→7 March edits: Reply Tag: Reply |
→7 March edits: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
:::::The main issue here is your removal of the record earnings. The other paragraph is by-catch, of no interest to me. Your assertion is malarkey that the record earnings stuff is "run of the mill" coverage. The media are pointing at ExxonMobil's record earnings with various accusations of wrong-doing, not bland here-are-the-numbers reportage. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
:::::The main issue here is your removal of the record earnings. The other paragraph is by-catch, of no interest to me. Your assertion is malarkey that the record earnings stuff is "run of the mill" coverage. The media are pointing at ExxonMobil's record earnings with various accusations of wrong-doing, not bland here-are-the-numbers reportage. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::::How were the record earnings actually a controversy? Most of the sources you provide don't make that case, at least not to the point that it would qualify as a controversy. If you wanted to say EXXON had record profits due to a sharp rise in oil prices due to the Ukraine war, I'm fine with that. Which accusation of wrong doing are you claiming. None were in the material you restored. Since you aren't interested in the other paragraph perhaps you can at least remove it. Would you agree to moving this record earnings to the history section where we can note that Biden was critical of the profits? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::How were the record earnings actually a controversy? Most of the sources you provide don't make that case, at least not to the point that it would qualify as a controversy. If you wanted to say EXXON had record profits due to a sharp rise in oil prices due to the Ukraine war, I'm fine with that. Which accusation of wrong doing are you claiming. None were in the material you restored. Since you aren't interested in the other paragraph perhaps you can at least remove it. Would you agree to moving this record earnings to the history section where we can note that Biden was critical of the profits? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::While I don't think there is consensus to include the financial/Biden content, the material is still in dispute. Since it doesn't appear there is support for the lawsuit information I have removed it. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:20, 10 March 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)
7 March edits
Binksternet, per BRD please make the case for including these two controversies [1]. My argument against the first is quite easy, the 2022 comments by Biden are political posturing. Why are they more DUE than any other similar comments made at other times? Why would we think they would pass the 10YEAR test the way say a major oil spill would? The second one is, in effect, an allegation. What if the lawsuit ends in victory for EXXON? Do we keep it in? In general with a company as large as this we need to see that the lawsuit had some sort of impact before putting it into the summary article. Springee (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The record earnings story got much wider coverage than may be gleaned from the CNBC and CNN sources cited in the paragraph. There's also NPR, WaPo, Fox Business, Forbes, Reuters, Newsweek, Financial Times, The New York Times and more. Removing that stuff isn't serving the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the paragraph where Biden was posturing is the correct way to summarize that? How did the business press cover it? As I recall, and it wasn't that long ago, oil prices were at record levels, which typically help oil companies. I don't see how this comprises a "controversy". It also doesn't explain why you restored the other, unrelated paragraph. Looking at your sources they aren't saying the company did anything wrong and several mention other oil companies, not just Exxon. This seems like a stretch. Springee (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we abandon Wikipedia's mission of summarizing the literature for its readers, and instead bury any story that the subject doesn't like? Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's mission is to summarize DUE material, not become a list of every thing people feel was interesting on some particular day. What you included was basically run of the mill coverage. You also didn't say anything about the other paragraph you restored. Please review the WP:PROPORTION part of the NPOV policy. Springee (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The main issue here is your removal of the record earnings. The other paragraph is by-catch, of no interest to me. Your assertion is malarkey that the record earnings stuff is "run of the mill" coverage. The media are pointing at ExxonMobil's record earnings with various accusations of wrong-doing, not bland here-are-the-numbers reportage. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- How were the record earnings actually a controversy? Most of the sources you provide don't make that case, at least not to the point that it would qualify as a controversy. If you wanted to say EXXON had record profits due to a sharp rise in oil prices due to the Ukraine war, I'm fine with that. Which accusation of wrong doing are you claiming. None were in the material you restored. Since you aren't interested in the other paragraph perhaps you can at least remove it. Would you agree to moving this record earnings to the history section where we can note that Biden was critical of the profits? Springee (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- The main issue here is your removal of the record earnings. The other paragraph is by-catch, of no interest to me. Your assertion is malarkey that the record earnings stuff is "run of the mill" coverage. The media are pointing at ExxonMobil's record earnings with various accusations of wrong-doing, not bland here-are-the-numbers reportage. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's mission is to summarize DUE material, not become a list of every thing people feel was interesting on some particular day. What you included was basically run of the mill coverage. You also didn't say anything about the other paragraph you restored. Please review the WP:PROPORTION part of the NPOV policy. Springee (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that we abandon Wikipedia's mission of summarizing the literature for its readers, and instead bury any story that the subject doesn't like? Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the paragraph where Biden was posturing is the correct way to summarize that? How did the business press cover it? As I recall, and it wasn't that long ago, oil prices were at record levels, which typically help oil companies. I don't see how this comprises a "controversy". It also doesn't explain why you restored the other, unrelated paragraph. Looking at your sources they aren't saying the company did anything wrong and several mention other oil companies, not just Exxon. This seems like a stretch. Springee (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)