This is an archive of past discussions about Rex Tillerson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a very poor page considering the importance of Tillerson in sustaining anti AGW propaganda regardless of whether you consider this activity good or bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillO'Slatter (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Why are these FACTS not included on this page? This person is in charge of an organization whose damage to the planet is intentional and well-documented -- those facts are not POV, they are true. And yet he doesn't have to follow the rules, such as how long speakers at his Town Council may talk, because he is above the rules? Some Boy Scout here!
As written, this one-sided hagiography does not fairly represent who this public figure is. A "Criticism" or "Controversy" subsection is much needed. I don't have ExxonMobil's money and time to come back here and erase such things regularly, so I request that the Wikipedia editors make this page more representative of its subject and disallow any more fawning accolades of this criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpdeever (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
authenticity of Rex Tillerson internet pages
I was gonna start a thread on his wikipedia page, concerning Tex Tillerson duplicate internet pages, for instance on Facebook, that have clearly been manufactured by sombuddy else than Rex, or authorized by him to ghost writers. Some pages that are somehow in some ways claiming to be written by Rex Tillerson himself. The wikipedia biography pages of a person are known, at least somewhat, as written by other people, they are biographical as opposed to autobiographies, altho there have been a few 'incidents' were there are claims that the actual person has been dominating the wikipedia page about themselves, or have hired others to do so, or simply have 'devoted people' that do som without any real impetus from the actual person. Anyways, i think Rex, or other famous people, or controversial people, that most of them would be fine with other, unauthorized, folks writing up internet pages about them, be they pro or con pages, or muddy middle perspectives. However, may it be wise to have Rex's, or other folks' pages that are in this situation, somehow the biography page or authorized autobiographies, certified as written or authorized by them, so readers have some idea of who is who, and what the actual person is saying or authorizing another person or team to say?
Wikipedia does not work like Twitter, where famous people can have 'verified' accounts run by themselves or their staffers. I don't know whether Tillerson has a facebook page (or verified twitter) or similar, but if you want material that is authorized by Tillerson specifically, you can find info about him here --
Wikipedia material is generally NOT written by the person that is the subject of the biography, or by their staffers/employees/PR-firms/similar. When this happens, it tends to stick out like a sore thumb, and is eventually fixed. (Sometimes the paid PR people also get bad press for interfering with wikipedia articles in such a fashion.) Tillerson's current page seems like it has not suffered from that sort of poor input, but it has suffered from some benign neglect -- pretty sparse for a famous CEO. If you want to know more about how wikipedia specifically deals with biographies, you can read WP:BLP. If you want another encyclopedia -- wikipedia hasn't yet conquered the world -- you can try https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rex-W-Tillerson which has something by Sarah Forbes Orwig. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The only part I disagree with is near the end where they said they were worried about the pick because of his ties to Russia. Trump has vocally and very clearly made for a fact that he likes Russia and believes the "Russia hacked the election" rumor to be completely silly. I highly doubt he would have deliberated on a pick if he was worried what it would show about relations with Russia, because he knows their interaction with the election is fake news. Obama himself said Russia can't hack the election - so as long as that part isn't in this article I'd say the rest is surprisingly solid for Politico. --Semmendinger (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
How is this "fake news"? The concern - related in countless articles before and since the election - was that the hacking and subsequent leak of DNC and related emails was done in an effort influence the election. Sources are not saying "the election" was hacked, i.e. the results. Qzd (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say this was fake news, I'm saying Trump isn't bothered by Fake news. This is actually a pretty good article. I'm just saying Trump wouldn't have made something as important as the SoS pick based on fake news because he's vocally stated he thinks the whole Russia thing is ridiculous. Semmendinger (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems like this discussion is getting into peoples' opinions on the subject itself, rather than just on what the article should say and the sources for it. This is not a general discussion forum. Neutron (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016
This edit request to Rex Tillerson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
RE: "Tillerson will reach Exxon’s mandatory retirement age of 65 in March 2017". Is this statement accurate as the previous CEO retired at 67? Also, is not a mandatory retirement age considered, under US law, discriminatory save for some government positions? 70.71.55.58 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
RE: "Tillerson will reach Exxon’s mandatory retirement age of 65 in March 2017". Is this statement accurate as the previous CEO retired at 67? Also, is not a mandatory retirement age considered, under US law, discriminatory save for some government positions?
Should the medal illustrate this article? To the best of my knowledge this is the only medal he's been given, and furthermore it is noted in the infobox. kencf0618 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
His sole medal? From a foreign government? To a man who is now a presumptive Secretary of State? Such a medal is not a matter of decoration; it is a matter of who has esteemed whom, once upon a time. kencf0618 (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think the award should certainly be in the article. It's notable and relevant. Not too convinced that there should be an illustration in the infobox. I see many US politicians and military leaders that have decorations listed in their infobox and no illustrations. Why is this particular award more important than those? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the section on "Gay Rights", which was apparently added yesterday. It stated, "Tillerson served as president of the Boy Scouts of America from 2010 to 2012, at the time that the delegates voted to allow openly gay youths to join their troops and earn their merit badges. After the vote took place, Tillerson led the Boy Scouts to implement the change." The vote did not occur during Tillerson's term as president. His term ended in mid-2012 and the vote in question took place in May 2013, with the change effective Jan. 1, 2014. (See Boy Scouts of America membership controversies.) Two sources are cited in this section. The first, from the "Dallas News", does not actually say Tillerson was president when this change was made. It is an article from 2014 and says the change was made "last year" (2013) and that Tillerson was president 2010-2012, all of which is correct, meaning he was not president at the time of the vote. The other article, from USA Today, merely cites the Dallas News article, and cites it incorrectly, for the proposition that Tillerson was president at the time of the vote. Tillerson was still a member of the National Executive Board (according to the USA Today article) and it was apparently in this capacity that he made the speech about the newly-adopted policy that is reported in the Dallas News article. The Dallas News article says that he did support the new policy, but it quotes one person with what I think is a rather simplistic statement about a complicated issue, so I think other sources should be found before anything is said on Tillerson's view of this subject. I don't think this is necessarily the time and place for a discussion of the complexities of this issue, but if anyone really thinks something should be re-added about this subject, we can have the discussion. Neutron (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
... Nonetheless, Tillerson was instrumental in lobbying the Scouts’ board to accept openly gay youths, said John Hamre, president of the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, of which Tillerson is a board member.
“I can’t get into the intimacy of these conversations. But he agonized over this. He prayed on it, and ultimately he came to the conclusion the only thing that can guide him here is what’s best for the young boys,” he said. “I think he became a key leader in helping the group come to a consensus.”
I see no problem with including this, especially if we attribute the statement to Hamre. I would welcome additional sources that expand on Tillerson's views, but think we'd be amiss to completely exclude this detail. The bigger issue now is that the body of the article does not once mention that Tillerson was BSA president. gobonobo+c22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your last sentence and have put that fact into a more prominent section of the article than it was in the first place. Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste the source on the device I am currently using. I will address that later and will also address the more complex issue. And it is a complex issue, which the text I deleted addressed only a fraction of. Neutron (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: On the other issue, I think Mr. Hamre is not a strong source for Tillerson's activities on the BSA board, because there is no indication that Hamre is on that board. Apparently whatever Hamre knows is what Tillerson told him in these conversations that Hamre does not want to go into detail about. I also think that a section on Gay Rights based solely on this statement would be incomplete, because it would not deal with the other issue that was going on in the BSA at the same time, which was the admission of openly gay adult leaders. At the same time (2013) that the BSA board recommended that the policy on openly gay youth members be changed (or clarified), it also recommended no change in the policy on leaders. So if we talk about Tillerson's involvement in the recommendation on the youth issue, I think we would also need to say what his position was at the time on the adult leader issue, and this source does not deal with that. The BSA did change its policy on adult leaders in 2015, but I have seen nothing that indicates what Tillerson's role was in that, if any. There is also the fact that Exxon has been criticized for not having (at least as of that 2014 article) a policy barring discrimination against gay employees. So if you want to do the research and write a section on Tillerson's history on gay rights that deals with all of these issues and any more than you might find, that's fine. Right now I do not think we have enough to say anything on the subject, and I am not convinced that the subject really needs to be dealt with in this article. Neutron (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe we can add something back in now. WaPo is repeating that BSA was "under his leadership"[1] and back-linking to the 2014 article from Dallas News. "...eventually became president of the national organization. It was under his leadership — and through his advocacy — that the organization embraced the membership of young men who identified as gay." They don't give dates or specify whether it was leadership-as-president, or metaphorical-leadership-as-president-emeritus. WSJ is quoting Hamre, but also quoting a 2013 speech by Tillerson (unfortunately I could not find the full speech and the direct quote from Tillerson is very barebones... if somebody can dig that up it will probably give us a better idea of the nuances of history). "...Tillerson played an instrumental role in leading the organization to change its policy to allow gay youth to participate in 2013, Mr. Hamre said. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates subsequently moved to lift the organization's ban on gay adult leaders as Boy Scouts president in 2015. 'Most of the reason that organizations fail at change is pretty simple: People don’t understand why,' Mr. Tillerson said in a speech after the 2013 decision, urging leaders to communicate about the policy to help make it successful. 'We're going to serve kids and make the leaders of tomorrow.'...." UsaToday also straight-regurgitates the Dallas News article of 2014,[2] but gives the additional factoid that Tillerson is on the BSA executive board (which is distinct from his former 2010-2012 role as national volunteer president of BSA), and if I'm reading it right is on the execBoard today in 2016. He was definitely still on it as of late 2015, see pdf page#26.[3] UsaToday alleges that ExxonMobil policy towards LGBT employees was problematic, but attributes the criticism to Human Rights Watch rather than using their editorial voice, and says the criticism is disputed (plus the CEO is not really a dictator any more than the potus is a dictator), so we may want significantly better sourcing. But I think it is safe to say in wikipedia's voice, citing usatoday and scouting.org, that Tillerson stepped down as national BSA president but remains on the BSA executive board, and then go on to say that Tillerson was involved with permitting openly gay scouts to serve in his president-emeritus role (but that openly gay scoutmasters happened under a different BSA president Robert Gates the former SecDef). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If you are talking about adding a sentence to the one I wrote about his BSA service (under "Other Affiliations") I don't necessarily have a problem with that, subject of course to seeing exactly what it says. Part of my issue was with having a separate section on "Gay Rights" that, to begin with, was based on a factual statement was clearly erroneous (the timing of his presidency vs. the policy change), but even if that were corrected, leaves out the complexity of the 2013 decision being a two-part decision, and does not say anything about Exxon's policies on the subject. If it is just an add-on to the mention of his BSA service, my concerns are reduced. Not completely eliminated though - the sourcing is still very weak. The Washington Post article just summarizes what the Dallas News said, plus they added the word "embraced", which the Dallas News did not use. That is a rather opinionated word, and the Washington Post does not appear to have had its own source for it. Neutron (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it looks good, thanks! Perkins is just upset because it goes against his religion - I don't think anyone can argue the fact that allowing gay leaders and youth into BSA is a positive thing. They were definitely assuming these roles anyway, so might as well make it official. It's not ruining any American tradition (this coming from an Eagle Scout). Semmendinger (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed "homosexual" to "openly gay." Other than that I would be curious to see what others have to say about this paragraph. I still think the issue regarding openly gay youth is out of context with the overall issue at the time, which included the question of allowing openly gay adult leaders. However, a quick search does not reveal any clear source on the latter issue, which is not surprising given the closed-door nature of most of the discussions that led to the decision. So I will leave it as it is for now. Neutron (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Just saw the edit, I think the wording change is good. It was less of a ban on homosexuals, more so a ban on openly gay individuals. Besides that the situation was basically "Don't ask, don't tell". I'll agree that it was also really a change that affected the leadership instead of the individual boys, for reasons just mentioned, but you're right there isn't much solid sourcing on that front. I'll start looking though. Semmendinger (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Current wording seems decent to me, although the number of sentences is probably undue weight compared to the rest of Tillerson's work with the BSA (and to the rest of his biography generally), so I would support slimming down the word-count if we can do so without losing the nuances. And speaking of which, the policy-change to permit homosexual scoutmasters was significantly later; Tillerson was volunteer president from 2010-2012, and the change to permit openly gay scouts was in 2013, with sources saying Tillerson as immediate-past-president had something key to do with it, but hinting that he found it a tough decision. There is no info I found on whether Tillerson was actively involved with the 2014-or-2015 change in scoutmaster policy, sources only say that Robert Gates was the BSA head at the time (and don't mention Tillerson one way or the other). So it is best for wikipedia to remain silent, on the headmaster-issue, until somebody in the media brings it up, and we get something solid about what Tillerson's views are on the topic. We also only have second-hand reports about his views on the 2013 change-over, as far as that goes! 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Need to add GLOBALIST background of Centre for Strategic and International Studies
It must be highlighted that Tillerson is a Globalist who is part of the Globalist Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Kissinger, Brzezinski, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel have been associated with this Globalist organization.
This makes Trump's State Department merely a continuation of the existing Globalist Establishment under Obama.
The factoid that Tillerson is a member of Center for Strategic and International Studies is already in the article, and we have an article about the group. We cannot say "Tillerson is a globalist" unless we have a VERY mainstream source (famous historian or top national news anchor or pulitzer journalist or similar) that says exactly such things, see WP:RS. Wikipedia is supposed to follow what the sources say, see WP:NPOV (needs to be Tillerson's albino dogs are in fact borzois, or Russian Wolf Hounds read at least thrice to understand what it means in practice), and is supposed to be doubly-especially careful about living humans, see WP:BLP. We also cannot say that Trump's administration will be a continuation of Obama's policies, because that is in the future, see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. We cannot use logic to deduce our own conclusions, see WP:NOR, so it is not fair to say things like Kissinger worked for Nixon, and since Kissinger and Tillerson are members of CFS&IS, therefore Tillerson is also just like Kissinger and therefore Trump is the same person as Nixon. (That is bad logic of course! But even GOOD SOUND logic is not permitted -- unless there is a GOOD SOUND source which explicitly says it.) If you are looking for places to publish information, you can use www.wordpress.com to create a blog, and anybody with access to the internet will be able to get the info. If you are looking to insert theories into wikipedia, that is fine, as long as they are *impeccably* backed up by bulletproof sources, which are fully compliant with wikipedia policies. This is not easy to make happen, but is necessary to protect the articles from having random unsourced stuff put into them. ("Tillerson has an albino poodle" for instance... unless it was reported by a book/newspaper/television/similar it must stay out, whether or not it happens to be true. I have no idea if Tillerson has a pet, it is just an example of something random, which needs a SOLID source.) There are some webpages which say Tillerson is a globalist, but we need widely-respected books/pulitzers/nationalNewsAnchors/similar, to have noticed it and published something about it. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source for you to include your opinion. You can include that he contributed to work at CSIS, or that he spoke at CSIS. But you can't include your narrative. Fritz1543 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. We already say Tillerson is a trustee & board member at CSIS. (We also talk about CSIS a couple additional times, in quoting Hamre who is the president of the group, talking about Tillerson and the BSA or Tillerson and Putin in different parts of the article, even including a Kissinger allusion.) The linked CSIS article mentions Hagel and Brzezinski and so on. Which is where the buck stops: we say with sources that CSIS publishes stuff about 'global affairs' but that is distinct from saying they push a globalist agenda, and we definitely don't make several additional logical leaps and say CSIS is about global affairs, thus CSIS is globalist, therefore Tillerson as a member is a globalist, thus Trump equals Obama. If and only if such new things are impeccably sourced, would they ever belong in wikipedia's voice. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
"Secretary of State Consideration"
When should we delete this? Considering that he is now Secretary of State-Designate perhaps it is now an appropriate time, or it could be renamed as something else. Does anyone have any good ideas? Fritz1543 (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Because he's not the Secretary of State designate. Sec of State is done when a president nominates them, the Senate confirms, then they become the Secretary. Trump isn't president yet, so he can't nominate anyone yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Apropos that we should probably not be using {{Infobox officeholder}} at this time. Neither ExxonMobil CEO or Boy Scouts president are political/governmental offices. "Assumed Office" and "Incumbent" are confusing and wrong in this context. Folks are jumping the gun. Qzd (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
We should still be using infobox person just as it was before the announcement. That box has been screwy since the announcement though with people editing it every other hour. Semmendinger (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because so many either want to be "first" or are so excited that they ignore facts..... like he hasn't been nominated and can't possibly be nominated until Trump takes office. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I was a bit confused since the info box contained some information. Further, other cabinet appointees, like Steve Bannon, do have a "designate" position in the info box. I would like it to be consistent if we can!Fritz1543 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Bannon is different. His post is not a cabinet position that has to be nominated and sent through the Senate. His position is one Trump can simply appoint, so he can properly be called a "designate". The press secretary would be a similar one to that.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with most of the above commentary. The sentences in mainspace as of now, seem fine. (It has been a couple days though since that last complaint.) Of course Trump can announce his intent to nominate somebody to his cabinet. Even if he ends up not being POTUS due to some electoral college shocker, or a massive asteroid strike, that won't change the content of Cabinet of Donald Trump, except that instead of saying at the bottom "Trump's cabinet began confirmation hearings when the 115th Senate convened on January 3rd 2016" it would instead say "Although Trump had announced his intention to nominate dozens of federal officials, the surprise impact of a killer asteroid which destroyed the North American continent put a kink in those optimistic plans." This article about Tillerson can call him the Secretary-designate, if needed, because that is what the sources call him -- Trump has a secret service detail as POTUS-elect, and Tillerson is 99.99% expected to be nominated as SecState. If we wanted to be super-careful about our language, we could have a footnote attached to 'Secretary-designate' which explains that although Trump can announce his intent to nominate a person, only the 115th Congress has the Constitutional legitmacy to provide the mandatory advice and consent, plus of course, the Secretary-designate cannot take office until the nominating President-elect has been inaugurated, which is expected to happen January 20th. But generally speaking, sources just say that "Trump nominated Tillerson" or that "Trump picked Tillerson" and gloss over the formulaic details. If in fact Trump is *not* the POTUS for whatever reason, or if Tillerson *fails* to be confirmed by the Senate, then Tillerson's status will change from being the presumed Secretary-designate, into being a *withdrawn* candidate. Cf Bill Richardson in 2008/2009, who was 'nominated' before the new Congress took office, but then was 'withdrawn' before Obama was inaugurated. We should not overthink things, and try to keep well-sourced material out of mainspace because 'logically' it has to be a certain way, per our own individual beliefs. Just stick to what the sources say, is my advice. We currently say that he "has been named by President-elect Donald Trump as his nominee for United States Secretary of State." And later we say "Trump announced that Tillerson would be his nominee for Secretary of State." Both of which are fine. (I could care less about what infobox is used.) Down in the body-prose, we have this: "Trump announced that Tillerson would be his nominee for Secretary of State." The key is "would be" aka this is in the future tense, and indicates intent. We should not yet say "Tillerson is Secretary of State" because that would be wrong, but we can say Trump picked him for that role, without violating either logic or wikipedia policy. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia, we deal in technicalities such as the fact that Tillerson cannot be nominated until Trump is actually President. We should not claim that he is something that he isn't(the "designate"); we can claim that Trump will nominate him, since that's what he's said. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
And he's not a secretary "designate" anyway. The press secretary can be a designate because it's solely Trump's choice. This is a nomination, not a designation. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
NPOV?
Not a regular wiki editor, but are the recent edits that highlight his Russian ties considered fair under NPOV? Specifically the edits on 10 December 2016 that include the three (at present) images of him at the Kremlin, whereas edits prior to 9 December 2016 did not emphasize the Russian ties so strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.204.97 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, three pics of Russia is probably going overboard. WP:NPOV does mean we have to try and reflect what the sources say, of course, and a lot of newly-churned-out sources talk about Russia, so one can understand why suddenly the article took that turn. See also my longer explanation below, and if you have time to help fix up the article, it would be appreciated. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Three pictures is definitely pushing a narrative with the recent fake news about Russia hacking the election. It's very obvious that there are so many pictures of him with Putin so when he is announced as SoS people wil rush onto Wikipedia to learn about him and see him with "the face of the enemy". I understand he has tied with Putin, but we don't need 3 pictures to reinforce it. We are in WP:COATRACK territory, and well past WP:NPOV. Semmendinger (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I COMPLETELY agree, editor Therequiembellishere is behaving in a WILDY inappropriate manor. Wikipedia is NOT to be used as a propaganda instrument; and yet he continues to push his agenda on the page. This type of behavior needs to stop or the beautiful creation that is wiki will be irreparably damaged. Whether you like Tillerson on not, there is factual data available on him and it extends beyond his ties to the Kremlin. I agree his ties to Putin are disturbing and should be mentioned though it should not consume the entire page. Else create a new page titled "Tillerson and Putin" Therequiembellishere
User:Rjsulliv, wikipedia does not work that way. If you believe that a user is doing something which unbalances the neutrality of the article, the best thing to do is come straight to the talkpage (which you did -- excellent first step), and then start a discussion with the user. However, in order to contact them, you either have to say User:Therequiembellishere, or you have to say Therequiembellishere, which will alert the person. Please do note, that the way wikipedia works is NOT like in kindergarten, where fairness is defined as giving one piece of candy to every mouth in the room -- on wikipedia, the way neutral articles are achieved is by giving WP:DUEWEIGHT to what the sources actually say. There are a lot of newspapers that are running click-me-click-me headlines about Tillerson, and how he is linked to Russia. (This is an ongoing trend, Rohrabacher also got the same treatment.) Wikipedia is based around sources. Tillerson, although a billionaire[citation needed] and the CEO of the second largest corporation in the USA after Walmart, is a relatively private person and thus we don't have a ton of sources about his past. Contrast the relatively brief article on Tillerson, with the one on Bill Gates for example, founding CEO of Microsoft. So please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater -- Therequiembellishere is just trying to expand the article, with some of the new sources that have appeared, and a lot of them are clickbait which blow this aspect or that aspect out of proportion. But the key here is that the article needs to reflect, not some kind of kindergarten-level fairness, but the kind of fairness which says "here are a bunch of sources from December 2016 about Tillerson which talk about ties to Russia" that are then balanced out by "here are a bunch of sources from 2015 and 2014 and 2013 and 2012 which say lots about Tillerson and not much about Russia". In this case, sources means books, newspapers, television interviews, that sort of thing -- not facebook, not Tillerson's PR people at ExxonMobil, not people who are personally friendds with him, or other such published material that is in a similar boat. Tillerson is relatively private, for the CEO of one of the largest corporations in the known universe, but doing a little searching and I've turned up a lot of material. My suggestion is that we all work together on improving the article, starting by finding sources, and then striking the proper balance. As we expand the not-about-Russia sections, the problem may correct itself, and if not, we can trim back the ties-to-Russia section pretty easily. In the meantime, stay cool, and concentrate on WP:SOFIXIT plus the WP:5 pillars of wikipedia -- balancing the prose won't be fixed on demand, and won't happen in one second, but with a little elbow grease it is not that hard. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Rex Tillerson with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
Sorry, but literally what the hell are you talking about? I've been trying to strip the Russia POV-pushing from the beginning by getting rid of needlessly contrived captions and didn't want the Order of Friendship in the box in the first place. I'd encourage you to actually look at the history before you throw a fit. However, those ridiculous other non-notable awards deserve far less to be there just because you've found webpages describing when they were awarded to him. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Just because there is space doesn't mean we need duplicitous pictures. Other pictures of him in other settings (he has direct ties with about a quarter of the countries in the world, surely we have him with the PM of Britain or Canada, etc, somewhere!) would be appropriate as well - you're right there is room! Page looks good as it stands though, thanks for clearing this up. Semmendinger (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There should be a section about his ties with Canada. Perhaps a picture of him with a moose to illustrate how close his ties with Canada are. 96.56.68.195 (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I re-added the medal to the infobox since the removals came from an anonymous IP -- I'm not a frequent editor so won't object at all if I've made a mistake. (But I'd rather a logged in user removed it again if that's appropriate.) Thanlis (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
If the award is notable, and it sure appears that it is, including it in the article is certainly proper. My question is whether or not it actually belongs in the infobox or just elsewhere in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It definitely needs to be in the article, agreed. Most other recipients of the award don't have it included in their infobox, however. Tillerson didn't have it in his infobox until the controversy arose. All that said, I agree that it's currently an important piece of information about him. This cuts both ways politically -- if you actually read the article on the award you'll quickly see that it goes to a wide range of people. For example, it's been awarded to members of the British Royal Family. Thanlis (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Given the nature of the amount of discussion in the press about about US - Russian relations and connections I feel that the Award belongs in both places, info box and article. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
There was a lot of discussion in the press when Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino won Oscars, but those awards aren't in the infobox. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
After viewing all the rest of the recepiants of the Order of Friendship, as linked from the Order of Friendship page, not a single one has it listed in the InfoBar the same as Mr. Tillerson. If they do have it, most have it as just the symbol, though two have it listed with the symbol as "Order of Friendship (Russian)"... but none have it listed as "Russian Order of Friendship". I suggest making it the same on all pages. Jsourber (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, editors can't do whatever they want and I don't what permission you think you can give. But your avoidance of the question gives more information than the answer you gave does. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, I can’t post an edit, even though I am logged in. I have not been active for the past several years, so perhaps that is the problem. Would someone please replace the final sentence of the lede:
“He has previously been the director of a joint US-Russian oil company registered in the "tax haven of the Bahamas.[8][9]”
With this:
“He served as a director of Exxon’s Russian subsidiary, Exxon Neftegas, from 1998 to 2006. Exxon Neftegas is registered in the Bahamas.”
Exxon has made over $200 billion in the decade since Tillerson has led the company.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/12/13/exxonmobil-weighs-ceo-transition-after-trumps-rex-tillerson-nomination/95367822/</ref>
However, that article does not attribute this to Tillerson, and the quote lacks context. Exxon is an enormous firm, there's no indication that this is a great success for Tillerson or for Exxon and there's no comparison wiht the previous CEO, so it is WP:UNDUE to add it here. He's no more responsible for that than he is for "a tumultuous period for his company, punctuated by a $1.7 billion loss in the second quarter and the loss of its AAA credit rating following the crushing global slide in oil prices." Guy (Help!) 13:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Neftegas Ltd. Chairmanship
I removed this section. That he was chair is covered above. The only other information in the section is "as revealed by the Guardian", but that's false: the Graun certainly thinks it revealed it, but it's wrong: the info has been in this article since it was created in 2006 [4]William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
And I've just removed some more (I'm pretty sure it is a dupe; if someone reverted my removal, I missed it). The text removed is:
In December 2015, documents from 2001 Bahamas registry showed that Tillerson was a director of a joint US-Russia oil company which was registered in the "tax haven of the Bahamas". He ceased being the director in 2006 when he became a CEO of Exxon. According to The Guardian there was nothing illegal about the arrangement but its existence potentially clashes with Donald Trump's promise to put "America First".[1]
The problem is, as explained above, that it is false; his directorship has been on wiki since forever. The Graun simply got it wrong (and no, just because the Graun is a WP:RS doesn't mean we have to include things it got wrong). The bit about "put America first" could be argued for inclusion if you like; I'd call it NN William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
References
^Cite error: The named reference guard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017
This edit request to Rex Tillerson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There's no reason to include that. It's completely arbitrary. The reason I edited the Trump infobox is because there is currently a discussion on Trump's talk page on whether or not to include that and there is currently no consensus. Frankly, I had forgotten that I had done that. RedBear2040 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
In Office:
Preceded by Lee R. Raymond
Succeeded by Darren Woods
Hmm, well, User:RedBear2040 has reverted again, with edit summary ...Donal Trump does not have his time as Chairman of the Trump Organization listed as an office. However, that's somewhat dishonest, because he omits to mention that the only reason that is true is because he did it: [6]William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Rm: ExxonMobil, under Tillerson, did business with Iran, Syria and Sudan: why
I removed:
In January 2017, it was revealed that ExxonMobil, under Tillerson, did business with Iran, Syria and Sudan through a European subsidiary when those states were under sanctions.[1]
Firstly, I don't think it is true. From the report itself The sales were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by Infineum, in which ExxonMobil owned a 50% share but RT didn't become CEO until 2006 (you could perhaps argue that as SVP he had some responsibility, but (a) no-one is arguing that and (b) you'd have to show it was in that area). Second, I'm not convinced this would belong in the lede even if true. Third, if it isn't to be anti-Tillerson, it ought to mention what the USA today does, ExxonMobil told USA TODAY the transactions were legal because Infineum, a joint venture with Shell Corporation, was based in Europe and the transactions did not involve any U.S. employeesWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This was a biased removal. I believe the content should be restored immediately, given its significant relevance to a major public figure currently involved in world affairs. Your interpretation about the timing is wrong. From the article:
He became a senior vice president at ExxonMobil in August 2001, president and director in March 2004 and chairman and chief executive on Jan. 1, 2006.[1]
Yes, there is a serious story about Exxon doing business with Iran, Syria, and the Sudan under sanctions while Tillerson was a SVP, President, and Director of the firm. Such a bombshell absolutely belongs in the lede immediately, along with a more detailed discussion later in the article (obviously to be developed as facts about this scandal emerge). It's entirely possible that this scandal could end up warranting an entire article to itself!
Your lay legal opinion aside, this is a serious charge being leveled. Your history of arguably biased editing aside, this belongs in the article. I am restoring it immediately. Jbbdude (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As pointed out, Infineum, which is just as much a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, is a UK-based (as in UK-registered and UK-headquartered) company, so whether the US has sanctions against Iran or any other country is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever for Infineum. This is pretty much a non-story, because there is nothing wrong in doing business with Iran, and the company hasn't done anything illegal. It is particularly hard to see the relevance of this in the lead of the biography of an individual who didn't even work for Infineum but only for a foreign company which happened to own shares in Infineum, and with no indication that he was personally involved in the projects in the question. Americans need to stop believing they can dictate what European companies do or that they have any authority whatsoever here. --Tataral (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Infobox image
I think that once Tillerson is confirmed and has an official Department of State portrait, we should replace the current photo in the infobox with his official photo. CatcherStormtalk12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Infobox
We may have to semi-protect this article, as a mobile editor keeps changing Tillerson's predecessor from Shannon to Kerry. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, acting predecessors aren't listed for any other Secretary of State:
These are the last five cases where an Acting Secretary served for more than a week. It appears we don't list Acting Secretaries of State in infoboxes. OCNative (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We need an established criteria, seeing as the acting secretaries are listed in the infoboxes & navboxes of the other recently confirmed Trump cabinet members. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have an established criteria of not listing them that simply seems to be violated only in the cases of the Trump cabinet members (and once with the Obama cabinet). What I've described for the Acting Secretaries of State is also true for the other major Cabinet positions: Acting Attorneys General, Acting Secretaries of Defense, and Acting Secretaries of the Treasury are not listed in infoboxes & navboxes (other than one pre-Trump aberration of the transition from Timothy Geithner to Jack Lew in 2013). OCNative (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the amicable resolution and for making the change on John Kerry and Timothy Geithner. In fact, when I went to change Geithner, I got an edit conflict notice from your edit making the same edit I was going to do! Thanks! OCNative (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Donation to the Congregationalist - is it really noteworthy?
The original interpretation of the referenced donation to The Congregationalist said that Tillerson and his wife donated between $5000 and $10000 to his church in 2012. Not sure why that is worth noting. Later, the articles was changed to say that he gave the funds to his denomination. But, reading the details, it is accurate to say that he gave the donation to the magazine, which is a magazine of the denomination. The website indicates that supporting the magazine is a way of supporting the denomination. That detail aside, I question whether this is notable; nor, neutral, as there is not sufficient documentable information provided to put the donation into any context.
I propose that if there are no objections, that this detail is omitted from the article.
I agree with your assessment and support removal. I also think the sentence that reads "Reportedly, he is a devout Christian who attends church weekly and teaches Bible study" should be removed as it is unsourced. Marquardtika (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for you thoughts. I agree with removing the unsourced "Reportedly..." sentence. I'll delete that. I will wait a few more days on donation, to allow more time for others to comment. — ERcheck (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Ties in Middle East?
Quite a lot of this article appears odd to me, but I'll pick "Ties in Middle East" to start:
Under Tillerson's leadership, ExxonMobil had close ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Does this really make sense? Exxon is a giant oil company, it is hardly surprising that it has ties in Saudi Arabia, and that appears to have little to do with RT. Our source for the statement [7] says Several Gulf nations have had extensive dealings with Exxon, Handjani noted. “Exxon is the largest player in Qatar. It brought LNG to export and is the largest investor there. It pays the largest tax bill in Saudi Arabia. They are big players in Abu Dhabi.” Errm, and that's it or Saudi William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it does make sense, so I took it out, along with the rest of the section. There is, perhaps, scope for some thing more focussed - but all that was left was essentially "repub nominee attacked by dems" which is hardly news William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems dubious (the Graun is not noted for it's grasp of economics). Something somewhat more accurate, the NYT, says https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/business/rex-tillerson-exxon-secretary-of-state.html says "During his 41 years with Exxon, Mr. Tillerson has either accumulated or earned a right to receive more than two million shares he is not yet eligible to sell. All told, those are worth about $174 million at Exxon’s current share price". I don't know how to square that with http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/investing/exxon-mobil-rex-tillerson-stock/ which says "But Tillerson has already cashed in on his Exxon stake. He agreed to sell the more than 600,000 Exxon shares he owned after he was nominated. And last month, Exxon said it would not give him the 2 million shares he was due from the company over the next decade. Instead, the shares were sold and the proceeds -- about $180 million -- were placed in a blind trust."
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-tillerson-reach-agreement-comply-conflict-interest-requirements is perhaps more reliable. That confirms the sale of 600 k shares, and also the xfer of the "more than" 2M deferred shares. Exxon share price when this was discussed was ~$90, so $90 * 2.6M = $234 M. Which is scarily close the the Graun's value so (allowing for their lack of economic understanding) I think that confirms that their "Tillerson holds $245 million of Exxon stock" is wrong, and should have read (at time of publication) "Tillerson holds [600,000] $54 million of Exxon stock, and will be entitled to receive [2M] $180 million of Exxon shares over the next ten years" (though it would probably be better expressed in share numbers than $ value as those change) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I added that he used the email alias "for eight years and sent thousands of messages", per the Reuters source. We also don't know what the 64 emails that were subpoenaed contain, just that the AG wanted to include them in the climate-change related case. Does this edit address your concerns? Marquardtika (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Carbon tax: Tillerson or Exxon?
This [8] is believeable; he was speaking for Exxon. But we should go through and fix the others, too (e.g. "In 2010, Tillerson said that while he acknowledged that..." to Exxon acked...).
But then again, if we've now decided these are Exxon's corporate views, rather than Tillerson's personal ones, to what extent do they belong in his article? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Which picture of Tillerson is better for the infobox? I think it's B because it looks like more like a official portrait. TexasMan34 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. A is the official portrait right now and it also has a higher quality than B. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I somewhat lean towards A as well. A was the official portrait during the transition, whereas B is derived from a photo op with Shinzo Abe - not quite a singular head shot. And in B, his arm is rather awkward for an official portrait, as this was taken mid-handshake. A's the closest we've got right now to an official portrait (minus the American flag in the background, but whatever), so I stay stick with that for now until he gets his official-official portrait. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty impartial this time. Either A or C does the job. But definitely keep an eye out for his official portrait once it gets taken. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I support A because it is the closest thing to an official portrait we have now. It is also higher quality. MB298 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I would argue in favor of the photograph showing the Secretary. It shows him in his official duties, in a neutral uncluttered background, and is public domain. It's a better fit for Wikipedia and for other use elsewhere. 64.134.174.253 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC) 64.134.174.253 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It would appear that Tillerson's official portrait has now been released. Looks like we'll be using this now, unless we have major objections. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There are also interesting controversies around Exxon's use of climate change research under his direction as CEO "[Exxon] had incorporated its research into its planning while publicly questioning the science of climate change and funding groups that denied serious climate risks" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html
"Secretary of State": section or subsection heading?
Because "Secretary of State" does not fall under the section heading "Business career" as a subsection, I think it should be its own section heading. This is also how it was before today (November 13); because of this, I felt that it should be those who propose the change that start the talk page discussion. For your information, every recent Secretary of State (Powell, Rice, Clinton, Kerry) has a section heading exclusively for "Secretary of State", and for some (e.g., Clinton and Kerry) their tenures were arguably not the most important parts of their careers. What are the reasons for putting "Secretary of State" under "Business career"? Davey2116 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Note that all of the presidents of the Boy Scouts following Tillerson have an infobox for it (Perry, Gates, and Stephenson). (I did not add them.) What are the reasons for removing Tillerson's infobox for that role? Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't party to the removal of the information from the infobox, but would've done so had the article been on my watchlist.
According to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "[K]eep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." In other words, the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most significant facts in the article, not a repository for miscellaneous facts, or a reprise of every minor detail.
Unfortunately, there's been a tendency toward infobox hyperplasia: someone thinks that the names of spouses and children are important, so they get added; someone else believes readers really ought to know what college someone attended, so that goes into the infobox; yet another editor thinks it's important to list every elected position that Smith ever held, from mayor of Damp Hollow, West Carolina, to President of the United States. Before we know it, the infobox runs halfway down the article, entirely defeating the purpose laid out at MOS:INFOBOX, and incidentally crowding out graphics and other boxes in the article body.
In this case, I'd suggest that Tillerson's BSA presidency is not one of the key facts in the article. This is not to say that it should be excluded from the body text; but it's not something that a person needs to know in order to be reasonably well informed about Tillerson, so shouldn't be in the infobox. Ammodramus (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If he were the current president, or if that were what he was best known for, then it would belong in the info-box, but it does not belong. TFD (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Rex Tillerson is still the Secretary of State until 31 March 2018
I did not know the Rex Tillerson is still the Secretary of State until 31 March 2018 until I edited the end of term dates and my edit was reverted. So, for those of you who, like me, did not know that he was fired but he's really not fired yet, this is the situation.[1][2][3]
I added an endnote to the first sentence of the article with this edit summary: "We need a note right up front letting readers know that Yes, the President fired him, but No, he is still officially the Secretary of State." - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk)00:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
^Baker, Peter; Harris, Gardiner; Landler, Mark (2018-03-13). "Trump Fires Rex Tillerson and Will Replace Him With C.I.A. Chief Pompeo". The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-03-19. Mr. Tillerson said he planned to immediately step aside from his post, turning over all responsibilities by the end of the day to John J. Sullivan, the deputy secretary of state. During a short statement in a briefing room packed with reporters, Mr. Tillerson said he would end his service at midnight on March 31 ...
^"Sacked Tillerson issues Russia warning". BBC News. 2018-03-14. Retrieved 2018-03-19. Although Mr Tillerson will not officially leave until 31 March, his deputy John Sullivan will take over running the state department pending the confirmation of Mr Pompeo.
Worst Secretary of State
I understand the sentence is cited four times, but is it really worthy of speculation being included? The man literally ended his tenure not even a month ago. It's very hard to gauge the performance of an executive office until time has passed to see what impact it has had. Sovietmessiah (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The people calling him that are not "speculating". They're pointing to concrete evidence of an absentee secretary who allowed the department's stature to be significantly diminished. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the assessment is premature, or at least mis-phrased; and doesn't track the text either. Indeed a bit of work turns up RSs that take a slightly less critical view of his tenure (whether or not one agrees with them):
Another - https://newrepublic.com/article/147447/youll-miss-hes-gone-tillerson-versus-pompeo . It acknowledges that he's been described as the worst, or one of the worst, S of S in a long time; but then makes the case that in some respects he wasn't that awful, and that Pompeo may be worse still. My point here is not that Tillerson was any good at all, really; but that he does have some defenders, or at least folks who felt a certain sympathy for the unwinnable challenges he faced even if he'd been equipped to meet them. For these reasons I think that a flat statement that is "considered to have been among the worst Secretaries of State" reflects a bit of cherry-picking (well, turd-picking maybe more accurately - opinion writers, with two cites to the same columnist) and shouldn't be in the lead. Maybe it'd be okay with an adjective other than "worst", which is in the end not very informative. "Weak", "ineffective", "incompetent" - those are all clearer, and might be better; indeed the first was used in one of the sources cited for "worst". Let's please talk about this. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no metric for assessing whether someone was the worst anything except opinion. Including this line in the lead that is not covered at all in the body is POV. These four sources are at best cherry picking and discounting the thousands of sources that have written about Tillerson and chose not to talk about something so meaninglessly subjective as whether he was "the worst". Something something BLP. GMGtalk14:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the 'worst' assessment should be left out of the lede unless reliable news sources start to overwhelmingly cover him in that vein (e.g. "foreign policy experts generally consider him to be one of the worst secretaries of state") and unless scholarly assessments overwhelmingly point to strong agreement on the matter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
But the statement is "Tillerson is considered to have been among the worst Secretaries of State", not "Tillerson is among the worst Secretaries of State". One of them is fact (backed up by RS), the other one is opinion. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
They're both pretty much opinion. And the wording "is considered" implies a broad agreement, when what it should really say is Four people think he was the worst. When we represent the opinion of four sources, rather than the preponderance of sources, that's giving undue weight to a minority point of view. GMGtalk20:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg)
Photo A, Transition photo that is currently used
Photo B, March 2017 with the American flag
Photo C, March 2017 with gray background
Rex Tillerson's official portrait as of April 12, 2017
