Jump to content

Talk:Arun gas field

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Larataguera (talk). Self-nominated at 03:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Larataguera: Based on the NPOV criteria, I feel the hook should be revised to say "alleged atrocities" since this involves an ongoing court case that has not rendered a verdict on ExxonMobil's complicity in the atrocities. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsonal, it's true there's a subtle difference between "not denying" and "acknowledging." I missed that, and I'll fix that sentence. As for the hook, the source says that Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh. I don't think there's any question that the atrocities occurred, and so it would be misleading to say "alleged atrocities". (That is, we would not be misrepresenting the source if the hook read "... that extensively documented atrocities ...!)
So to be clear, what is "alleged" (and yet to be ruled in the lawsuit) is Exxon's responsibility for the atrocities (under US law). Not the atrocities themselves.
Larataguera (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Larataguera. I agree that the sources point to atrocities being committed, but a reader with no knowledge of the context (which is the point of DYK) and just reading the hook without any antecedent of who committed the atrocities would imply the atrocities were committed by ExxonMobil, resulting in the lawsuit. But, as your source states, the atrocities were in fact committed by the military. I propose the following:
Let me know what you think. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Arsonal for this suggestion. It seems like anyone who reads much of anything into the hook will just click on it and find all the information they need. The point is to create interest. I think Alt0 is factual and would get more clicks than Alt1, which I think is a little too long and gives too much information.
If you strongly feel Alt0 is unacceptable, how about
That works for me. Approve ALT2. Thanks for working with me, Larataguera. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom). SL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that if people are insistent that the atrocities be "alleged" (per concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)), then the hook could read:

I think this is a bit wordy, but could meet people's concerns that we not describe the atrocities to have occurred in wikivoice, while not mis-representing the situation as being more uncertain than it actually is? Larataguera (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reviewer needed to check Alt3. Referenced discussion that caused this to be pulled from prep is now at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 188#Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom). Striking prior hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see ALT3 as a substantial improvement on ALT2 – the wikivoice is pretty much still there, and calling them "extensively documented" reads like a nudge towards its validity (I don't think that was intended, of course). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Theleekycauldron for getting back around to this one. I guess I'll see if I can come up with another hook. Just so we're working off the same page, are you clear that literally no one actually disputes that these atrocities occurred? Like not even Exxon? So the lawsuit isn't about whether or not these atrocities happened. It's just about whether Exxon is responsible and liable in US courts. I'm just wanting to be sure we're on the same page, because I'm having a little trouble understanding the concern here. The source says they're extensively documented. The NYT says they're extensively documented. So why can't the hook say that, exactly? Just trying to understand the concern, because I don't think Exxon CEOs would dispute this hook. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean, hrm. I guess my worry is that if we make the up-front bit of the hook about all of the atrocities here, the hook really can't help but come across as POV-pushing. What about hooks like these? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • ALT4: ... that local unrest chased ExxonMobil out of the Arun gas field?
        • ALT5: ... that human rights groups say that ExxonMobil provided the equipment for the mass graves dug at the Arun gas field?
          theleekycauldron thanks for offering some alternative hooks! I think Alt4 is confusing, because it sounds like Exxon got chased out, but their exit was very temporary. They left briefly in 2001, but they retained ownership of the field until 2014 when resources were depleted [1]. (The article could possibly make that clearer than it does!)
          Alt5 could be ok, except I wouldn't link to ExxonMobil in that case, and I'd rephrase to read more smoothly so:
  • ALT6: ... that human rights groups say ExxonMobil provided equipment to dig the mass graves at Arun gas field?.
On a broader note, I'd like to question your statement that if we make the up-front bit of the hook about all of the atrocities here, the hook really can't help but come across as POV-pushing – Why is this? And maybe this isn't even exactly what you mean, because your Alt5 hook seems to relate to the atrocities? I raise this question, because I do have concerns that talking about conflict is widely perceived as POV-pushing, but if the editing community suppresses discussion of conflict (and its appearance on the main page), doesn't this suppression implicitly favour POVs belonging to powerful interests who wouldn't want those conflicts to be discussed? I'm not talking about WP:RGW. I'm talking about legitimate cases (such as this one) where the conflicts are clearly salient in literature about the topic. It's fine if we go with Alt6 (and maybe it's better in some way); but I want to push back on this idea that Alt2 was POV-pushing. I think it merely states a salient and interesting fact about this gas field that is widely discussed for its implications about judiciability of international claims under US law, as well as in general news coverage and in analyses about environmental justice movements, etc. Larataguera (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I owe you an apology, Larataguera, for jumping to a few conclusions. A lot of the articles that come through DYK are on topics that aren't really well-covered: to have an article this small, on a topic this polarized, that actually comes with RSes willing to not go right down the middle of the road, is exceedingly rare. I got a bad vibe from this nomination, but the harder I look, the less I think my initial worries were fully substantiated.
So, let's start fresh. If you can show me the sources that demonstrate that this is a DUE skew, that RSes widely agree that these atrocities were actually committed by ExxonMobil and who's at fault in holding up litigation, I'll start revisiting hooks higher up in this nomination to see what can be rustled up as a crystal clear pass. But these are all extraordinary claims, and they will need airtight sourcing. Sound good? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, thanks. I'm not really sure what you need beyond what we already have. Let's look at Alt2 for instance. I wouldn't need to show you that RSes widely agree that these atrocities were actually committed by ExxonMobil, because that's not what Alt2 says. It says that victims allege ExxonMobil's responsibility in a lawsuit, which is not skewed at all (as you suggest above). RSes would definitely agree that a lawsuit exists. Maybe you mean that we need to show that the lawsuit isn't entirely frivolous, and I do agree that a lawsuit should have some merit before it winds up on the main page (unless its lack of merit is noted). There are hundreds of articles about this lawsuit in peer-reviewed law journals etc. It's obviously notable; (it has far-reaching implications about corporate liability for crimes committed overseas). Note that it was Exxon's latest attempt to dismiss the case that the judge deemed meritless [2].
As far as who's holding up the legislation, it's pretty much obvious, because plaintiffs don't hold up their own lawsuits. Only defendants hold up lawsuits. But Exxon was fined $290k last year because their lawyer "severely, repeatedly, and perversely obstructed his own deposition” and refused to answer questions, wasted time and provided inaccurate and evasive answers...[3] if that makes it any clearer. Hell, this whole thing's gone on so long some of the original plaintiffs are dead (some of them murdered!)
I'm not sure if you're still concerned about stating that the atrocities occurred in the first place. The abuses were widely reported. This quote summarises some of the coverage: The abuse was covered by news organizations—including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal—as early as the 1990s. “There wasn’t a single person in Aceh who didn’t know that massacres were taking place,” a former top government official in Aceh told BusinessWeek in a 1998 investigation. In 2001, Time magazine wrote that in Aceh, “people literally line up to tell stories of abuse and murders committed by troops they call Exxon’s army.”[4]. We've already established that Exxon doesn't dispute that the atrocities occurred (per the NYT article) and the WSJ reports that Indonesian military confirmed...that troops in the area had been involved in "excesses". So none of the parties involved are disputing that this happened. There are hundreds of documented cases of abuse. Larataguera (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, again. In short, I've been going back and forth in my head on NPOV as it relates to what the text actually says versus NPOV as it relates to what the readers end up interpreting. If we say, in all the nuance we get in under 200 characters, that 1. hundreds of villagers say atrocities were committed at Arun gas field, and 2. Exxon has shadily been holding it up with every trick in the book, most readers will assume that we're implying Exxon's guilt. On the one hand, it's not always or exactly my job to care about what readers think about the information we present; but on the other hand, it's also up to DYK to not present information that subtly hints at a certain conclusion. If the sourcing were airtight and full-throated about the idea that Exxon is responsible for these things, and the lawsuit was nothing more than a formality, I would have less of a problem with that implication, but the sources seem to be holding back as well. It's really difficult to strike that balance in under 200 characters, and I'm somewhat at a loss. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi theleekycauldron, thanks for getting back around to this! And thanks for describing your quandary more clearly, because I'd been having trouble understanding your concerns. I think I do understand better now, but I'm still concerned about your statement that this hook says Exxon has shadily been holding it up with every trick in the book. That's not what the hook says. It says the energy company has stalled for 20 years. I feel like you're subtly overstating the hook (especially with shadily), and that this overstatement makes it difficult to neutrally assess what the hook actually says. Your restatement of the hook escalates NPOV concerns, and then those concerns are further escalated by speculation about what readers will assume. It's possible your concerns about those speculations are reasonable, and I'm happy to discuss that, but we need to assess it on the basis of the hook itself, not an amplified reading of it. Larataguera (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having made the above point (which I think is important), and in the interest of finishing this up, how about this:
Alt7: ... that when Indonesian soldiers guarding Exxon's Arun gas field committed atrocities against local villagers, victims filed a US lawsuit against the company that has been stalled for over 20 years.
This makes it clearer that the Indonesian military was involved, (because it seems your concerns are similar to Arsonal's above , ie alt1). Larataguera (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are, I'm getting confused myself. To button this up, here's how I'd phrase it:
Thanks once again for thoughtfully engaging, Larataguera :) should be good to go with ALT7a. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that saves two words in the hook, though I've a slight preference not to link to ExxonMobil if it's all the same to you. Thanks to you too! Larataguera (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arun_gas_field&oldid=1205381697"