Content deleted Content added
2a02:1812:1126:5d00:e58e:8e81:fab:f368 (talk) →Number of employees: new section Tag: New topic |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 5) (bot |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
|archive = Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Merging Proposal == |
|||
Let's get straight to it: At 182KB, ExxonMobil's article is [[Wikipedia:Article size|too long]].<br/> |
|||
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. <br/> 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.<br/> [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Some ideas for GA review == |
|||
Hello {{u|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 conflict]]s around the world is more significant than its role as a {{tq|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. |
|||
* Prominently missing conflicts are the [[Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh|company's activities in Indonesia]] and in [[Cancer alley]]. Maybe also [https://www.proquest.com/openview/b13b009f0e53b34b0b1b71be0fd226e0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25431 this]. Exxon is also [[2010 ExxonMobil oil spill|active in the Niger Delta]]. There's really quite a lot, and it shouldn't be shuttled off to about 200 words at the very bottom of the article. |
|||
I'm open to doing a full GA review, depending on your thoughts here and what I learn about that process. Thanks![[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk: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]]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|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). [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk: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! <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|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. [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk: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? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks for checking. The following notable conflicts are still missing: |
|||
::::::*There should be some mention of [[Cancer alley]]. This is an extremely long-running conflict, as the [[Baton Rouge Refinery]] has been in operation over 100 years. Might be best to put this in the context of [https://www.salon.com/2021/08/25/exxonmobil-has-poured-millions-into-communities-its-accused-of-poisoning-now-theres-blowback/ pollution from ExxonMobil's refineries in general], so that the summary isn't too long. [https://www.npr.org/2013/05/30/187044721/baton-rouge-s-corroded-overpolluting-neighbor-exxon here] are [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/louisiana-cancer-alley-getting-more-toxic-905534/ some] relevant [https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7c9cff22-5277-11ea-8371-775fba1a956e.html sources]. There are lots more, including scholarly literature on cancer alley. |
|||
:::::::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. [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/nigerian-spy-police-sue-oil-giant/article4125113/ this] is one source. [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/2/3/nigerian-judge-issues-arrest-warrant-for-exxon-chief here] are [https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/bpnigerdelta.pdf a few] more.[https://theintercept.com/2021/09/17/enbridge-line-3-pipeline-amazon-security-exxon/]. 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! [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.treehugger.com/the-largest-oil-spills-in-history-4863988 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, |
|||
:::::::<b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|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 [[Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh|Aceh human rights violations]] occurred. It's up for DYK review right now. [[User:Larataguera|Larataguera]] ([[User talk:Larataguera|talk]]) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{Talk:ExxonMobil/GA1}} |
|||
== Exxon Valdez Spill == |
== Exxon Valdez Spill == |
Revision as of 04:57, 11 February 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exxon Valdez Spill
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
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)