Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 1

message: Please, anon and Chuck, don't revert without comments here - anon's continued removal of factual information is not making it more neutral, simply removing legitimate criticism. Intrigue 18:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: The article mentions that the US trade name was changed to Exxon but that the rest of the world continued to use Esso.  However it does not previously mention Esso at all!  What's the history of this brand name?  When did it begin?  What does it mean?  Why did they decide to retire it in the US but not worldwide? —Morven 04:43, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Just to help everyone's research, Esso retail petrol (gasoline in US-speak) outlets were known as Atlantic for some years in Australia, before rebadging sometime in the 60s. Their lubricating oil was already branded Esso. So there's some relationship there too. Andrewa 21:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the "Esso" brand 

message: **Exxon corporate profile This link was suppressed by Anon. Editor  203.112.19.195, as "outdated" without substituting an up-to-date link other than the corporation's own website. Wetman 06:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressed link 

message: I have reverted two of Libertas's changes. First, adding "Forbes is frequently sued in defamation" is completely inappropriate. We try to cite sources for claims like these precisely to avoid ad hominen, unsourced attacks, not as an excuse to attack the sources themselves. Forbes is a large, reputable publication, which has undoubtedly been sued for defamation -- but that's totally irrelevant unless it was sued over this specific article. Second, I see no reason to remove "Exxon Mobil is regarded by environmental activists as an example of disregard for environmental concerns by US-based corporations", although I did add a "many" qualifier in restoring it. RadicalSubversiv E 22:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertas's changes 

message: I've added a little info on the Esso facility at Fawley, Hampshire. I'd like to link to it from here as it's a pretty big industrial plant in the UK, but I'm fazed by the the myriad different trade-names, subdivisions etc. I can't work out exactly who owns it and what it should be called. Locally, it has always been referred to simply as "Esso". Can anyone offer any advice? Mattley 13:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esso refinery at Fawley 

message: Of the history section 349 of 708 words are lifted verbatim from . The only reason the section is not a total copyvio is due to subsequent original contributions, e.g. Exxon Valdize oilspill. I believe it's not appropriate to list the page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems as the whole article is not a copyvio but this section at least need addressing.
Not only has no attempt been made to paraphrase this contribution, but the source is not even acknowledged!
===Material copied verbatim===
....In the same year, the nation's kerosene output was eclipsed for the first time by.....gasoline. The growing automotive market ultimately inspired the product trademark Mobiloil, registered by Socony in 1920.....
...Jersey Standard acquired a 50 percent interest in Humble Oil & Refining Co., a Texas oil producer. Socony purchased a 45 percent interest in Magnolia Petroleum Co., a major refiner, marketer and pipeline transporter. In 1931, Socony merged with Vacuum Oil Co., an industry pioneer dating back to 1866 and a growing Standard Oil spin-off in its own right....
...In the Asia-Pacific region, Jersey Standard had oil production and refineries in Indonesia but no marketing network. Socony-Vacuum had Asian marketing outlets supplied remotely from California. In 1933, Jersey Standard and Socony-Vacuum merged their interests in the region into a 50-50 joint venture. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co., or "Stanvac,"operated in 50 countries, from East Africa to New Zealand, before it was dissolved in 1962....
...Mobil Chemical Company was established in 1960. As of 1999, principal products included basic olefins and aromatics, ethylene glycol and polyethylene. The company produced synthetic lube base stocks as well as lube additives, propylene packaging films and catalysts....Exxon Chemical Company became a worldwide organization in 1965 and in 1999 was a major producer and marketer of olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and polypropylene along with speciality lines such as elastomers, plasticizers, solvents, process fluids, oxo alcohols and adhesive resins.  The company was an industry leader in metallocene catalyst technology to make unique polymers with improved performance. 
...In 1955, Socony-Vacuum became Socony Mobil Oil Co. and, in 1966, simply Mobil Oil Corp. . A decade later, [the] newly incorporated Mobil Corporation embraced Mobil Oil as a wholly owned subsidiary. Jersey Standard changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972 and established Exxon as an uncontested trademark throughout the United States. In other parts of the world, Exxon and its affiliated companies continued to use its long-time Esso trademark... 
...In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed November 30, 1999... Mark 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: ....In the same year, the nation's kerosene output was eclipsed for the first time by.....gasoline. The growing automotive market ultimately inspired the product trademark Mobiloil, registered by Socony in 1920.....
...Jersey Standard acquired a 50 percent interest in Humble Oil & Refining Co., a Texas oil producer. Socony purchased a 45 percent interest in Magnolia Petroleum Co., a major refiner, marketer and pipeline transporter. In 1931, Socony merged with Vacuum Oil Co., an industry pioneer dating back to 1866 and a growing Standard Oil spin-off in its own right....
...In the Asia-Pacific region, Jersey Standard had oil production and refineries in Indonesia but no marketing network. Socony-Vacuum had Asian marketing outlets supplied remotely from California. In 1933, Jersey Standard and Socony-Vacuum merged their interests in the region into a 50-50 joint venture. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co., or "Stanvac,"operated in 50 countries, from East Africa to New Zealand, before it was dissolved in 1962....
...Mobil Chemical Company was established in 1960. As of 1999, principal products included basic olefins and aromatics, ethylene glycol and polyethylene. The company produced synthetic lube base stocks as well as lube additives, propylene packaging films and catalysts....Exxon Chemical Company became a worldwide organization in 1965 and in 1999 was a major producer and marketer of olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and polypropylene along with speciality lines such as elastomers, plasticizers, solvents, process fluids, oxo alcohols and adhesive resins.  The company was an industry leader in metallocene catalyst technology to make unique polymers with improved performance. 
...In 1955, Socony-Vacuum became Socony Mobil Oil Co. and, in 1966, simply Mobil Oil Corp. . A decade later, [the] newly incorporated Mobil Corporation embraced Mobil Oil as a wholly owned subsidiary. Jersey Standard changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972 and established Exxon as an uncontested trademark throughout the United States. In other parts of the world, Exxon and its affiliated companies continued to use its long-time Esso trademark... 
...In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed November 30, 1999... Mark 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Material copied verbatim

message: Shouldn't Mobil and ExxonMobil be combined to form one big article as Mobil's info on history and other stuff is pretty much the same. Lincher 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of article 

message: "As soon as Bush was elected, the USA - the world's biggest polluter - withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the international measure to cut down on global warming and Greenpeace has argued ExxonMobil encouraged Bush to take a stance against Kyoto."
This sentence implies that it is George W. Bush's election that led to the American withdrawl from Kyoto Protocol. This is patently untrue. Kyoto was left unratified by the Clinton administration because it knew that it would never pass the Senate. As such, the US is a signitory to the Protocol but this is non binding. Bush simply never bothered trying something that he, and every other politician in America knows, will never pass muster with the Senate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.95.200 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 December 2005 ET.
:And it ain't like Bush didn't say before the election anything about Kyoto.  He said he was against it when he was still gov. of Texas.   It was something that Gore and Bush talked about in the presidental debates.   --162.119.240.103 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto 

message: Is it really appropriate to use DP as an abbreviation for domestic partner(ship) really appropriate? Seems a bit lazy, I'll fix it if no one objects. --Timmywimmy 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DP 

message: I rephrased the sentence about shareholders' voting against "special treatment" on account of sexual orientation, both for style reasons and because it was reminiscent of opponents' slogans that specifically protecting against sexual-orientation discrimination constitutes creating a "special right" rather than assuring equality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbkelley (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 February 2006 ET.
In discussing the vote about DP benefits, I changed "shareholders" to "shares voted". There's a tiny chance that I'm wrong about this because I don't know about that particular vote, but typically votes are counted by shares, not by shareholders. In other words, if one person owned a supermajority of shares and voted against the proposal, that's all that Exxon would care about (and report), not the actual number of shareholders who voted against the proposal. AdamRetchless 02:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity--sexual orientation 

message: They're the largest company in the world (revenue), have over 88,000 employees, and presence in countless countries with massive research, exploration, and production operations.  The only picture in the article is a crooked shot of a gas station supposedly not even operated by Exxon that you can sort of see if you look across the street and past the traffic.  Is that a joke?  Dbchip 20:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you happen to have a ExxonMobil refinery or office building right next to you, go take a picture of it and feel free to get rid of my picture!  I didn't have a good digital camera at the time (I do now), which is why the picture isn't that great.  --Coolcaesar 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Does anyone have any good arguments for or against creating separate entries for ExxonMobil, Exxon, and Mobil? On the one hand, separate entries allow some focus on the history of the two heritage companies, which operated independently (by law) after their birthing at the dissolution of the Standard Oil trust, and more focus on current information for the present company. On the other hand, past is prologue and much of how the present company operates and is viewed by the public is based on the history of the heritage companies.
MJRathbone - 2 April 2005
:Much the same way that the Sears Holdings Corporation article was recently split into three, leading to the creation of two new articles: Kmart and  Sears, Roebuck and Company; a new spinoff article dedicated exclusively to the subsdiairy Exxon should be created from the current ExxonMobil article. As far as I'm concerned, the ExxonMobil article should include only informations related to the new company that was created in 1999 following the merger between Exxon and Mobil. Mobil already has its own article so why not do the same for Exxon. 
:— Farine   May 18, 2006 (UTC)
::I agree, those looking for historical information would be better suited by an article on Exxon. —Jnk[talk] 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Entries for ExxonMobil, Exxon, and Mobil 

message: This article seems pretty anti-Exxon Mobil, given Wiki's desire to remain NPOV it does not seem reasonable for an editor to add a substantial paragraph on criticisms of the company and then expect someone else to add any positive contributions.  I know the polite thing to do is ask before making changes, so I would like to add some of the positive things they have done and trim down the allegations section. --ProductofPublicEducation 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  You might mark unimproved sections with the npov tag. Dbchip 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Introduction -- "...four supermajors..."  There are five: you left out Chevron, which is quite a bit bigger than Total.
-Randall Cameron randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye
:I took the statement of four at face value, which is probably a mistake. Trying to find a reasonable definition for super major, supermajor, or super-major on the Internet is an interesting exercise. In addition to Chevron, one could also make a case for Conoco-Phillips. I saw one reference that cited only XOM, BP, and RDS. Perhaps the sentence should be pulled unless someone can develop a more precise definition.
:MJRathbone - 5 April 2006
::Supermajor.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction - [[Chevron Corporation|Chevron]] 

message: In the "Allegations against" section,  someone keeps deleting the phrase that the allegations are debatable and unproven,  and I keep putting it back.
I think it is important to preface this section with these comments.  
Allegations are inherently POV,  but in the case of such a controversial entity as XOM, I think it is important that the Wiki article give some mention of the various blots on the company's reputation (whether justified or not,)  as well as its popular perception as a villain in American politics, as the existence of these accusations are important things to know about the company, even if you don't necessarily believe the charges.
Nevertheless,  since such allegations are by nature political, partisan, and a matter of opinion,  any section giving mention of such controversies MUST be conditioned with strong NPOV language.
I'm putting the "unproven/debatable" comment back for a 3rd time.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.186.177 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 May 2006 ET.
Might want to add the stuff about them editing their own wiki entry and removing criticism.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=14323  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.83.227 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations against XOM - "unproven, highly debatable" 

message: Should the comparisons with nations be made against purchasing power parity GDP, or nominal GDP. Currently it seems to be with the former, but can i be bold and suggest that the latter is more sensible as one cannot really define a purchasing power (in the same way) for a company, can one? --Neo 09:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with GDP 

message: Does anyone have the stats for how much oil exxon is responsible for producing per day/year and how big it's proven reserves are?  I think these should be in there someone...  TastyCakes 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful to explain an "equivalent barrel of oil", but I think a link to an article that does so would suffice.  Is there such an article?  TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production and Reserve Numbers 

message: The Global Warming section should be improved as it pushes the reader into the realm of being "scientific fact".  The so-called organizations that seek to confuse the public, are no different than one sided documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth", which injects personal politics and vendettas into a science which hasn't yet proven to be true or false.
:The section does state implicitly that there is a scientific consensus on global warming which is well documented.  Other than that it really discusses only funding, not science, and every statement is sourced. The term astroturfing is used to paraphrase where possibly it shouldn't be but I see no other POV problems. --Nethgirb 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: The sidebar says "Employees: 83,700", yet in the article body it claims Exxon employs "over 100,000 people worldwide" - which is correct?
Birdbrainscan 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick check seems to agree with the article text.  I updated the sidebar and added a cite. Thanks for noticing that! Kuru talk 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many employees? 

message: There is nothing in  which evenly remotely supported the text that was in the article. Thus I removed it. Intangible2.0 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A settlement with OFAC does not mean you accept guilt or responsibility as far as I know. And only 2 companies traded with Sudan, making the current text illogical and wrong. About the Santos deal, Exxon seemed to have paid the Angola government money. The IMF does this as well. How is this unethical? Intangible2.0 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The referenced article is an opinion article. Please first show that this opinion is actually widely held. Otherwise I will have to put a NPOV tag to the section. Will you restore the OFAC bit in the mean time? Intangible2.0 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if this was a reply at all by Raymond. The article blaims Exxon for prolonging a civil war in Angola by handing over money to Santos. The implication that handing this money over to Santos caused the civil war to be prolonged is not evident. I want to see additional sources for this, which shouldn't be hard to find if this a widely held view. Intangible2.0 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dealings with Santos 

message: This is the last sentence of the introduction, "Although the largest among privately owned oil companies, ExxonMobil is still larger in size by the largest state petroleum producers."  Is this a typo, and "by" should be "than"?  Or - as indicated by the word "although" - Exxon is the largest private oil company, but not smaller than a state owned company?  I thought the state run oil compnay of Saudi Arabia was larger than Exxon, but I am not sure.  Just something that should be clarrified.--Rugz 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The article now says that ExxonMobil is the first corporation in history to hit the $500 billion market cap milestone.  I believe Microsoft was actually worth over $500 billion in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst.  I think the claim of Exxon as the first to hit the milestone needs to be modifed.Boyleb1 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $500 billion Market Cap 

message: Can somebody verify that this change is ok? The IP belongs to Exxon Mobile and has some more edits that should be checked. Regards, --85.127.143.188 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, although since then, the text has been rewritten.  I wonder if any other IPs editing here belong to the company. --Nethgirb 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it to comply with neutrality standards- it read like an Exxon press release.-Wafulz 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why shouldn't Exxon (or any other entity or person) edit their own page?Kevinp2 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: fair enough, but surely its "rap"? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks ;)  TastyCakes (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ExxonMobile edits own article 

message: Here's a more controversial edit that I wanted to get feedback on first.  I'd like to strike the following:
"The company and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and chemical industry's lobbying apparatus, tried to downplay its success in order to avoid consumer criticism by putting up page-long ads in major American newspapers, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, comparing oil industry profits to those of other large industries such as pharmaceuticals and banking. [10] [11]".
While at first glance it seems to be related, a close reading shows that this statement has little to do with the fact that ExxonMobil reported record profits for any company ever.  It appears to be pure PR to me, advertising that has made its way into Wikipedia, and as such, I think it should be removed.  Sure, it was Exxon's response, but I don't think non-factual, PR responses are notable.  Do others think this is notable?  Also, API does a lot more than be a "lobbying apparatus", it's also a standards organization and many other things, but I guess that's a moot issue if the sentence is stricken. Pro crast in a tor 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument wasn't about net profits, it was about profit margin.  Indeed, Exxon's profit margins are significantly lower than pharmaceuticals and I think it's a valid point that has been made by people other than Exxon lobyists and PR people.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to profits 

message: Someone, always using an IP rather than an account, keeps adding links to llp3.com, a Dutch website (written in English).  As far as I can tell, the theme of the site is "big corporations."  In addition to looking like it was designed by a schizophrenic with no sense of aesthetics, it is not primarily about Exxon.  The IP that adds it usually spams a few other articles with the link whenever it edits this one.  I was curious if anyone else had any opinions about this.  I've been assuming it is spam and deleting it whenever I see it.Urlass 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: it's simple. it's an attempt to color the reader's perception of the company. there are countless corporations that can be labeled "controversial". dow chemical, monsanto, BP, Walmart. however, editors with NPOV in mind have appropriately kept the lede of their articles focused on the facts. if there are notable controversies, at best they are mentioned towards the bottom of the lede. one man's meat is another man's poison, and it is up to editors to keep both meat and poison out of articles, and to simply present verifiable facts. one editor has repeatedly used a link to an ny times opinion piece as his/her reference to cite the controversy as 'fact'. the problem is, opinions aren't facts - so citing an opinion to back up an opinion does not magically make it a fact. i've reverted these edits routinely, but as user User:Stormie wisely pointed out, it's becoming a revert war. i'll repeat, this is simple: several editors are insisting on using the word "controversial" as the very first adjective to describe ExxonMobil in the very first sentence of the article. that's patently POV pushing. the controversies are discussed at length within the body of the article, where it's appropriate to do so. my opinion on exxonmobil? i barely have one. i'm neither a pom-pon wielding cheerleader for the company nor do i have a burning pit of hatred in my gut for the company. all i care about is maintaining NPOV, and high quality writing. when i see blatant POV pushing, i revert it. too bad others aren't joining in. it's the right thing to do.Anastrophe 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who comes very close to having "a burning pit of hatred in my gut for the company", I have to say I agree with Anastrophe here. If there's enough dirt on them to form an ExxonMobil controversies article, that's one thing, but the company is far more than the sum of its controversies, and probably all large companies are controversial to one group of people or another. (I don't feel that the word necessarily needs to be purged everywhere in the article, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a sentence in the opening paragraph (as is the case now)? I think that's probably the way to go: Wikipedia:Lead section states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any," although that is only a guideline and the "notable controversies" section has been the subject of some heated discussion (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Lead section/Archive 2#Notable controversies) --Stormie 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial" 

message: an anon editor changed the page to state that petrochina is now worth more than exxonmobil. while true as of today, it's the result of an IPO of a state-controlled company. in terms of earnings, exxonmobil still is larger, and the reality is that IPOs tend to be highly volatile, and values tend to drop as the stabilize after the initial excitement boils off. since wikipedia isn't wikinews, i question whether this is notable enough to change the article to say it's the 'second largest' company in the world (and since it's only via one measure, it's inaccurate anyway). i'm not against the information being added, but it needs to fall in line with notability and the fact that tomorrow it may no longer stand accurately. for reference, . Anastrophe 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the edit is correct, I do agree Wiki should not suffer from "recentlism", I suggest we wait a few days and see what happens to the market first, see if it calms down.  However, I do want to point out that in all technicality, Petrochina IS currently the largest corporation, profitability cannot be used to compare company size since many companies are valued higher than their profits, even Exxonmobil is valued at TWICE of their's; while Perochina is valued at 10x.  24.89.245.62 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/06/bloomberg/06sxpetro.php. speaks for itself as reason for these changes to be held off until the market settles down. Anastrophe 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this assertion.  Please see my reasoning at Talk:PetroChina.  If you disagree or can show me where my logic is wrong, please respond there.  Thanks.  Ufwuct (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  petrochina 

message: Why does XOM redirect here??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.30.32 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the stock symbol.  I don't know the policy for this though (whether or not it's an unnecessary redirect). Ufwuct (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an appropriate use of a redirect — which is an alternative term (stock symbol) and a convenient way of going to the page. Note that for Chevron Corporation, their stock symbol CVX redirects to the main article; For more information on use of redirects see Help:Redirect. `— ERcheck (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: There is a preposterous statement about the price of oil which says that the devaluation of the dollar is responsible for the price increase. This is fringe economics at best, propounded by an obvious Ron Paulist. Why are there no reasonable explanations of the five-fold increases in 'Big Oil' profits over the past 8 years? I've noticed that wikipedia was this time last year a great place to find no-nonsense info and a great place for debunking, but I find more and more that it is being littered with just weird fluff. Perhaps it is getting to big for its own good? -J  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you possibly make the argument that it's fringe economics? Take two seconds and look at the graph on the linked source. The trend is clear and obvious. Why are people so willing to call simple math "fringe"? Simply because it's not what they want to hear? -14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fringe or not, it doesn't belong. The assertion that its the primary cause is clearly not acceptable as is, it would have to be heavily qualified. But it doesn't belong here William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would argue that it does, in fact, belong-the sources provided very clearly point out that the primary cause of the rising cost of oil, per barrel, is caused by inflation, and not oil company profits. The price, per barrel, naturally has a direct effect on the price of gasoline, which can also effect profits of ExxonMobil, thus artificially inflating their profits.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it belongs in a general oil, or price-of-oil, article, not here. Unless you're planning to add it into all oil company articles, could you explain why you've only added it to this one? It is not true that everything to do with oil belongs in the EM article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The primary reason is that ExxonMobil is nearly equated with the oil industry in the US, due to its size, profits, and frequent mentionings in the news--I'm not denying that there are other oil companies in the US, I'm merely saying that ExxonMobil is the primary one. And again, the reason why I posted my statement is that it explains why the profits have gone up each year. --Fox P McCloud (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether it is or not in the public mind, it isn't equated in *reality*. Your edit would only be justified if added to every oil company page, whereupon it would obviously be absurd. The solution is obvious: inheritance: ie, it should go into oil or oil price if it exists, or somesuch. This is leaving aside the question of whether your edit is true. Personally I don't think it is; at the very least it cannot be stated so definitively. But thats secondary: the primary problem is that this is the wrong place William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will concede your point on where it should be placed...that said. Why can't the currency issue be stated so definitively? I provided a very informative video and provided an article; these aren't the only ones that I could have provided either. Why is it so hard to believe that currency is the primary problem?--Fox P McCloud (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, good. Currency: you have a source saying X; in fact you have several. But I hope you won't pretend that is the only opinion on the subject. Other sources would say that Y or Z explain the oil price. Analogy: I could provide you several sources to say that global warming is caused entirely by the sun. I could find you several others to say that global warming doesn't exist and the earth is in fact cooling. Nonetheless, the global warming article states neither of these contradictory positions as a fact William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profits of Oil Companies 

message: ok at the start it says it maked 404 billion in 2007 then at the bottom it says it made almost 40 billion. no one ever refers to a billion as 1,000,000,000,000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.203.125 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 40 billion profits, 400 billion revenues...  Billion in this case being the American definition (1,000,000,000), as is usual in pages about American companies (I believe).  TastyCakes (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not billions, they are millions as seen in this [document http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/2675/3201/] --Lloux (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... On page 4 they give sales and other operating revenue as 390,328 million.  Also known as... ~400 billion.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro billions 

message: NothingWorthy, you keep changing a statement along the line of "ExxonMobil is the publicly traded company with the largest profits" with "ExxonMobil is the most profitable publicly traded company".  The first is clearly the better choice, since profitability is often measured as a percentage profits over gross revenue (see here).  While not all definitions of profitability fit into these lines, and many news sources like the fortune article you cite use the various terminology loosely, when saying they have the largest profit no room for doubt is left, while saying they are the most profitable it is unclear and incorrect from the view of anyone that considers profitability to be a measure of profit margin.  So please, stop reverting it before you get three revert ruled.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reported this as an edit war here.  TastyCakes (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example of "profitable" being used to describe % rather than absolute profit, see this Fortune article.  Note also that the Oil and Gas industry (with 13.7% profits as a portion of revenues, higher than Exxon's) is not at the top of the list.  TastyCakes (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profit vs Profitability 

message: This is Jayme with ExxonMobil's Public Affairs Department.  Just wanted to let the Wikipedia Community know that we have a more updated list of our Board of Directors available on our website.  Here's the link to the most updated information:   http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/investor_governance_directors.aspx
ExxonMobil Public Affairs (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Board of Directors List 

message: There is total lack of history here, I major role in the history of Exxon is Humble Oil, yet in this article it's no more than a mere blurb. This needs to be greatly expanded. The fact the the old headquarters was the Humble (Exxon) building in Houston should be addressed, this company is what contributed to putting Houston, Texas on the map! It was Humble Oil, then became Enco, then became Exxon! There is void in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.127.186 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: # of employees in text conflicts with number in the chart Rtdrury (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of employees 

message: Have they truely learned by the wreck of their tanker ExxonValdez? I would like to know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.106.111.17 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is ExxonMobil's safty priorities in event of  a oil spill by an ExxonMobil tanker? 

message: this should be included see the link
Furthermore the company has angered many in the LGBT community since it is not gay-friendly. The company does not provide employee's same-sex partners or spouses with benefits nor provides an anti discrimination clause. The Human Rights Campaigne has consistantly rated it a 0 on its index of gay-friendliness since it began compiling its report on major companies in 2002.
::I'd like to expand on the sentence "ExxonMobil scored a 0 out of 100 on the Corporate Equality Index 2006 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.[14]" - I'd like it to instead say: "ExxonMobil was one of only three companies to score 0 out of 100 on the Corporate Equality Index 2006 which surveyed the 1,520 largest companies.[14]". Without that context I feel 0 out of 100 doesn't really tell me much. Lionfish0 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two other companies, if anyone's interested are Perot Systems and Meijer. Lionfish0 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the report:
ExxonMobil has the dubious distinction of being the only U.S. company to have rolled back both benefits eligibility for its employees’ domestic partners and a non-discrimination policy inclusive of sexual orientation. When Exxon purchased Mobil in 1999, Mobil had specifically included sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy and offered benefits to domestic partners. Exxon did neither. Mobil’s employees lost the protections and the domestic partner benefits program was closed to new applicants when they were brought under Exxon’s policies. Since then, the company has consistently refused to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy despite shareholder attempts. Instead of modifying its written policy for its employees, the company simply professes to its shareholders that it does not discriminate.
They are working on it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.163.16 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gay critisim