This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
Please be aware that almost all comments in this RfC were made before the section under discussion was split to ExxonMobil climate change controversy and right now the section here includes only a summary of that article. |
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)
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.
Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
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)
Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [ [1]]
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th [ [2]] Springee ( talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Multiple neutrality issues span multiple sections and the lede.
Hugh ( talk) 17:45, 3 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Sage, if you are proposing something different, then please be specific. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) |
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
Please be aware that almost all comments in this RfC were made before the section under discussion was split to ExxonMobil climate change controversy and right now the section here includes only a summary of that article. |
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)
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.
Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
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)
Reliable Source Noticeboard, September 26th [ [1]]
Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, September 26th [ [2]] Springee ( talk) 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
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.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Multiple neutrality issues span multiple sections and the lede.
Hugh ( talk) 17:45, 3 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Sage, if you are proposing something different, then please be specific. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) |
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)