The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk) 16:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
5x expanded by Larataguera ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ Larataguera: Based on the NPOV criteria, I feel the hook should be revised to say "alleged atrocities" since this involves an ongoing court case that has not rendered a verdict on ExxonMobil's complicity in the atrocities. — Arsonal ( talk + contribs)— 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh.I don't think there's any question that the atrocities occurred, and so it would be misleading to say "alleged atrocities". (That is, we would not be misrepresenting the source if the hook read "... that extensively documented atrocities ...!)
I suppose that if people are insistent that the atrocities be "alleged" (per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)), then the hook could read:
I think this is a bit wordy, but could meet people's concerns that we not describe the atrocities to have occurred in wikivoice, while not mis-representing the situation as being more uncertain than it actually is? Larataguera ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
if we make the up-front bit of the hook about all of the atrocities here, the hook really can't help but come across as POV-pushing– Why is this? And maybe this isn't even exactly what you mean, because your Alt5 hook seems to relate to the atrocities? I raise this question, because I do have concerns that talking about conflict is widely perceived as POV-pushing, but if the editing community suppresses discussion of conflict (and its appearance on the main page), doesn't this suppression implicitly favour POVs belonging to powerful interests who wouldn't want those conflicts to be discussed? I'm not talking about WP:RGW. I'm talking about legitimate cases (such as this one) where the conflicts are clearly salient in literature about the topic. It's fine if we go with Alt6 (and maybe it's better in some way); but I want to push back on this idea that Alt2 was
POV-pushing. I think it merely states a salient and interesting fact about this gas field that is widely discussed for its implications about judiciability of international claims under US law, as well as in general news coverage and in analyses about environmental justice movements, etc. Larataguera ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
RSes widely agree that these atrocities were actually committed by ExxonMobil, because that's not what Alt2 says. It says that victims
allege ExxonMobil's responsibility in a lawsuit, which is not skewed at all (as you suggest above). RSes would definitely agree that a lawsuit exists. Maybe you mean that we need to show that the lawsuit isn't entirely frivolous, and I do agree that a lawsuit should have some merit before it winds up on the main page (unless its lack of merit is noted). There are hundreds of articles about this lawsuit in peer-reviewed law journals etc. It's obviously notable; (it has far-reaching implications about corporate liability for crimes committed overseas). Note that it was Exxon's latest attempt to dismiss the case that the judge deemed
meritless[2].As far as who's holding up the legislation, it's pretty much obvious, because plaintiffs don't hold up their own lawsuits. Only defendants hold up lawsuits. But Exxon was fined $290k last year because their lawyer
"severely, repeatedly, and perversely obstructed his own deposition” and refused to answer questions, wasted time and provided inaccurate and evasive answers...[3] if that makes it any clearer. Hell, this whole thing's gone on so long some of the original plaintiffs are dead (some of them murdered!)I'm not sure if you're still concerned about stating that the atrocities occurred in the first place. The abuses were widely reported. This quote summarises some of the coverage:
The abuse was covered by news organizations—including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal—as early as the 1990s. “There wasn’t a single person in Aceh who didn’t know that massacres were taking place,” a former top government official in Aceh told BusinessWeek in a 1998 investigation. In 2001, Time magazine wrote that in Aceh, “people literally line up to tell stories of abuse and murders committed by troops they call Exxon’s army.”[4]. We've already established that Exxon doesn't dispute that the atrocities occurred (per the NYT article) and the WSJ reports that
Indonesian military confirmed...that troops in the area had been involved in "excesses". So none of the parties involved are disputing that this happened. There are hundreds of documented cases of abuse. Larataguera ( talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Exxon has shadily been holding it up with every trick in the book. That's not what the hook says. It says
the energy company has stalled for 20 years. I feel like you're subtly overstating the hook (especially with
shadily), and that this overstatement makes it difficult to neutrally assess what the hook actually says. Your restatement of the hook escalates NPOV concerns, and then those concerns are further escalated by speculation about what readers will assume. It's possible your concerns about those speculations are reasonable, and I'm happy to discuss that, but we need to assess it on the basis of the hook itself, not an amplified reading of it. Larataguera ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk) 16:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
5x expanded by Larataguera ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ Larataguera: Based on the NPOV criteria, I feel the hook should be revised to say "alleged atrocities" since this involves an ongoing court case that has not rendered a verdict on ExxonMobil's complicity in the atrocities. — Arsonal ( talk + contribs)— 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh.I don't think there's any question that the atrocities occurred, and so it would be misleading to say "alleged atrocities". (That is, we would not be misrepresenting the source if the hook read "... that extensively documented atrocities ...!)
I suppose that if people are insistent that the atrocities be "alleged" (per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)), then the hook could read:
I think this is a bit wordy, but could meet people's concerns that we not describe the atrocities to have occurred in wikivoice, while not mis-representing the situation as being more uncertain than it actually is? Larataguera ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
if we make the up-front bit of the hook about all of the atrocities here, the hook really can't help but come across as POV-pushing– Why is this? And maybe this isn't even exactly what you mean, because your Alt5 hook seems to relate to the atrocities? I raise this question, because I do have concerns that talking about conflict is widely perceived as POV-pushing, but if the editing community suppresses discussion of conflict (and its appearance on the main page), doesn't this suppression implicitly favour POVs belonging to powerful interests who wouldn't want those conflicts to be discussed? I'm not talking about WP:RGW. I'm talking about legitimate cases (such as this one) where the conflicts are clearly salient in literature about the topic. It's fine if we go with Alt6 (and maybe it's better in some way); but I want to push back on this idea that Alt2 was
POV-pushing. I think it merely states a salient and interesting fact about this gas field that is widely discussed for its implications about judiciability of international claims under US law, as well as in general news coverage and in analyses about environmental justice movements, etc. Larataguera ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
RSes widely agree that these atrocities were actually committed by ExxonMobil, because that's not what Alt2 says. It says that victims
allege ExxonMobil's responsibility in a lawsuit, which is not skewed at all (as you suggest above). RSes would definitely agree that a lawsuit exists. Maybe you mean that we need to show that the lawsuit isn't entirely frivolous, and I do agree that a lawsuit should have some merit before it winds up on the main page (unless its lack of merit is noted). There are hundreds of articles about this lawsuit in peer-reviewed law journals etc. It's obviously notable; (it has far-reaching implications about corporate liability for crimes committed overseas). Note that it was Exxon's latest attempt to dismiss the case that the judge deemed
meritless[2].As far as who's holding up the legislation, it's pretty much obvious, because plaintiffs don't hold up their own lawsuits. Only defendants hold up lawsuits. But Exxon was fined $290k last year because their lawyer
"severely, repeatedly, and perversely obstructed his own deposition” and refused to answer questions, wasted time and provided inaccurate and evasive answers...[3] if that makes it any clearer. Hell, this whole thing's gone on so long some of the original plaintiffs are dead (some of them murdered!)I'm not sure if you're still concerned about stating that the atrocities occurred in the first place. The abuses were widely reported. This quote summarises some of the coverage:
The abuse was covered by news organizations—including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal—as early as the 1990s. “There wasn’t a single person in Aceh who didn’t know that massacres were taking place,” a former top government official in Aceh told BusinessWeek in a 1998 investigation. In 2001, Time magazine wrote that in Aceh, “people literally line up to tell stories of abuse and murders committed by troops they call Exxon’s army.”[4]. We've already established that Exxon doesn't dispute that the atrocities occurred (per the NYT article) and the WSJ reports that
Indonesian military confirmed...that troops in the area had been involved in "excesses". So none of the parties involved are disputing that this happened. There are hundreds of documented cases of abuse. Larataguera ( talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Exxon has shadily been holding it up with every trick in the book. That's not what the hook says. It says
the energy company has stalled for 20 years. I feel like you're subtly overstating the hook (especially with
shadily), and that this overstatement makes it difficult to neutrally assess what the hook actually says. Your restatement of the hook escalates NPOV concerns, and then those concerns are further escalated by speculation about what readers will assume. It's possible your concerns about those speculations are reasonable, and I'm happy to discuss that, but we need to assess it on the basis of the hook itself, not an amplified reading of it. Larataguera ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)