public opinion to in turn sway legislation), advertising campaigns, executive and spokesperson statements, in-house research, carefully directed outside research funding, funding of surrogates, the corporation's own operational activities to plan for climate change, and other activities. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is already fourth section on this talk page discussing the same question and therefore I understand the comment by William M. Connolley in this thread. For this reason, I am copying here my last comment on this subject. For transparency, I first time edited this article already in 2007, but until the previous RfC in December where I arrived due to notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Article alerts, my edits were mainly about sorting categories and reverting vandalism. If I remember correctly, I have not participated in any previous dispute related to the climate change. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 12 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)
In what way is the current section heading more WP:NPOV than saying "support for climate change denial"? And we can edit the section to focus only on that aspect -- after all, it's already tagged as being too long and could use splitting. SageRad (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And we can edit the section to focus only on that aspect No, we can't per WP:NPOV, more particularly per WP:CHERRY. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Why of course we could, and should. That section was on this and should again be more strongly focused. Thus is how articles are written. There are subsections about important aspects about the article's subject. That's the norm for articles. Your objections make no sense. SageRad (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Currently this subsection covers different aspects of the complex issue about ExxonMobil attitude towards climate change. Your proposal to include only the certain aspect is a classical example of fact picking instead of finding a balanced set of information. This violates WP:NPOV. But I agree that this subsection needs further trimming. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow. No it is not. It's a clss example of representing an actual thing about an actual company. It's not fact-picking. The company did this, and sources wrote about it. It's representing what is with honesty. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, indeed. And in a normal editing environment, we'd actually be simply discussing things like that and coming to agreement. Instead of which we have this rather over-heavyweight RFC method when editors don't get their way; please see my !vote above William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose but.... The suggestion is not NPOV. However, simply labeling the section criticism doesn't capture the nature of what is in that section. Suggest "Opposition to Climate Science Consensus" Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that proposal is best. It seems to be not quite the right topic. Sure, Exxon hasn't publicly agreed with the scientific consensus, but that's not what the section is about. It's about their lobbying efforts and promoting disinformation. Something like "lobbying against the climate science consensus" better sums up the section... though it's also clumsy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe some of the lobbying and the like occurred at a time before there was a strong consensus. For that reason I don't think it is accurate to say "against consensus". Also, "against consensus" is still loaded language. At some level it is probably not possible to get away from loaded terms but we could try a bit harder. Springee (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Exxon's dive into climate change denial began around the 1990s, and continues today. Climate research has been going on since the 1860s, and it was around the 1930s that we had evidence the Earth was already warming. A consensus was clear sometime in the 1980s. The IPCC was formed in 1988, and its first report appeared in 1990 showing a clear consensus. Exxon's promotion of climate change denial did not occur "before there was a consensus". Sources for all this can be found in this article, climate change denial, and IPCC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Include, having due care as to how we represent the sources. ExxonMobil has wilfully suppressed evidence of the contribution of fossil fuel consumption to climate change, using tactics straight out of the tobacco industry playbook, and there are numerous reliable sources supporting this. Obviously some sources are reluctant to use the d-word, but we have no need to describe a WP:SPADE as a "non-agricultural manual earth-turning implement": if the only options on offer are skepticism and denial, we go with denial, because the term climate change skepticism is pure spin on the part of denialists and is not consistent with the technical or real-world definitions of the work skeptic - the sources clearly show that Exxon started with a conclusion and worked back. Climate change denialism is, in fact, a neutral term, just like holocaust denialism. Obviously the denialists don't like it, but Wikipedia is not censored to protect the feelings of anybody, especially not people who put commercial interests ahead of robust scientific conclusions. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think people understand what "neutral" means in WP:NPOV

It means representing sources accurately, without biasing the representation. SageRad (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't. Reliable sources are free to present a POV; Wikipedia is not. It doesn't mean we present fringe viewpoints equally, nor does it mean we have to sugarcoat unpleasant topics, but it does mean we must not present reliably sourced opinions as incontrovertible fact. WP:NPOV is a cornerstone policy and what you have written above misrepresents it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean representing the sources accurately without bias? Of course it does. Sage is right that "neutral" means something different on wikipedia than in common usage. On wikipedia, we don't mean "equal time" or "without opinion", we mean "representative of the sources". When we have a large collection of academic sources which all say the same thing, we need to represent that clearly. "Company X engaged in behavior Y" is not an opinion, and given the consensus among our highest quality sources, representing it as an opinion would contravene the very essay you quote.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You are absolutely right in your characterisation of NPOV, but "without bias" includes the bias inherent in the sources (even if they are reliable). What "academic sources" do you mean? The examples Sage gives at the top of this thread are all news sources, and many of them either left leaning (The Guardian) or pretty solid left (Slate) in worldview. I refer you again to the summary of WP:NPOV, with my emphasis: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." In other words, we are free to state (accurately) that ExxonMobil has been accused of supporting climate denialism by numerous sources. However it is the very core of NPOV that Wikipedia not explicitly endorse this point of view. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect. That is the very crux of "due weight". If all our high quality academic sources say that Exxon engaged in behavior X, we cannot say Exxon has been accused of engaging in behavior X, as though it is a contested viewpoint. See WP:YESPOV. We are not "taking a side" by representing the viewpoints with respect to their prominence, as our policies require.
Those source include Weart, Hamilton, Monbiot and Sample and Goldenburg, Farrell, The Royal Society, Gore, Antilla, Revkin, UCS, Banerjee, Lorenzetti, Whitman, Herrick, Mooney, Foley, Mann, Washington, Oreskes, Dunlap/McCright, Farmer/Cook, Hogan, Sinden, Begley, Jacques/Dunlap/Freeman, Brulle, Fischer. I could go on for some time... All our high quality academic sources point in one, clear, unambiguous direction. This is not "just an opinion".   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
And of course the conservative press is less likely to rat up a climate change denial operation anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference between giving alternate views due weight and speaking with Wikipedia's own voice. Can you explain how, given the five bullet points in "explaining NPOV", that using the term "climate denier" is neutral?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And also, "academic sources" are different from "sources which quote an academic" (which is what you list above). One academic (Goldenburg) slinging mud at another academic (Soon) in a left-leaning newspaper does not an NPOV source make. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
On further inspection, Goldenburg isn't even an academic. Why are you characterising the above as academic sources?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
We're not using "climate denier". We're using "climate change denial". It is consistent with NPOV because it is the preferred term among our highest quality sources. The list I provided is of reliable sources, not all of which are academic (though several are). Reading through those sources paints a clear picture, and if you come away from that list believing this is a phenomena relegated to left-wing newspapers, you are not evaluating the sourcing objectively.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Denial ≠ denier, that's a stretch. But even taking you at your word, many of the sources you provide above merely mention Exxon's funding of anti-consensus scientists (eg Goldenburg calls Harvard solar physicist Willie Soon a denier). You claim theses sources as support for "denial" when they actually use the term "denier". Pretty hard to then argue that they're different terms. I'm also baffled that there is a question over whether either term is NPOV - are you aware of the Associated Press's stylebook guidelines on the issue? Any variant of the term is considered pejorative, and AP thus advises avoiding it. Hardly a "preferred term."--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not in so... I agree with Yeti Hunter above, but more strongly with Guy below about split-out. When there is a persistent spit-fight (don't point at ME! I'm only here for the RFC and the topic is not my sort of thing anyway!) there is a lot to be said for stopping to take stock. The very fact that the problem doesn't go away suggests that it is of enough concern to merit its own article and only muddies the water for the main article, which is no service to the reader. Exxon is in any case too large a subject for a single article, and its associated controversies are not necessarily what readers on other Exxon-related would be looking for. Separate the topics say I and make sure that they are conveniently, appropriately, and clearly linked to in the main article. JonRichfield (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support/Yes. The edit linked is nakedly an attempt to bury the issue by shunting off ExxonMobil's history of supporting climate change skepticism into a "criticism" section - which is always a bad idea. This obscures the fact that ExxonMobil's support for climate-change-skeptical pseudoscience is notable in its own right, independent of the criticism. Furthermore the criticism has been subsequently shaved down and/or diverted elsewhere, because that's what happens to hotly disputed topics with "criticism" sections. This is tactical maneuvering and we shouldn't allow these ploys to work. The information should be restored. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too POV and interpretive/negative for a header. Section headers should be completely neutral; therefore the heading as it is better. However I think too much has been removed when the spin-off article was created, leaving the section in the main article too bland and uninformative. There should be more info on the controversy in this main article; there is no Wikipedia prohibition against duplication of material across articles where warranted. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support without the ism. ExxonMobil are shown by sources to be a hotseat of climate change denial, which is what the topic is properly called, hence being the title of the wiki article about it. That fact is widely reported in RS and should be reported here. "Denialism" I object to on purely lexical grounds in that it's a horrible word and "denial" will do the same job far less 'Clunkily'. The content also needs to be restored. SPACKlick (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. ExxonMobil's support for climate change denialism is notable (and actually quite transparent). I agree with Sammy1339, the information should be restored. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ExxonMobil's highly significant activities including lobbying, grassroots lobbying, advertising, and financing of climate change denialism surrogates are clearly due weight as well-documented in vast reliable sources. Absence of a section summarizes these sources is so grossly non-neutral as to constitute a whitewash. Hugh (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment now that the article has split: Is this RfC even relevant now? The climate change section of the article was split off so does that make this whole question moot now? Springee (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems relevant to me as the article still needs to address the topic, even with much of the material being split into its own article. What do you think? Should we leave it going for a while or close the RfC fairly soon? How long do RfC's typically run? SageRad (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The default for RfC is 30 days but the RfC participants can agree to end it at any time. Beagel (talk) 18:42, 19 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.

April 26th edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Oppose the change of the article text from "opposing regulations to curtail global warming" to the more pejorative "research and was a leader in climate change denial". Support the edits of NapoleonX and William M. Connolley in this regard. Additionally, because there is a primary article on the mater the climate change section in this article should be brief and summarize the primary article. These changes seem to take it away from that and try to add a political bend to the subject mater. Springee (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Averting an edit war re:Trading under sanctions

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe it's absolutely necessary to make clear that ExxonMobil's opinion is that their actions were legal. Wikipedia cannot make the unequivocal factual claim that it is so; there are arguments to the contrary. Making such a determination would be WP:OR. Wikipedia can reasonably include the argument ExxonMobil provided to USA Today, the paper which broke the story, based on that source. Further legal assertions could be included with more sources. However, opinions are not facts and cannot be treated as such.

Further, I added a link to Royal Dutch Shell in my edit. It has now been twice removed in the haste to restore a faulty inclusion. Rather than reverting it yet again, I would suggest that a) discussion take place here to determine the final status of the section/sentence, and b) the link to Royal Dutch Shell should remain intact (I expect no substantial dispute on this point). Jbbdude (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine. Changed "claimed" to "said" per WP:CLAIM. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Queries

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Q1) Does ExxonMobil operate in Power generation? Do they own and operate power plants designed to create electrical energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B36D:8200:341E:508E:A605:9108 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on ExxonMobil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Infineum

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am creating a separate article at the redirect, it is only mentioned in this article briefly twice so there is no real need to discuss a merger or spin out, but I thought I should leave a note in any case. Seraphim System (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Study by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the paragraph about the study of Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes for the following reasons:

  • Information about this study is already included in ExxonMobil climate change controversy which is the main article for the climate change controversy. The subsection here should only summarize what is saud the main article per WW:SS.
  • The paragraph was WP:POVFORK as it missed the critics of the incomplete sampling of data collected by Greenpeace, authors' involvement in the #ExxonKnew campaign, and partial financing by the Rockefeller Family Fund. Also the fact that Exxon and Mobil were separate companies during much of the period in question was missed in this study as the climate research was primarily conducted by Exxon while the advertorials were primarily from Mobil.

Beagel (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New Jersey settlement

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This subsection of the Environmental Record section looks like it is getting undue weight. Also the material seems more about the Christie admin making a deal for, according to the text, pennies on the dollar vs what the actual environmental issues were etc. I would suggest this section should be justified based on the environmental impact only, not based on implying political misdeeds. Assuming the issue has sufficient weight for inclusion I would suggest limiting to a discussion of HARM then LEGAL CASE and SETTLEMENT along with the link to the article on the subject. That article can hold the controversies regarding settlement vs finishing the case etc. The linked Wiki article contains some of the context that is missing from here such as that this is an issue dating back to the 1800s and Standard Oil. I would suggest moving this to the "spills" section and changing the section to something like spills and contamination. Springee (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Springee, agree with this proposal. First, details should be added the main article for the specific topic, and here should be summarized per WP:SS. And I support your second proposal about the 'spills' section. Maybe that section could be subsection here? Beagel (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Env and GW

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This edit [1] appears to confuse Exxon's general env record and global warming. I would have thought that there must be crit - of env damage due to oil spills, or drilling operations - that are indep of GW William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the section shouldn't conflate GW and other environmental impacts. I've changed the intro sentence to "stance on global warming" as it is no longer accurate to say EXXON denies global warming. Springee (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • While GW is a part of the environmental record, the later is a broader issue and should not be captured by GW only, particularly when there is a separate subsection for GW. Beagel (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I was confused by that abstract intro and first wanted to merge it into some of the sections but decided against it. Agree it got a bit more confusing this way. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Climate and secrets

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I removed [2], because Despite knowing these risks as early as 1977,[1] it kept them a secret is wrong. None of this stuff was secret. It was discussed in the scientific literature, there were various reports to govt, and so on. Exxon had no privileged access to secret information William M. Connolley (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence claiming EXXON knew the impact it's operations had on global warming. That specific claim isn't supported in the cited reference and isn't consistent with much of what we discussed about what EXXON "knew" on the EXXON climate change talk discussions. Springee (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: where is it stated in the text? Also note that, IIRC, that claim is inconsistent with other sources as discussed here ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Early_research. This was something that was discussed here Talk:ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy/Archive_1#ExxonMobil_posted_a_critical_response_to_the_LA_Times_article.... The extended discussion makes it clear that EXXON was not certain about their climate change impact at the time and we shouldn't state it as such. Springee (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde:, there are two issue here. First, there isn't consensus for including this claim so please don't edit war it back in, especially when a talk page discussion had been started. Second, if you review the links above it is clear that EXXON adding "know" their impact. That is simply an incorrect summary. From later in the same article:
But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”
No, it isn't clear that EXXON "knew" is and we should claim as much. Springee (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this discussion, but I believed the original revert was due to me mistakenly putting in "secretly" (I read it wrong). In any case, implying they changed their minds is unsourced and demonstrably false. I included a quote to the ref that shows they knew about their impact. They can claim to have never denied climate change, but their huge support of groups denying climate change is well documented and RS do not support their claims. Stop going on about consensus when these articles have little talk page action. It's like you're following me now to keep me from these articles. What are your actual objections? Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the edit you made is that it states in Wiki voice that EXXON was fully aware of their impact as if it was established fact vs emerging science in the 1970s and 1980s. If you read both your source and the discussions in the archive of the EXXON climate change article it's clear they weren't certain. There is another issue with the quoted material that was discussed on the other article's talk page. Black is quoted as making some statements. Your source quotes Inside Climate News as the source of the Black quotes. ICN cites a report by Black. That report doesn't contain the quotes in question. In this talk page section I note that the quote that was cited here isn't in the report [[3]]. Springee (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago, Scientific American

Need for updates

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Information about reserves, production etc is out of the date and needs to be updated in the lead as also in the relevant sections. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

In 2019, InfluenceMap reported that ExxonMobil was among five major oil companies who were collectively spending $195M per year promoting climate change denialism

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't find those numbers believable. Probably, they've just reported all PR as climate lobbying?

For example https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000129&year=2018 says that Exxon's total lobbying spend in 2018 was $11M.

Actually, it's kinda worse than that. The Graun says "now spend about $195m a year on branding campaigns suggesting they support action against climate change" - and in this case, "against" means combatting GW, not lobbying against it - so how does that turn into "denialism" spending? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

FuelCell Energy subsidiary?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone provide a source? Can't find anywhere on the Internet 81.32.202.108 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

ExxonMobil is actually formerly known as Exxon

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ExxonMobil is actually the renamed Exxon Corporation and incorporated in 1882.

Reference- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408819000010/xom10k2018.htm

Granthew (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the world's largest companies by revenue, ExxonMobil from 1996 to 2017...

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is all quite out of date. Exxon doesn't even make the top 10 List of public corporations by market capitalization for any year after 2017 William M. Connolley (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rich wiki50300243.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Merging Proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Let's get straight to it: At 182KB, ExxonMobil's article is too long.
I think that the history section is the one which should be separated and given its own article. The history of the company listed in this article prior to the 1999 merger is 38KB. Additionally, even though the 1999 agreement was effectively a merger, technically speaking, Exxon bought Mobil and renamed itself to ExxonMobil, similar to the T-Mobile US and Sprint merger except that T-Mobile US didn't change its name.
What I'm suggesting ultimately is that the article ExxonMobil have its history section significantly trimmed down and pasted into a new article, which is to be named History of ExxonMobil (currently a redirect to ExxonMobil). After the merger takes place, the page Exxon will redirect to ExxonMobil. While I won't combine it with my proposal, I would also be open to merging Mobil into History of ExxonMobil if enough editors agree, but initially I would oppose it due to Mobil being a brand name used outside the US not just for fuel stations but also Mobil 1 motor oil and the sponsorships aligned with it. Exxon would be a perfect article to repurpose since the brand is only used in the United States for gas stations, and as mentioned previously, the company today known as ExxonMobil previously was Exxon prior to the merger.
InvadingInvader (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright...I'm going to be bold and move the history stuff from this article, along with Exxon and Mobil, to History of ExxonMobil. I'd still like to wait for consensus on converting Exxon to a redirect. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Welp, after no response, I'm going to go ahead with the merger...editors from an earlier RFC (Talk:Exxon#Possible_Merger?) seem to be on board. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Some ideas for GA review

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hello InvadingInvader, I noticed that you nominated this article for GA review. I'm not prepared to do a complete review at this time (partly because I've never done one and would have to get familiar with the process), but I'd like to offer these notes.

I think there's insufficient weight on controversies. Consider that there's almost equal space for the section on "Low Carbon Solutions" as there is for "Controversies", even though Exxon controversies are the subject of several other articles in themselves. Surely Exxon's role in environmental conflicts around the world is more significant than its role as a world leader in carbon capture and storage (Can that latter claim be justified at all outside of a company press release?) I would recommend careful expansion of the controversy section in summary style to include subsections on the most notable conflicts (as evidenced by those conflicts having their own articles or reference to those conflicts in academic journals), and increased placement of that information in the lead. I think the lead is otherwise too long, and some other information in the lead should be removed to make room for this.

I'm open to doing a full GA review, depending on your thoughts here and what I learn about that process. Thanks!Larataguera (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling…the problem with controversies however was that the section was simply too big; I recently split it into Criticism of ExxonMobil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. I think there are two things that would fix this. 1) judiciously introduce concise summaries of the conflicts back into the controversy section (with most detail remaining in the Criticism of ExxonMobil article, and 2) dedicate space in the lead proportionate to the material about controversy in the other article (as if it were part of the article, which it once was). Larataguera (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I can't get to it immediately, but I'll see what I can do over time. Thank you for your comments! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. I see you started on it. Ping me when you think it's ready, and I'll open a GA review. Larataguera (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that the controversy section is at a viable size as of right now, or are there certain other controversies you think should belong? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. The following notable conflicts are still missing:
There's some difficulty here, because the Criticism of ExxonMobil doesn't even mention Cancer alley, (although it does list some incidents that took place there). I think in order to get this article to GA, we'd have to get the criticism article to B. I currently rate it a C.
  • There should be some mention of Exxon's presence in the Niger Delta and related Environmental issues in the Niger Delta. We do have ExxonMobil Nigeria, but it's a stub. The 2010 ExxonMobil oil spill is not listed in the criticism article. It may or may not be directly linked here, but Exxon's presence in Nigeria should be mentioned, as well as the controversy around their private security forces and whether these forces are state sanctioned. this is one source. here are a few more.[4]. This is another extremely long-running and notable conflict that we can't leave out of a GA.
  • PNG Gas is a slightly more recent conflict. That article has a fairly long section on 'Conflicts with local communities'. I haven't reviewed it. It may deserve a brief reference here, but should certainly be included at criticism.
All for now. There are some other issues, but I will note them at the criticism article and we can decide whether they warrant mention here. Thanks for your work so far! Larataguera (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Hey there! Did some updates and further reading on your suggestions
1. Cancer Alley has since been included.
2. Focusing on the 2010 Spill, I'm having doubts about individual notability for the main ExxonMobil article. That spill only released 232 barrels of oil, a figure dwarfed by the 257,000 barrels spilled by the Valdez. Furthermore, per Treehugger, Valdez is only the 14th largest oil spill in world history (though by far Exxon's largest and most notable single incident). I think that the 2010 spill doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion on this individual article, though it does definitely merit inclusion on Criticism of ExxonMobil.
Thanks,
InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
That's great. I agree the 2010 spill may not warrant specific mention in this article, but I do think there should be some mention of Exxon's presence in the Niger Delta, with possibly a link to Environmental issues in the Niger Delta and definitely a link to ExxonMobil Nigeria, which needs expansion. I may be able to work on that.
I did expand Arun gas field by the way, which is where the Aceh human rights violations occurred. It's up for DYK review right now. Larataguera (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:ExxonMobil/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

InvadingInvader has been responding to some of my feedback about this article at Talk:ExxonMobil, so it seems appropriate to open this review and move further discussion here. Thanks InvadingInvader for your work so far! This is my first attempt at a GA review, so bear with me as I figure it out. Larataguera (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

InvadingInvader Here's your initial review. Larataguera (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I am failing this review, because there is insufficient information on Wikipedia about Exxon's global operations to write a complete article. In particular, there is limited information about operations in Papua New Guinea and in Nigeria. A good article should have summaries of these operations, not just a single link to articles that don't contain complete information. These regions are not the only areas that are incomplete, as Exxon has operations all around the globe. Additionally, I am not sure if sufficient material has been summarised from Criticism of ExxonMobil to create a balanced POV (especially in the lead) or that the criticism article is itself complete enough to ensure that relevant issues can be identified for placement in the main article. While InvadingInvader has done a lot of work on this, the remaining gaps are quite large and unlikely to be filled soon.Larataguera (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The article could use some copy-editing. The lead will have to be revisited at the end to ensure proper summary of controversy section.
    There is a lot of redundancy between the "downstream" and "retail" sections. Could these be merged into one section? Is the loyalty program notable enough to include here?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Everything looks good here so far. I will be double-checking for copyvio, and verifying sources over the next few days
    There is some cut-and-paste beginning with hard-to-decarbonize sectors... from this source in the 'Low Carbon Solutions' section that needs to be rephrased
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    The section on controversy needs expansion as we've discussed at Talk:Criticism of ExxonMobil
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Is the table of largest oil companies relevant for this article, since ExxonMobil is only one entry in a rather large table? Some other pictures would be good. Maybe a refinery and something to represent both upstream and retail. All we have is the corporate office.
    In the section about upstream activities, I wonder if we could have a map of Exxon's global holdings? Or if not, would a table read better than the list of acreage in each country?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I'm willing to copy-edit once everything is done if that's appropriate. Otherwise, maybe we can get another editor to go over it.
article fails. See note at top Larataguera (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


Exxon Valdez Spill

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Occurred in 1989 NOT in 1979… 2600:100D:B04F:CF23:8D84:F7D:9999:812A (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Larataguera (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of employees

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can't find the number of employees in Reference 4. Add slide number? 2A02:1812:1126:5D00:E58E:8E81:FAB:F368 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

7 March edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Binksternet, per BRD please make the case for including these two controversies [5]. My argument against the first is quite easy, the 2022 comments by Biden are political posturing. Why are they more DUE than any other similar comments made at other times? Why would we think they would pass the 10YEAR test the way say a major oil spill would? The second one is, in effect, an allegation. What if the lawsuit ends in victory for EXXON? Do we keep it in? In general with a company as large as this we need to see that the lawsuit had some sort of impact before putting it into the summary article. Springee (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The record earnings story got much wider coverage than may be gleaned from the CNBC and CNN sources cited in the paragraph. There's also NPR, WaPo, Fox Business, Forbes, Reuters, Newsweek, Financial Times, The New York Times and more. Removing that stuff isn't serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the paragraph where Biden was posturing is the correct way to summarize that? How did the business press cover it? As I recall, and it wasn't that long ago, oil prices were at record levels, which typically help oil companies. I don't see how this comprises a "controversy". It also doesn't explain why you restored the other, unrelated paragraph. Looking at your sources they aren't saying the company did anything wrong and several mention other oil companies, not just Exxon. This seems like a stretch. Springee (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we abandon Wikipedia's mission of summarizing the literature for its readers, and instead bury any story that the subject doesn't like? Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mission is to summarize DUE material, not become a list of every thing people feel was interesting on some particular day. What you included was basically run of the mill coverage. You also didn't say anything about the other paragraph you restored. Please review the WP:PROPORTION part of the NPOV policy. Springee (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
The main issue here is your removal of the record earnings. The other paragraph is by-catch, of no interest to me. Your assertion is malarkey that the record earnings stuff is "run of the mill" coverage. The media are pointing at ExxonMobil's record earnings with various accusations of wrong-doing, not bland here-are-the-numbers reportage. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
How were the record earnings actually a controversy? Most of the sources you provide don't make that case, at least not to the point that it would qualify as a controversy. If you wanted to say EXXON had record profits due to a sharp rise in oil prices due to the Ukraine war, I'm fine with that. Which accusation of wrong doing are you claiming. None were in the material you restored. Since you aren't interested in the other paragraph perhaps you can at least remove it. Would you agree to moving this record earnings to the history section where we can note that Biden was critical of the profits? Springee (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
While I don't think there is consensus to include the financial/Biden content, the material is still in dispute. Since it doesn't appear there is support for the lawsuit information I have removed it. Springee (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I would certainly keep the financial stuff with regard to Biden, as suggested by Binksternet. Wikipedia isn't fundamentally about judging and definitively teaching what's noteworthy but more so reflecting what we've decided as a society is noteworthy. Given that the media from all corners of life have covered these record profits as well as Biden's comments, I don't see any good case for removing them. I'm still on the fence with regard to the lawsuit. It's a CRYSTALBALL scenario with regard to the outcome, but it's already covered by RS's. IDK at this point on that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

ExxonMobil

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been there ever since giving people an opportunity to change and improve their lives.. wish to work for the company one day.@Italic 41.114.164.26 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive_5&oldid=1212134987"