| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exxon Valdez oil spill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 13 dates. [show] |
Reading this article today it is apparent that sections have framed this article in ways that will give favourable PR to Exxon. I attempted to correct this, what was glaring to me. The section on fines was ending with a statement than Exxon had paid a large amount of money and completed the process of justice. This is in contrast to the history of penalties being reduced and drawn out. I added a concluding sentence that summarises the section and the information in the links more accurately. However, I think that it might be better to move that idea to the cultural impact section?
The section on health impact had an out of context quote from Exxon. Ironically the quote complains about a lack of citation, but it does not have citation and contradicts various reports of health impacts without explaining. Again this seems like a way to spin the article to say that Exxon was unfairly maligned. So I added another quote from the same article cited that more accurately reflected the source and the rest of that article section.
It was also strange that the article was saying that CNN had been making the accusation against Exxon, rather than CNN reporting on the accusation. To me that sounds like Trumpist anti-CNN language.
Despite my being a casual editor on wikipedia for about 2 decades now (I edited anonymously for years prior to signing up in 2006, back then signing up was a new idea, that I avoided for a couple years) I still don't know how to deal with PR from corporations or government creeping into wikipedia articles. It is hard to know if it is a deliberate spin or just something that people in our culture, so soaked in PR, put in without malice.
Nowadays there are a lot of articles about Conflict of Interest topics Wikipedia: Don't Cry COI but also some alarming articles in the wild about subverting wikipedia How to edit Wikipedia anonymously by Reputation X Look Better Online now that the interweb is so hyper monetized.
Anyway sorry for rambling and doing these edits clumsy. But I think my edits are important and needed. I welcome someone (who is not working on behalf of Exxon or BP) to clean up the entire article instead of just these band-aid fixes I did. I'm not here to accuse anyone, though maybe someone might want to look closely at who is making edits that leave the summarizing sentence of a section with something so favourable to the corporation discussed.
I wish I could put a Public Relations Danger Tag on this article. This is a very significant cultural topic about corporate power and our environment. I am not an expert on the topic. Is there A PR tag I can put on this? I don't want to do NPOV because it is more like spin than just that. Can someone smarter than me make a suggestion here? Thank you.Rusl (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a former clean-up worker and member of the plaintiff class, I was intrigued to read that "media reports" state that most of those workers are now dead and that their life expectancy was 51 years. These reports are actually one report, an anecdotal comment in Business Insider that was repeated by this person on CNN. However, no evidence was ever cited to by this person in support of either contention which is absurd on its face and apparently fabricated. Thus I have deleted this canard from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.148.28 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Exxon Valdez oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Exxon Valdez oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction states: According to official reports, the ship was carrying approximately 54 gallons of oil, which is about 11 gallons of oil. A figure of 11 million US gallons (260,000 bbl; 42,000 m3) was a commonly accepted estimate of the spill's volume
I am no native english speaker, so it might be my fault, but i am quite confused...perhaps someone can improve that sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flo122 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
