Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 17 April 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Too clean

Doesn't this article seem a bit too... "sanitized" to you? What's the name of that software that tracks where edits to certain pages came from? I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few edits to this page from your friendly neighborhood ExxonMobil station, if you know what I mean.

Yes, it was clearly by industry promoters with only a few minor nods to the organization's huge influence and plainly false claims in TV ads. Now has an NPOV notice. Needs more work on the API's efforts to hide negative health and environment effects of its "industry".

--XavierFox42 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought this article would be more in-depth than it is. At the very least I thought I'd find info on their recent greenwashing ad campaign on TV (specifically who that "Thank You For Smoking"-ish spokesperson is). Someone needs to come back here, put in all the relevant data that would flesh this article out and then request a lock from further edits because obviously someone is keeping this article small and sanitized for a reason. --ThePenciler (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now has some note of that, and the new 2011 campaign. More dirt and dirty oil references needed.

Global Warming

This article claims that "The API was also active in public relations efforts that claim that the greenhouse effect and global warming in general will be beneficial to society..."

I can find no evidence to support such a claim and believe it should be removed.

66.208.4.126 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC

• I have removed the unsourced claim.Cyrusc 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they promote Fred Singer who made exactly that claim?

General Tone

I added the NPOV tag because I felt that the general tone of this article did not seem very objective. It seems to me that the article has had various sentences added at whim by those who hate the API, and by those who adore it. I also added the stub tag - and thus until this article is expanded further, and until it cites more comprehensively its sources, i think its neutrality should remain in question. This is especially true considering that it is THE primary institute that gets referred to when people mention (especially in the media) the "oil lobby". It would be unfair for users, when searching for who this amorphous "oil lobby" is, to stumble upon this article and not be clued in to the fact that there are diametrically opposing points of view on the matter. EvanClifthorne 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I expanded the article and added sources citing both API and opposing positions.Cyrusc 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. NPOV tag is back. Terms like "leading" don't belong, obviously, or even "main", when it's fair to say "largest" or "prevalent", etc.

Role in settings specifications

This needs more work. API sets standards in several different areas of the industry, including drilling and production equipment, refining, lubricants, offshore engineering and construction. There is a spec for centrifugal pumps in refinery and flowline service, but the standard centrifugal pumps used on drilling rigs are not controlled by API (although they may be surrounded by other drilling equipment that is governed by an API spec). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzolian (talk • contribs) 04:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial: Question raised on WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages, including this one. Please comment there, and perhaps we can come to a consensus that applies to all the pages where this is used.

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Among most prominent in climate disinformation

Contended content in bold:

In December 2009, Mother Jones magazine said API and Energy Citizens were among the most prominent organizations in promulgating climate disinformation.

Reference

• Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved August 17, 2015. 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.

Discussion

The content is clearly attributed in-text in full compliance with our project's policies including WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:YESPOV. We are expected to summarize significant points of view. Sources need not be unbiased; if we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in text, and trust our readers, not to reduce or "soften" the claim of the source. If a noteworthy sport writer wrote that Michael Jordan was one of the top ten basketball players it would be non-neutral for us to summarize the writer as saying Jordan was a basketball player. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) When we summarize what someone said, we have just as much of a responsibility to be accurate as we do when summarizing facts and events. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

MJ is clearly biased, and it is not clear at all that the view is notable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources need not be unbiased; the possibility of bias is addressed in full compliance with our project's policies including WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV via in-text attribution. When a noteworthy source characterizes a subject of an article as "one of the most" it is almost certainly noteworthy. What is your basis in policy or guideline for repeatedly deleting this contribution? Hugh (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

MJ is clearly biased, and it is not clear at all that the view is notable. What is your source for your assertion that MJ's view is notable? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Mother Jones is noteworthy as a source of investigative journalism on environmental issues. Harkinson and Mother Jones were among the first anywhere to write about climate change denial as organized, something we understand and take for granted today. We are asked to consider WP:USEBYOTHERS in evaluating the noteworthiness of sources.

• Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Organized Climate Change Denial" (PDF). In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 9780199683420.

The Oxford Handbook is a noteworthy reference on the sociology of climate change edited by noteworthy editors. The Dunlap and McCright chapter is one of the founding papers of the area of study of organized climate change denial within the discipline of environmental sociology. Another Harkinson Mother Jones (magazine) article is cited as well. It is highly significant that an academic paper cited mainstream media articles before there were many academic papers to cite. The record in noteworthy reliable sources is clear that Mother Jones (magazine) and Harkinson helped all of us, including academia, recognize that climate change denial is organized and a legitimate object of study.

You have deleted the clause "among the most prominent organizations" three times in recent days, rendering our project's summarization of the source inaccurate, so inaccurate as to be non-neutral, in the direction of favorable to the subject, with the following edit summaries:

1. 14:21 15 April 2016 "MJ isn't neutral, so don't quote too much from them#"
2. 15:12 15 April 2016 "nah, as before"
3. 13:09 16 April 2016 "BRD. Ever heard of it?"

Please clarify your edit summaries, thank you. What is your basis in policy or guideline for reducing the accuracy of our project's summarization of attributed content? I find no basis in policy or guideline for reducing or "softening" an attributed claim, on the basis of possible bias or notability or anything else. If we suspect a source of bias, we are asked to attribute in-text, not to mis-quote it. If we think a source non-noteworthy, we are asked to exclude it, not mis-quote it. Hugh (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: you wrote "...it is not clear at all that the view is notable." The subject of this article is in our category Category:Climate change skepticism and denial. Here we have a noteworthy reliable source expressing the significant view that the subject of this article is among the most prominent members of that category. The source is distinguishing the subject of this article from all other members of its category; this is the very essence of identifying and including content that supports notability and is therefore WP:DUE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Answering a question about noteworthiness by simply asserting that the source is noteworthy is circular illogic William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• HughD, since the end of your ANI against me you have failed to take the advice you were given. You dove right back into the Pinto related arguments by reverting NickCT's correct removal of your questionable material (removal before ANI closed, restoration after ANI closed. Despite being warned by Safehaven86 about your edit warring and TBAN violations you have now reverted the same content 4 times in 27 hours (1 was my edit from last fall, 3 are William M. Connolley's restoration of previous consensus. The material in question, which you have tried to restore to at least a half dozen articles, was exactly the material that has been a source of conflict between you and I as well as a number of other editors. That seems a lot like you are trying to antagonize rather than walk away from our conflicts as was suggested to you. Finally, your edits have been against the RSN and NPOVN consensus from last fall. You participated in those discussions. This is clearly edit warring and battleground behavior. Again, PLEASE STOP. Springee (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed energy articles
• Unknown-importance energy articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed organization articles
• Unknown-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles