Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 25 January 2016

This page is not a forum for general discussion about ExxonMobil climate change denial. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about ExxonMobil climate change denial at the Reference desk.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Environment: Climate change C‑class Mid‑importance

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Origin of this article as a split from ExxonMobil

This article is the product of a group discussion on splitting the ExxonMobil article to make it more concise, and to be able to include more details in this sub-article that would nicely fit into the main article about the company. SageRad (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this section needs a proper introductory paragraph. Any one want to volunteer? Springee (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

HughD, as was discussed here with your involvement, the best source for the statements made in a report by the UCS is the actual report. Unless someone is claiming the entire reference should be removed there is no reason to use the NYT short article as the reference. Replacing the link to the report with one to an article means you are no longer linking to the most reliable source for the claim. Linking to both in a case when the weight of the claim isn't being questioned is OVERCITE. Doing this after just going through the process in the last few days on the parent article is bludgeoning. Please be respectful of the process. Springee (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Overcite

Template:HughD, there are a lot of overcited references in this article. In cases where the weight of the reference has not been questioned please cut things down to the one or perhaps two strongest references. In cases where the reference is quoting a report such as the reports by the UCS or Royal Society, the reports themselves would be the best source. Also, you added a citation here ] that doesn't make any sense in context of the statement is supposed to support. Please fix it. The work on changing the order of presentation looks good. Springee (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved the reference to external links. There only appear to be a few parts where overcite may apply. Please point out which parts you take issue with. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for a lot of updates and work on the article. I haven't checked all the refs but as a general rule I would say any time there are more than two references cited we should ask if they are needed. There are several places were 3-4 references are used. I would suggest looking at those and deciding which references make sense to keep. Thanks also for taking care of the ref that didn't makes sense (NYT-2007, you made it a link). I'm not sure it even needs to be a link given the limited content of the NTY article but that's more stylistic than anything else. Springee (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I realized the 2007 article belongs to a related content part, moved it there. Well, up to 3 references should be fine. prokaryotes (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To keep things consistent with the parent article I've removed the citation. This issue was discussed there and HughD appears to have chosen to not follow that consensus when adding it here. The sort version of why it was removed at the parent was the weight of the claim isn't in dispute thus we should really keep things down to the best source for the claim. Since the material that needs to be supported is a quote from a UCS report, the best source for the quote is the report. The NYT article in question was very short and basically just summarized the UCS report. We really should check other examples of 3 or more refs (ideally 2 or more) for similar examples. The only reason to have more than one reference is cases where the weight or validity of the claim might be questioned. In this case if people said the views of the UCS were not significant then the fact that the NYT reported them could be seen as proof of weight. When I get a bit more time I'll look at the other potential overcite examples. I would think any time the citations are meant to support direct quotes the signle best source should be sufficient. Springee (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First off, it is better to link to a secondary source, and secondly can you link to a Misplaced Pages guideline which says that we should use only one reference? prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:OVERCITE, " A good rule of thumb is that, except for certain controversial topics, one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient. Two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, but more than three should usually be avoided;". Remember that the WP article had a direct quote from the report. Unless the NYT article directly supported the quote then it's not actually a valid citation. That doesn't mean it's a bad source just that it doesn't support the citation in question. Since the WP statement was that the UCS report said X, the actual report is the most authoritative source for the contents of the report. It's like citing "Old Man and the Sea" for a quote from the book vs a review of the book for the same quote. No one is disputing that the UCS said what is in the report nor is anyone claiming the quotes lack weight. Thus only one inline citation should be used per OVERCITE. Anyway, there was a previous conversation about this exact reference on the parent article page here ]. Note that if we were talking about interpreting the contents of the report vs directly quoting them then I would agree with you that we should use a secondary source for the interpretation and probably also include a link to the report (perhaps as a bundled citation). Springee (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if it is clear that the exact same content is linked twice, then we need only one of those. But this is not clear, and there are parts where paragraph content depends on multiple references. And you do understand that this page indeed is a controversial topic. prokaryotes (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand what you are concerned about. In that particular case the article claim was that the UCS report contained several quotes. The NYT citation wasn't used to support the larger paragraph and really all the short NYT article said was that the UCS issued a report that said X. Certainly in other cases more than one citation is going to be needed. For example a claim that says "a number of reports have been critical of EM for X". That would need links to more than one report. In the article the sentence "In 1981, Exxon's in-house climate experts raised concerns regarding developing the offshore Natuna gas field off Indonesia, which is 70% carbon dioxide, the main contributor to climate change." Probably should have more than one citation though one or two strong citations should be sufficient. But more than one is reasonable if the source(s) material is based on journalistic investigations rather than a direct company statement. On the other hand consider this sentence, "Toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its own climate research and was a leader in climate change denial.". OVERCITE says 4 citations is simply too much.

Another example that probably should have just one is this statement:

In 2006 the Royal Society published a letter, pointing out that of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," and ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."

The above is basically an excerpted quote from the Royal Society letter. There is no interpretation or journalistic interpretation. If the Royal Society published the letter and we can cite the letter itself then we should not cite the other three sources. They may be good articles for other facts but not for the way they are being used. If all three support the quote and we can't find the original letter then pick one and remove the other two per OVERCITE. In this case the only reason for more than one is if there is a dispute about the actual content of the letter. As far as I can tell there is no dispute. Basically this example is the same as the UCS letter. Springee (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah makes sense, regarding the gas field, it is unclear to me why this is part of the article at all. Or is this similar to Shell's Arctic exploration ambitions? However, the gas field part's first two refs seem significant, but refer to something else, in such a case we should either move these or add the missing content. prokaryotes (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Funding

I suggest to move the funding related content to its own section. prokaryotes (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil's grant making activity is one of if not the most significant subtopics of this article, with numerous noteworthy reliable sources for sue weight. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok :) Does this mean you approve of moving all the tidbits about funding to a separate section? prokaryotes (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles