Talk:BP

Prudhoe Bay

The Prudhoe Bay 2006–2007 section of the article as it's currently written does not accurately cover the main oil spill that occurred at Prudhoe Bay. Right now, it confuses minor leaks with the major oil spill in March 2006 and does not properly summarize the all of the details of the spill. I have written a new draft for this section, which now better explains that the main oil spill was the one in March 2006 and summarizes the events around this, including criticism of BP, the company's response to the spill and the legal ramifications. I have aimed for this to be a summary of the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, with the focus on the major spill.

As well as clarifying the information currently in the article and adding the details on the March 2006 spill, I have removed one detail: the May 2007 leak in a separation plant. The source in the article for this does not actually mention the leak, but this USA Today article explains it was actually a leak from a water pipeline and did not have any environmental or safety impact.

The draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay

Please review and make any changes to the draft in my user pages, however, it would be best to keep discussion of the draft here so that it is easier to follow. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Arturo and thanks for the notice to review your rewrite. Could you please help me understand the situation a little better. Is the trans-Alaska pipeline owned jointly by several oil companies, or how does that work? Did the spill happen on a 'smaller"(?) BP-owned pipeline that delivers oil from BP wells to the main line? Also, I see that BP had the spill in 2006 and said they'd be replacing all of their pipeline, then I see that in 2008 they had 16 miles replaced. What is the total amount of miles that needs to be replaced and have they made any more progress? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is owned by Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, a consortium of oil companies including BP. The March 2006 spill in Prudhoe Bay was from a BP-owned pipeline that carries oil from BP's oilfield at Prudhoe Bay to the consortium-owned Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Does that help? Regarding the pipeline replacement, I am checking with others at BP to be certain, but I believe that the company planned to replace 26km of pipeline (as explained in this Calgary Herald article I used in the draft) and completed the replacement of this 26km by the end of 2008. I will let you know once I've heard back and if this point is confusing in the draft as it stands, I can update it. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think I worked on this section at one time--I remember learning about "pigs"--but I had since forgotten. It is coming back to me now.

I think your new summary looks great! One thing, I see that our copy re the leaking antifreeze solution from some of the wells is not correct, however you did not even mention the leaking wells. Do you think it should be included? Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008. I've updated the draft to reflect this. Regarding the well leaks, per the Guardian source in the article now, and this Associated Press article I found, the wells were leaking an insulating agent and were shut down to investigate. Similar to the water pipeline leak I mentioned above, there was not any safety or environmental impact, so I decided not to include it here. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done quite a bit of reading and am now much more knowledgeable. I think you're right about not including the well leaks here. I note that the main article could perhaps use a little work--do you think you should include it there? Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For now, i've implemented Arturo's draft since there doesn't seem to be any issues with it. Discussion on moving the well leaks info should continue though. Silverseren^C 04:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Silverseren for adding the draft. Also, thanks for your review of the section, Gandydancer. To answer your question about the well leaks, I am honestly not sure if they should be included in the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. While they were reported in the media alongside discussion of the March 2006 oil spill, they are not really directly related to it except for being in the same oilfield. I'm open to hearing other views, though. So far, I have limited my involvement on Wikipedia to this article, in part because Wikipedia is just one of many things I focus on in my role at BP, so working on one article is more manageable. However, I do intend to start looking at some other BP-related articles in due course, possibly including the Prudhoe Bay article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo. The Prudhoe Bay leak section has raised some new issues. As you know, I asked for an update (see above) and you responded that the rusted-out line had been replaced by 2008. I recently have come across more recent information that states that although the lines may have been replaced, BP did not fully comply with the agreement reached. According to a DOJ document last updated October 2012, "When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act." Please see this information and the other information supplied as well. [1].

According to this 2010 Alaskan news article [2], "Corroded pipelines have since been replaced, but three years later the consequences of the spills linger, spreading from northern Alaska to the halls of justice hundreds of miles away in Anchorage." You said that you had heard back from your colleague on your Alaska team and I assume that s/he must have been aware of these updates. Did s/he not share them with you? If that is the case, it certainly is cause for concern and suggests, perhaps, a serious problem with suggestions that paid editors can properly represent the corporation that they are working for. Gandydancer (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I was not aware of this and will inquire about the 2009 complaint and 2011 consent decree from the link you provided. Nonetheless, I think you can agree the details in the article now are far more accurate than the original language in the Prudhoe Bay section, which had confused information about the events in 2006 and did not mention anything about the consequences of the March 2006 spill. Meanwhile, I am always willing to discuss and help clarify to the best of my ability. I appreciate your kind words in various discussions, and hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I would not go so far as to say that it is far more accurate and in light of the new information that I came across it is far from accurate.

Yes, you did mention that BP had replaced the pipeline, however it sounds like the other directives were ignored, both by BP and your rewrite:

From the Alaska Dispatch, May 17,2010: In fall 2007, BP pleaded guilty to violating the Clean Water Act and was hit with a $20 million fine and agreed to be placed on three years probation, with an option for early release if it demonstrated significant progress making improvements to its problem pipes and oversight programs. More than a year and half later, in March 2009, the feds went a step further and the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, sued BP for a string of violations in connection with the spills. [3]

And from the DOJ: When BP XA did not fully comply with the terms of the corrective action, EES filed a complaint in March 2009 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Pipeline Safety Act. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska entered a consent decree between the United States and BPXA resolving the government’s claims. Under the consent decree, BPXA paid a $25 million civil penalty, the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill...

According to the Alaska Dispatch, "If every allegation in the complaint sticks at trial, BP could easily be liable for more than $30 million in fines: $22 million for the spills if a judge finds the company was "grossly negligent," at least $750,000 for numerous violations of the Clean Air and Water Acts, and as much as $7 million more for a slow response to federally-ordered pipeline fixes." Considering that the DOJ did fine them 25 million, it sounds like most of the charges pretty much stuck. Five million more than the 2007 fine and the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill.

Arturo, you say, "I hope that you will not jump to the worst conclusions on matters like this". If I trust that you were not aware of this information I have to wonder how you can present a rewrite that was so poorly researched. It makes you look bad and it makes me look bad as well, since I approved of your rewrite. On the other hand, if the information was supplied to you and you assumed, like I, that it was complete, you are being deceived by BP and will have to deal with that. Considering that you said, "I have heard back from my colleague on our Alaska team, who confirms that the Calgary Herald article is correct: the company planned to replace 26km or 16mi of pipeline and completed it in 2008.", you'd think that he should have mentioned something like, "but oh, BTW, even though we replaced the pipe, the DOJ did find that we were not complying with their other directives and they ended up fining us $25 million more...". If he didn't share that with you, they are deceiving you. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, this is not something I was aware of but it seems that other editors were equally unaware (this information is not included in the main Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, for instance, which I looked to summarize with the draft I presented). The details in the section now are accurate, but it is possible additional information may need to be added, although I am still in the process of verifying. I will reply again when I have more information which should be in the next week. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Gandydancer, I have now heard back from those within BP who are more knowledgeable about these events. They clarified that there were both criminal charges and civil claims relating to the 2006 spills, which I think have become confused here primarily due to the Alaska Dispatch article that discusses both in a way that makes them appear interrelated. Here is the explanation of each, with secondary sources I have found that support the information:

Criminal charges and outcome

As reflected in the current section, in November 2007 BP Exploration was criminally convicted of environmental laws relating to the March 2006 spill. As part of that conviction, it was sentenced to serve three years of probation. See, Reuters, 29 November 2007 and the source you provided, Alaska Dispatch, 17 May 2010

After a spill at Lisburne, near to Prudhoe Bay, in November 2009, the U.S. alleged that BP Exploration had violated the terms of its probation. In late 2011, a probation hearing was held before Judge Beistline in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The judge found that BP Exploration did not violate probation. See Bloomberg, 27 December 2011 and UPI, 28 December 2011

Given that the judge found that BP Exploration did not violate the terms agreed in 2007, I believe this information should most probably not be added to the article.

Civil charges and outcomes

In early 2011, the U.S. brought a civil complaint alleging that the spills in 2006 violated various environmental laws. The complaint was settled with a consent decree, under which the court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce ongoing actions. Judge Sedwick of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska approved and entered the consent decree on July 13, 2011. The consent decree required BP Exploration to pay a $25 million civil penalty and undertake certain measures aimed at systematically improving operation and maintenance of specified pipelines, to be overseen by an independent monitor. See Anchorage Daily News, 3 May 2011, Forbes, 10 May 2011 and the USDoJ page you linked above.

The term of the consent decree is for a minimum of three years. When BP Exploration can demonstrate that it has satisfied all requirements under the consent decree, it may request that it be terminated.

Also, in 2012, the State of Alaska pursued a claim for damages against BP Exploration. In November 2012, the claim was resolved when BP Exploration was ordered to pay $255 million in damages, $66 million of which was to be paid by BP Plc., the rest by the other owners of BP Exploration (ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Chevron). See Bloomberg, 8 November 2012

As you have seen, the details as explained in the press tend to confuse civil and criminal matters, so I hope that this helps to clarify. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the criminal proceedings and the article as it currently exists, I don't understand how this article got to the such a wretched state that neither the Justice Department motion or the court's ruling are mentioned in the article. Obviously this needs to be in the article, not in exhaustive detail to be sure, but certainly there in adequate detail. It's not every day that the Justice Department takes that kind of action, regardless of the ultimate outcome, which was favorable to BP. In addition to the finding BP not in breach, the judge lifted the probation entirely[4], and I see from Google that this was not a popular decision among environmentalists. This is all relevant, important and most certainly belongs in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely belongs to the article but in the first place in belongs to the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. Should we start to update that article at first and then summarize here? It was also interesting to learn that BP Plc owns only 27% in the BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. while the stake of ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil is 36% both (in addition, Chevron has 1%). I just wonder why this information is not added in the ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil articles? Beagel (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I misunderstand the Bloomberg's news. BP Exploration (Alaska) is a partner and operator of the Prudhoe Bay field, while other partners of the field (and not BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc.) are ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. However, it seems that they agreed to pay a part of the fine correspondingly to their stake in the Prudhoe Bay field. Beagel (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I think it should go in the article right away. This article gets over 3000 views a day while the split gets well under 100 a day. Perhaps editors will be able to rapidly come to a decision here with the recent addition of a few more editors, but in my experience with this article the argument could go on for quite some time before agreement is reached--just have a look at the archives to see what I mean. Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pertinent varified vetted info should go into the article with reasonable speed. Regarding the other Oil Industry articles, it certainly is a valid observation but one that requires editor action. There is only so much that volunteer editors can do in their spare time. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the civil settlement, but at first blush it seems rather picayune compared to the criminal proceedings, which generated more coverage and controversy. Coretheapple (talk)15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Buster - If Wikipedia thinks it's OK for paid editors to furnish information and write copy for their corporation it is only fair that articles such as this one have a paid "green" editor that furnishes information and writes copy for the opposing viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Gandy. I agree. I come to WP to have enjoyment and participate in something Grand. I certainly don't want to use up my free-time doing battle with paid editors or those of my fellow editors that think that my efforts to assist protecting our readers right to impartial articles is wrong. I commend you for your time consuming monitoring of this and related articles. I'm not sure I could have withstood the onslaught. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, placement of information should be based on Wikipedia guidelines (particularly WP:SUMMARY), rather than page views. However, it seems reasonable that the notable details should be added to both articles. In the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article the matters can be explained in more detail, while this article should provide a summary. Ultimately, what information is added and where is up to others, just wanted to add that I think it's not a decision between the two articles as it should be in both. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Prudhoe Bay information deleted--please justify

New information which I have added to this Prudhoe Bay section was deleted:

The underground pipe leaked for five days before it was discovered. The government's investigation into the spill disclosed that cost cutting measures had resulted in a lapse in monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline. In particular, BP did not use pipeline inspection gauges (smart pigs), devices that clean and monitor oil pipelines for corrosion. According to a Justice Department sentencing memorandum, even though standard industry practice is to run "pigs" through a pipeline as often as monthly, due to cost-cutting BP had not run the devices through the oil transit lines since 1998.

I'd appreciate an explanation that is more informative than "coatrack" or "not a forum". Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW this seems an extraordinary level of detail for an article which is about BP; Prudoe bay has its own article. It is already way too detailed in this article, so inclusion looks wrong to me. --BozMo talk 18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you could start by reading what I wrote above just before you added your section.

How is this relevant to BP as a whole? All you seem to do is add more detail on negative aspects of the company. I am sure that you would be the first to complain if an equivalent amount of promotional detail were added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant to BP as a whole because it was part of the cost-cutting measures introduced by CEO Browne, the ones that cause safety violations in many areas. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make a point of that nature then you need a source that specifically makes it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the references that Gandydancer added, the ones from Reuters UK and the Guardian UK. I added another one from Fortune, published by CNN Money. It's hard for me to understand your objection to this text and these cites if you have not read them. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So this Oct 2006 cite from CNN money archives is just about sufficient to support the idea that as a topical current issue in 2006 this might have been sufficiently notable detail to be relevant to BP as a whole. But today does this merit including? I think you would have to have a very distorted idea of due weight to argue it does. --BozMo talk 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not "distorted" to look at BP's corporate practices at the time—the cost-cutting measures instituted by Browne. These practices were (and are) seen as having caused many accidents. Many industry observers have commented on the situation, which brings it up on our radar. The question of due weight is handily answered by how widely BP's cost-cutting measures have been analyzed in books, magazines and news pieces. Whether BP is now moving away from that sort of corporate culture does not change the historic fact and the historic fallout. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Critics about the cost-cutting measures should be included, no doubt about this. However, that does not mean creating a numerous over-detailed subsections (which are already described in the more specific articles). There is a clear problem with WP:OVERDUE. User: Uzma Gamal said just some sections above: "This article and the proposed draft has way too many subsections. The trouble with creating a significant number of subsections is that is severs the information from context so as to give more importance to the subsection information than the collective of reliable source information would suggest. It also diminishes the importance to other issues given by the collective of reliable source information. It further creates a situation where Wikipedia editors do not have to make the hard choices of what to include in the article to present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature such that the article grows in size almost without bounds." He also recommended "to look over all the articles in Category:FA-Class company articles and Category:GA-Class company articles and try to create a heading structure for the BP article that follows a survey those articles subsections as tailored to the BP topic itself. Unfortunately, his recommendation remained largely unnoticed. Beagel (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that s/he responded to Arturo's request as did another editor that apparently supports paid editors. I also note that you asked her for an assist in restructuring this article and Arturo asked the other editor to assist with getting his rewrite entered in this article. Add to that Silverseren's assurance to Arturo that he can furnish the editors needed to post Arturo's latest rewrite... Gandydancer (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, you say "critics about the cost-cutting measures should be included", but your inaction last September does not support that position. Back then I added text about Browne's cost-cutting but this text was quickly removed by Belchfire (his only contribution to this article, ever), re-added by me then removed by The Devil's Advocate, then re-added by Xenophrenic and removed by Rangoon11. During this time, The Devil's Advocate started a talk page discussion about "BLP concerns regarding Browne material", but you did not take part. You were active at other threads on the talk page, but silent on this issue. The point is that you did not lift a finger to argue for "critics about the cost-cutting measures". If your current proposition were enacted, at least a paragraph would be included about Browne's cost-cutting measures, with mention of how these measures have been analyzed as causing multiple accidents, with a list of the main ones, including Prudhoe Bay—the same material you are objecting to here. There is no policy loophole to render this material not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I just looked at the text that you added. The first section appears to be completely devoid of references, or have I missed something? In the second section, the statement, 'These safety and maintenance problems lead to toxic spills', has no reference and the third section has nothing about Browne. If what you say is true, that Browne's cost cutting lead to increased toxic spills there should be a good quality independent reliable source which says so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, again and again you have insisted that other editors do your work for you rather than read what has already been offered. Please read the information that Binksternet supplied rather than ask him to do it all over again. The information is all there if you would only read it, especially considering that this is all old information that should be easy to recall. Gandydancer (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to the diff that Binksternet provided above and commented on what I found. What have I missed? WP:Unsourced says, 'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on the recent text rather than on the September 2012 text (which is worth its own discussion thread.) If you read the sources it will come clear that cost-cutting measures were blamed for the Prudhoe spill. Here's what I see:

• [5] "July was the first time a smart pig had been run through since 1992"
• [6] "cost cuts were to blame for the 200,000 gallon spill in March 2006"... "'There were extreme budget pressures at Prudhoe Bay,' said BP America CEO Bob Malone. 'We recognize that those budget pressures put our employees in a very difficult place.'" ..."The company's critics have blamed cost cuts imposed after BP bought two of its rivals and poor management oversight for the problems."..."Corrosion-monitoring efforts like smart-pigging were reduced or put on hold even as BP reaped more than $106 billion (54 billion pounds) in after-tax profits between 1999 and 2006, Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the subcommittee said."
• [7] "A US congressional committee has uncovered evidence of "draconian" cost cuts at BP in the run-up to the discovery of severe corrosion which shut down a key Alaskan pipeline last summer." Dingell said, "important actions related to health, safety and the environment were being delayed or cut altogether and this was related to tight budgets".
• [8] "a PR disaster that, in a single blow, undid the green reputation CEO John Browne had meticulously crafted for BP over the past decade." ..."Browne boasted that 'the drive to manage costs and to raise unit margins has now become a way of life.'" ..."On the west side of Prudhoe Bay, they were last cleaned and checked in 1998, while on the eastern side of the field, the last pig was run in 1991. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, by contrast, is pigged every 14 days." ..."In the wake of Texas City and Alaska, BP does seem to have finally gotten religion. Browne says personal safety, process safety, and environmental safety efforts at BP facilities around the world have been redoubled, and a huge effort has gone into adding additional engineers to address these areas."

These (and other) sources indicate a notable problem that has been identified by multiple expert observers. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which are less than five years old? --BozMo talk 11:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be important to offer sources less than five years old for an incident that happened more than six years ago? Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we giving so much detail about an incident that happened more than six years ago? I would not object to a short sentence saying that cost cutting measures in force at the time were to blame but the level of detail is wp:undue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, once again, please read the sources that have been offered by Binksternet. Surely you can't be suggesting that our coverage of the largest spill to date in that area should not mention how many days it lasted and that the pipe had not been cleaned since 1998 when something like monthly cleaning is done on other transit pipes? All of the sources that I looked at mentioned this fact. It is central to the reason for the spill. The spill did not happen from some work of God such as an earthquake--it happened because BP was not doing proper maintenance and the reason mentioned for that was cost cutting. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, it is a nonsensical notion that this article should not have details of events older than six years. There are whole sections on previous eras of BP. There are a bunch of 1990s sources in the article about the acquisition of Amoco—do you want to remove those? What about the acquisition of ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000? How about the 2001 renaming from British Petroleum to BP? There are sources from 2002 having Browne making statements to the press. If we acted on your notion we would greatly reduce the detail about the 2005 initiative in alternate energy, and the greatly reduce the information about acknowledging climate change. I know you don't want that. The many high-quality sources provide us with plenty of reason to treat the Prudhoe Bay spill as having due weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this then?

I have summarised the added text in a more encyclopedic style, omitting the irrelevant detail about the bacteria. The poor maintenance and cost cutting are still there and the five day leak duration has been added to the start of the section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a compromise I can live with. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I added one sentence. BTW, I was not the one that introduced what Martin calls unencyclopedic style (talk of pigs and bacteria), it was Arturo who introduced that information. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The change in wording seems reasonable to me, if others feel that the information originally suggested was too detailed. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, I believe that they think that I wrote it since there have been no complaints till now. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if you were not the one who wrote that, it appeared that way from the diffs, but it does not really matter who added it. I removed it because it seemed to be unnecessary detail not because it was unencyclopedic language.

It is language like, 'The government's investigation into the spill disclosed that the pipeline had not been inspected for corrosion since 1998, a standard industry practice which is normally done as often as monthly', that is unencyclopedic. We already say there was a lapse in monitoring and maintenance. We do not need to say the same thing again in the style of an investigative journalist. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We do need to say that a monthly maintenance procedure had not been done in eight years. Gandydancer (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what we do not need to say. This is not the kind of language used in an encyclopedia, 'there was a lapse in monitoring and maintenance', is what we say in an encyclopdia. We are not investigative journalists trying to point the finger at someone we are here to give the facts (good or bad) in a neutral way about a large oil company.

Your suggested comment is meaningless journalism. There may be cases where pipelines are inspected 'as often as monthly', I really do not know, and neither do you. None of us has any idea what inspection schedule might have been applied to this pipeline by another oil company or what inspection schedule would have been necessary to have avoided the leak. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right Martin, what the hell would the United States Department of Justice know anyway? If Wikipedia starts taking the finger pointing and meaningless journalism of the United States Department of Justice statements rather than that of Wikipedia editor Martin Hogbin our credibility will certainly be damaged and that's something we all need to be aware of. Martin, I'm really sick of you deleting everything that I add to the article with summaries such as too detailed, unencyclopedic, soap boxing, too journalistic, etc. You had no problem with this info:

BP's investigation of the leak suggested it may have been caused by sediment collecting in the bottom of the pipe, protecting corrosive bacteria from chemicals sent through the pipeline to fight these bacteria.[260] During the government's investigation into the spill, BP was criticized for cost cutting regarding monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline. In particular, BP did not use pipeline inspection gauges (smart pigs), devices that clean and monitor oil pipelines for corrosion

since March first when it was added for Arturo, but the minute that you thought that I wrote it, it suddenly became too detailed, unencyclopedic, soap boxing, too journalistic, etc., and you have removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I explained why I deleted the above; because it was too detailed. I do not care who wrote it.

Your latest addition was totally unencyclopedic in tone. I am not sure where the US DoJ comes into this discussion. If you can provide a reference from them that specifically says that BP inspected their pipeline less than once per year but should have inspected it once a month then there would be a case for adding your text (with a more encyclopedic tone) to the article. If not, you cannot say this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to read the references that is your problem, not mine. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you have now found the time to read the sources re the DOJ statement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters statement is a mixture of direct quotes from the DoJ and their own words. As Beagel points out below it is not clear exactly what this statement means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement that "standard practice to do the procedure as often as monthly" is incorrect as it implies that the standard is a month. This is not true. First, sources talks about the process using pipeline inspection gauges ("pigs"). This is not the only method for inspection and maintenance. Second, the frequency of "pigging" depends of a lot of things including the type of the pipeline, its work regime, technical features and conditions, usage of alternative methods etc, so saying that one month is a standard is incorrect. Also, taking account that there is a separate article about this accident which should deal with that kind of details, this is too specific detail for the general article about BP. Beagel (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Beagel. I can only go by what the sources say as here:

Relentless cost-cutting by BP caused the company to avoid running maintenance devices in its Prudhoe Bay transit lines since 1998 -- even though BP was well aware that an increasing amount of sediment-heavy viscous oil was flowing through those lines, and even though standard industry practice is to run such cleaning "pigs" in pipeline as often as monthly, said a memorandum filed Monday by the Justice Department.

Perhaps it would be better to return to Arturo's wording re the bacteria and pigs. As to the option of just leaving all of this information out of the section, I am opposed to that. It must be kept in mind that this is the largest spill on the North Slope and our readers should know why it happened. After initial denials, it was only through investigation that it was discovered BP's failure to properly inspect the pipe that led to the leak. That the "pigging" had not been done in eight years is significant and I have no choice but to take the DOJ at their word. From what I've read there is plenty more damning evidence of willful negligence that the article doesn't even mention. See this update from 2010: [9]

Could you please provide exact source for this quote? I have read all these three references at the end of the sentence but I can't find the exact quote. Also, I would like say that my comment about incorrect information was related to the false impression that monthly "pigging" is a standard and not to the fact, that for this particular pipe "pigging" has not happened for 8 years. However, taking account that specific article for this incident is existing, this article should summarize and not be overloaded with details. Beagel (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you still seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is not journalism, whistle blowing, or evangelism. The current wording, '...an eight year lapse in monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline ...', which may be yours, is at least encyclopedic in tone so I will leave it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin please stop giving me instructions about the purpose of an encyclopedia. I am a productive editor here since 2006 and I have grown very weary of your constant "not journalism, whistle blowing, or evangelism", etc. warnings. As for your "which may be yours" statement suggesting that I may have just made up the quote that I offered, I can only shake my head and wonder why I continue to put myself though what it takes to edit this encyclopedia.

Beagel here is the link.

[10] I do not agree that these few words overload the article with information. Please remember that you did not think that Arturo's much more involved information on bacteria and pigging was overloading the article with information. Gandydancer (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue not about these few words but it is a general concern that these subsections (Environment, Accidents) are too fragmented and overloaded with too much technical details which belongs to the specific articles and not here. I have said this several time and really do not see necessity to repeat this for every edit. As there seemed to be consensus between editor with different view points (that means you and Arturo) I was ready to accept this. However, as I find a factual mistake, I made my comment. Just for record: I actually think that information on bacteria and pigging is that kind of details which belong to the specific article and not here. Beagel (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The above should show evidence of one of the problems with allowing paid editors to rewrite entire sections of controversial material. Note how some of these editors were happy with this section while Arturo wrote it but suddenly became very critical and deleted sections when they thought I had written them. I'm pretty familiar with this section because I was the one that reviewed it before it was posted to the article, in fact the only one that had reviewed it. Arturo presented it on February 25 and I began my review. On March 1 I said that I had done quite a bit of reading but I was still asking Arturo questions. On that day, to my surprise, Silverseren, who has never worked on the article, added Arturo's rewrite to the article. That's problem #1: Only one talk page editor reviewing a controversial rewrite and an editor that has not been editing the article adding copy written by a paid editor with less than a week of time for review by other editors.

But another problem that I have not seen discussed by those that say "what's the problem? It is editor-reviewed before it goes into the article!" is the fact that some of the above editors who have consistently opposed my edits did not need to spend any time in review to get "their" version of Prudhome Bay information into the article because their version is Arturo's version. But me? I need to spend hours doing my homework to understand issues and actions. Add to this the fact that this is not the only article that I work on where I may be required to do similar homework, and it gets to be a bit much to expect from a volunteer editor that would like to have a little Wikipedia fun and the experience of feeling productive too, which you sure don't get from an article such as this one.

I'd like to make a comment about my observations regarding Arturo's suggestions. I have said elsewhere that while I am fully aware that Arturo is here to attempt to present BP in as good a light as possible, I have often thought to myself, "I'm glad we got a good one!", meaning as paid editors go, Arturo has been decent and fair to work with and I am grateful for that. Note that Arturo's rewrite did refer to BP cost-cutting resulting in accidents and injuries and deaths of employees--this subject (along with getting almost any negative information into the lead) have been the longest running battle issues here. But Arturo did not try to sneak it out of his rewrite and in fact possibly made it more noticeable. It was the article editors that have long-objected to that fact that once again argued it when they thought that I had added it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional information and corrections

I think that this and this provide a lot of details about this spill. However, I think that these details should be added to Prudhoe Bay oil spill and not here. These documents make clear that the frequency of "pigging" was by BP of these feeder lines was ultimately inadequate. However, it does not says anything about 1 month being a standard (e.g., Trans-Alaska pipeline is pigged as frequently as after 14 days). Therefore, I will remove the mentioning "even though standard industry practice is to run such devices as often as monthly" as incorrect. Second issue is that the Reuters' story and the article is mentioning DoJ report. It is correct that DoJ was acted on behalf of the United States on legal procedures; however, investigation (and reports) was conducted by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Therefore I remove Department of Justice. Information at the DoJ website: http://www.justice.gov/enrd/5812.htm. Beagel (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You sure haven't convinced me, but I will give other editors a chance to agree/disagree with my opinion or accept yours. In the meantime I will not revert your edit, though I don't like it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

BP's drafts as unpublished primary sources

I know very little about BP and have no particular interest in it. My concern here is that it's a controversial company (fairly or unfairly) that is being allowed to rewrite the article about itself by proxy, without this being signalled to the reader.

In using BP's drafts, editors are using unpublished primary source material, and letting it set the tone entirely by slotting it into the article without quotation marks and without attributing it to BP. These drafts give us BP's views of itself, or BP's summary of the secondary sources BP has chosen to highlight. We wouldn't use these texts word for word (in fact, we hopefully wouldn't use them at all) if they were on BP's website. Yet for some reason some of you see them differently because BP has posted them here:

• User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations (3 July 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/BP UK (25 July 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/US operations (24 August 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Stock history (18 September 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy (23 October 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations (5 November 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands (19 November 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing (7 December 2012)
• User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay (25 February 2013)
• User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record (7 March 2013)

The BP drafts can be mined for ideas, facts or sources. But they can't be used as sources themselves – inserted, in effect, as blockquotes, but without the markup and without attribution – because we can't allow an unpublished primary source, especially one that might reflect a minority view of BP, to determine the tone of the article. There might not be a single error in them, but there may be omission, and it's obvious that there's a careful choice of sources and words.

Wikipedia articles are meant to be a summary of the body of published literature – mostly high-quality secondary sources – that exists on a subject. We reflect the tone and content of that source material, and present issues in rough proportion to their appearance in that literature. We can use primary sources with caution (e.g. a company's own literature), but we don't let primary sources set the tone. So if the good secondary literature dwells on X, we dwell on X. If it is mostly negative about X, we are mostly negative about X. If it barely mentions X, we barely mention X. That's what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:NOR/WP:PSTS, and WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is a misinterpretation of WP:PRIMARY. Although prepared by an editor who has publicly declared his COI, these drafts are based on the secondary sources and all information is attributed with RS. Also, although prepared by COI editor, they reviewed and, if necessary, changed by other editors before moved to the article's page. They have been accessible for commenting/editing for all editors through this talk page and in the case of the posted drafts there has been no opposition although editors with different POVs had been active at this article at the same time. So this is not WP:PRIMARY. Also, it seems that there is repeatedly misinterpretation of NPOV in the context of tone. According to WP:IMPARTIAL, the only acceptable tone is impartial tone which should be used consistently. Yes, if the source reports positive things, we list them as positive things and if the source reports negative things, we reports them as negative things, taking account WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, but its not up to editors to set the positive or negative tone. As the first comment in this section concerns interpretation of certain policies (WP:COI, WP:PSTS) I will notify relevant policy pages about this discussion to get input from editors dealing more closely with these policies. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Notifications are here and here. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump notification was added here. Beagel (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the drafts use secondary sources. These are unpublished texts that BP has written about itself. It has chosen what to highlight, chosen the sources, and chosen the words. (I saw very few, if any, changes to drafts after input from others.) We can certainly include BP's views in this article, but we have to signal that with in-text attribution, and with quotation marks if we're using BP's exact words. And we have to take the material from a published primary source, such as BP's website, so that we can link to it and the reader can read it in situ for herself.

As for tone, yes, we use disinterested words, but we follow the direction of the secondary literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin. I saw the notifications at COIN and RSN.

Regardless of if the material uses WP:RS for citations or not, I feel like the WP:COI and obvious, substantial risk of WP:CHERRY can certainly make them effectively WP:PRIMARY. If WP:CHERRY can turn WP:RS into WP:FRINGE (as happens frequently with e.g conspiracy theories) then it can turn WP:RS into WP:PRIMARY just as easily, and particularly when there is a financial incentive to do so. I think Beagel's clear pronouncement that they are not WP:PRIMARY is too hasty. I would be hesitant to use any of this material. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, from the readers' point of view, I suggest that Arturo at BP post these drafts on the BP website. We can then cite them as published primary sources, link to them, and quote them. We would then express this as something like: "BP regards its environmental record as mixed," or "BP writes that reports of its environmental record have been mixed," or "BP has highlighted the report from X." Doing it this way means BP's input will be retained, but it will be visible to the reader that it originates with BP.

Asking article subjects to post their perspective on a company or personal website (or via some other external source) so that we can cite them is quite normal, and means we're able to include their point of view, while making sure the reader can see where it comes from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Feel that posting entire drafts on wikipedia is at least partly in conflict with WP:NOTWEBHOST WP:NOTADVOCATE. Successful WP:MfD nominations have been made for less. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that there is no disclaimer at the top of Arturo at BP's pages stating that they are user pages. This means that WP:MIRRORs and search engines will present these pages as though they were part of wikipedia. I find this objectionable. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagged what I think is all of them with the 'user page' template. I still think the drafts should be moved to a BP website, and not on wikipedia at all. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 20:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

First, WP:NOTWEBHOST is misinterpretation. It was suggested here at the talk page to use for drafting a separate subpage (just like sandbox) as it became a little bit complicated to work with this drafts here at the talk page due to a large amount of edits. Second, also they were largely prepared by Arturo, all editors were invited to review, comment and edit and make changes. At the time of drafting there have been a number of active editors on this page with different POVs and there has been objections concerning the drafted text. Therefore, Arturo is not a sole author of these drafts and they are not actually user pages. I think that we may ask Arturo to delete these drafts which are already integrated to the article and would ask all editors to review and improve drafts which are still in work. Third, editor you integrates the text into the article takes also responsibility that it is in line with all policies (just as any other edit in Wikipedia). I can't talk on behalf of any other editor but concerning these drafts which I integrated (not all of them) I went them through word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence; changed and amended, if necessary, and no text is integrated which I can't support. Therefore I consider myself as a author ot these drafts integrated by me. Forth, paradoxically the main concern seems to be who made the first draft of the text, not what was written. This seems to be a fundamental controversy with the main principle of Wikipedia, which says that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Beagel (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, with respect, you're not looking at this from the readers' perspective, and from the perspective of WP policy. BP is rewriting the article about itself, using text that it posts here and not on its website, so that its involvement is hidden from the readers. This makes both Wikipedia and BP look bad. It looks sneaky. (I accept that this has happened inadvertently because people haven't thought it through.)

Wikipedia and BP need to be honest about BP's involvement. The best way, and the policy-compliant way, is to ask BP to post its articles on a website it controls, then we can link to them, quote them, and attribute the material to the company, as we do for any other source. Of all the sources the article uses, BP can't be singled out as one that is given the special privilege of direct access to the article, without quotation marks and without attribution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "large amount of edits" thing comes from. Nearly all of the pages in question were created with a single addition, and no subsequent edits. Without substantial subsequent additions or additional outside vetting, this is akin to stovepiping of PR.

Your assertions that Wikipedia "can be edited by anyone" seem at best naive. We have policies to explicitly delineate who can edit what in certain cases.

I remain in agreement with SlimVirgin's suggestions. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should use a common sense. First, these are not articles but proposals for sections/paragraphs. Second, it was notified by Arturo that he has COI but that does not mean that he edits on behalf of BP. By my understanding these proposals are made by Arturo as a private person (although being COI editor) but not on behalf of BP. Suggestion to put proposals about possible changes of this article to the BP's corporate website is weird. I would see some (although not strong) logic in the case of hired PR representative but this seems not be the case. Third, as I said, the all these proposals are reviewed and changed by active editors before using them for the article. All these proposals where notified at the talk page and a number of editors with different POVs have edited the page and talk page at the time, so they are aware of these proposals. If not commented or changed (and you should look the text in the article, not just the drafts), that means they did not see problem. Hopefully there will be more experienced editors to go additionally through this article to ensure NPOV and other policies. Proposals implemented by myself are my edits and I bear responsibility for them. So they are definitely not BP's edits. Fourth, as I said above the main argument seems to be who made the proposal and not what was added to the article. This seems to be a fundamental controversy with the main principle of Wikipedia, which says that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. This is a fundamental right of Wikipedia which could be limited only exceptional cases based on the approved policy. Could you please provide a link to the policy which states that kind of restriction as proposed. Proposal that COI editor can't propose a text at the article's talk page seems contradict the recent COI policy. So, please provide exact link which says that COI editor can't make proposal at the talk page and that other editors can't use/implement that proposal. Beagel (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

On what basis are you making these assertionsthat this user is not being paid to propose language here? I think that the default assumption should be that they are, even if they say they are not. The language is quite carefully constructed. It is not unreasonable to think that even if this user is not being paid directly to make suggestions, that they are being vetted somehow.

You appear to be conflating the idea that "anyone can edit anything" with "anyone is allowed to edit some part of WP", and furthermore seem to disregard the possibility that edits may not stick around very long, or be nonconstructive or harmful. Asking for a specific example in the way you have, without asking for clarification, seems a bit confrontational. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagal, Arturo is a BP employee who is writing this as part of his employment. He has made that clear. So this material is BP's view of itself, or BP's interpretation of source material it has chosen to highlight. As such it is a text that needs to be posted on BP's website, so we can use it as we do any other source (if there's a consensus to use it at all). What you can't do is choose one involved source (BP), out of all the sources that are in the article, and decide to give that one source privileged access by turning its words and its view into Wikipedia's words and Wikipedia's view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad then. However, even in case of "paid advocacy" the current COI guidelines says: "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has argued that editors with a financial conflict of interest should never directly edit articles, but instead propose edits on article talk pages." You propose something else which contradicts with the recent COI guidelines. Could you please give a link to the policy or even better a quotation about forbidding posting by COI editors at the talk page and using these proposals by other editors after reviewing them? Beagel (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? I never said anything of the sort. If you'd care to point out what exactly I said that gave you this impression I would be happy to clarify. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You are basically out of touch with the entire rest of the community. Arturo is a Wikipedia editor. His edits are just as valuable as anyone else's and he is allowed to edit anything he wants. He is encouraged to use the talk page for subjects where he has a COI, but he is not required to and he does so in order for his edits to be properly looked over because he thinks that is the best option. He has been entirely transparent and open about everything. Furthermore, the fact that he has a COI is irrelevant, all that matters is the edits or the information to be added. Is it neutral? If yes, then it's fine. If not, then correct it so it is. That's how Wikipedia works. Silverseren^C 00:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Arturo

Hello everyone, I have been following this conversation and would like to respond briefly. As far as I have been aware, I have been following the guidelines regarding conflict of interest and I have purposefully refrained from making any edits to articles, instead presenting information here for editors to review. I have always invited editors to review my drafts, making it clear that they can edit them in any way necessary to ensure they meet with Wikipedia's standards. Beagel, BozMo and others have asked questions about BP proposed edits/changes and made changes to what we have proposed. I see that UseTheCommandLine has added "user page" templates to the drafts in my user pages. This is perfectly fine, and I can do so with any material in my user pages from now on.

I disagree strongly with SlimVirgin's view that BP is rewriting the article itself, or that there is anything "sneaky" about it. In fact, I'm using my real name and joining an open conversation with anyone who wishes to be involved. Volunteer editors are under no obligation to place my drafts wholesale into the article and often they have asked for me to make changes or made edits to the drafts themselves. In some cases, the drafts have simply not been added to the article, such as with the "Allegations of greenwashing" draft I proposed in December. In the case of "Stock history", editors here asked me for help with preparing this material to add to the article. My drafts have provided additional material and new (mainly secondary) sources that were not in the article already, particularly regarding the company's operations, about which there was little to no detail until last year.

When I first started talking with editors on this page, the BP article lacked the most basic information about the company’s operations and some sections were plain inaccurate. It has always been my intention to help this article become a better resource for accurate information about BP, whether "positive" or "negative", and we would like to be part of that discussion. I respect SlimVirgin's concerns, but I also would ask her to consider reading the article and pointing to specific concerns if there are any, rather than trying to argue that my participation in this discussion is not legitimate. Best, Arturo at BP (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo. Wikipedia's readers need to know that they are reading BP's words and looking at sources BP has chosen. The way we signal that is by using BP as a primary source with in-text attribution (BP writes, BP alleges, BP has highlighted), especially when we're copying BP's words, and we link to the place of publication.

If editors have given you the impression that it's okay for you to write extensive drafts and they will insert them word-for-word (or close to that), in my view you've been badly advised. You would not be allowed to do this for any other organization: write an article about BP and have it added to (say) the New York Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica under a staffer's byline so that the reader had no idea she was reading material authored by BP. Wikipedia is open for editing, yes, but we don't allow sources that kind of direct access (not even by proxy) for obvious ethical reasons. If we invite BP to do this, we would have to invite BP's critics too.

I'm therefore asking that you make your authorship completely open by posting your articles on the BP website, then directing us to which parts you feel would be helpful to improve this article. We can then use your text as a source, attributing it to BP (with or without your name as you choose). That way, the material can be added to the article, but the readers can see where it has come from. This is what article subjects are normally asked to do when they seek input or want to post a clarification of something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not aware of any plan or understanding that editors will insert Arturo's drafts word-for-word into the article. I did not even know that they existed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If the drafts are neutral, then I would have added them word for word. That is the point of them being neutral after all. However, I thought some changes needed to be made, so I proposed that. In turn, he would have made those changes and asked for another look and I (and hopefully others) would have looked over it again. Instead, he is now being attacked and Wikipedia policy is being warped by established users in order to suit their desires of attacking BP.

Arturo absolutely does not have to have his drafts posted to the BP website or something ridiculous like that. He is a Wikipedia editor, this is his userspace draft. He is proposing for it to be included into the article after other users look it over. It seems to me that SlimVirgin has completely and absolutely lost what Wikipedia policy is about and seems determined to consider Arturo as a second class editor. Silverseren^C 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand SlimVirgin's concerns but to replace the current text with Arturo's drafts would require a very strong and clear consensus here and I think that is very unlikely to happen. It is very unusual in WP for the collaborative work of many editors over a period of time to be completely replaced by the work of one person.

So long as Arturo's drafts remain in his userspace I see no real problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Except his drafts are clearly expanding on the already existing material in the article, fleshing it out or adding proper references where there are none or were bad references before. It is not replacing the work of other editors, but using that as a base to then make the article more complete. Silverseren^C 13:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Those edits are unnecessary, then. Undoing all of them should be considered. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Once Artuo hits that "submit" button, even in his userspace, that text is no longer "his". Anyone is entitled to use it verbatim or modify it in any manner they see fit.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop the misinterpretation of policy and the attacks

This is a complete and utter misinterpretation of policy that is fundamentally destroying what WP:PRIMARY means. A userspace draft written by an editor is just that, a draft. They are submitted whole to articles all the time. There are plenty of userspace drafts that are moved to mainspace as a full article when there was no article before. They are not primary sources, they are Wikipedia articles. Arturo is the writer of these drafts and he is the editor that made the content. Inserting his drafts into the article is no different than intserting drafts any other Wikipedia editor has made. Silverseren^C 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On his user page, he has verified that "subject matter experts" within the company do in fact have some control over the material he posts here. In my view that makes it substantially different from a typical userspace draft. I'm sure we will disagree on which specific policies this violates (WP:CHERRY is directly implied by the statement there), but I think the best way to handle it is to place this material, as SlimVirgin suggested, on a BP website, so that it is abundantly clear where the material originates. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, subject matter experts. Just like plenty of featured article writers have subject matter experts go over their article material in order to see if changes should be made. All users that actually want to make a good article do this. Arturo is the same as any other Wikipedia editor and what you are suggesting is to treat him as if he isn't and that is absolutely offensive. Silverseren^C 00:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it does not change what I have already said. If you wish to take issue with my views on paid editing, perhaps do so in another forum. Your views are clear, and I will not be changing mine simply because you call them offensive. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am calling them offensive because you're denigrating another Wikipedia editor. Maybe you should actually focus on the content, rather than the editor. I have yet to see any of you actually review the content, other than SlimVirgin bringing up safety references that has to do with an entirely different section in the article. Silverseren^C 01:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Where, exactly, am I doing that? As noted above, perhaps it would be better to take this off of this particular talk page and into another forum. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you're treating him as a lesser editor. And his drafts as if they aren't even real article work, but instead some sort of product of his company. Which is both perplexing and ridiculous and you're acting as if no one makes userspace drafts, when everyone does. Silverseren^C 02:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Specific statements, please. How about you do this on my talk page, rather than here? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Would an editor talk page, be it that of UseTheCommandLine, SlimVirgin, Silverseren, or any other person's talk page, really be the proper place for this discussion? Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For discussions about specific things I have said that are being interpreted as attacks, yes. I am attempting to corral discussion that is not directly and substantially related to the subject of the article into other fora. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question, if an editor puts material compiled by outside experts on WP, they must of course document it in the ordinary manner. Nobody can justify material by saying. (Source: what our experts told us.) Any editor can make a comment on why they think something a reliable source, or why they thing is a reasonable interpretation, but such comments are not binding if others think differently. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever Arturo does or suggests comes from BP Corporate. He is not a lessor editor. He is a team of editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether he represents a team or not is beside the point. He is a BP employee working within the scope of his employment. Therefore, the most accurate way of referring to his contributions is as "BP's contributions." Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

BP's drafts

The problem: informing editors, but not readers

• Arturo at BP introduced himself on his user page at 16:05, 11 May 2012: "In the interest of full transparency, I chose 'Arturo at BP' as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia." (His user page had 8 watchers as of 19 March 2013.)
• He introduced himself on the BP talk page at 16:16, 11 May 2012, saying he would "start with small, focused suggestions ..." (BP's talk page had 238 watchers as of 19 March 2013.)
• He posted on Rangoon11's talk page, 16:23, 11 May 2012, asking Rangoon to help make changes that Arturo would suggest.
• The article had 722,248 hits from July 2012 to February 2013 inclusive, the period during which BP's text was added to the article. The small number of editors with the BP talk page on their watchlists knew (assuming they looked) that BP was supplying text for the article. But the readers were not informed that they were reading BP's words, as they would have been if BP had been used as a source like any other. Instead, BP transformed itself from a source into an editor. This is arguably similar to a publisher creating an Amazon account to write draft reviews of one of the publisher's own books; the publisher tells Amazon it has created the account, but neither Amazon nor the publisher tell the readers of the reviews that the publisher has written them.

Adding BP's drafts to the article

• User:Arturo at BP/Overview of operations

• 563 words, posted by Arturo 3 July 2012; added to the article on 5 July by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/BP UK

• 385 words, posted by Arturo 25 July 2012; added to the article on 15 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/US operations

• 984 words, posted by Arturo 24 August 2012; added to the article on 30 August by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Stock history

• 509 words, posted by Arturo 18 September 2012; added to the article on 20 September by Rangoon11; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy

• 202 words, posted by Arturo 23 October 2012; added to the article on 3 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Worldwide operations

• 690 words, posted by Arturo 5 November 2012; added to the article on 17 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Canadian oil sands

• 301 words, posted by Arturo 19 November 2012; added to the article on 28 November by Beagel; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Allegations of greenwashing

• 179 words, posted by Arturo 7 December 2012; added to the article ?; talk page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Prudhoe Bay

• 421 words, posted by Arturo 25 February 2013; added to the article on 1 March by Silver seren; talk-page discussion

• User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record

• 462 words, posted by Arturo 7 March 2013; not added to the article because of objections; talk-page discussion. Silver seren advised Arturo on 17 March to "ignore them," referring to the editors objecting, and to focus only on Silver seren's questions.

Overall, at least 4,055 words written by BP were added to the article between 5 July 2012 and 1 March 2013. The article is 9,215 words long as of 19 March, so assuming BP's text is still in it, around 44 percent of the article has been written by BP.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I have to say that I was not aware that this was going on (I do have other things to do) and probably would have resisted it had I known what was happening. I do not think there is any need to panic but I do think that we need to be very wary of adding any more material from a source with a COI.

Maybe there is a case for reviewing the added material to ensure that it is not too promotional. I did this for the Madonna article a while a go and managed to tone the article down abit without offending anyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you took part in the discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is inherently wrong for us to use material generated by a BP employee, but I think it is vitally important that we thoroughly review such material with a critical eye before any of it is allowed into the article. I'm especially skeptical of BP's ability to write about their environmental record in a truly NPOV fashion. BP's environmental record is abysmal pretty much any way you slice it. Arturo's framing of their record as merely "mixed" in his userspace draft reveals the logical intersection of COI and NPOV – minimize the negative, accentuate the positive. I would much rather see Arturo suggest individual edits to this section rather than a complete rewrite. That way each change can be discussed in detail and evaluated for NPOV implications. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I would be open to editors reviewing the material added to the article to ensure that it is neutral.

Also, to clarify, the Allegations of greenwashing draft was not added to the article and the Canadian oil sands draft was also not added in the form it appears in my user space. Per discussion at the time with Beagel and Martin Hogbin, this was reduced to a summary which they both approved. The majority of drafted material that was added to the article — sometimes after edits by other editors — focuses on the company's operations and provides a factual overview of the company's activities that could hardly be considered controversial. Edits have been made by other editors to this material since it was added to the article, so please bear this in mind when reviewing. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like much of the work you've done for this article is helpful and uncontroversial. I don't think we need to be COI-absolutists when it comes to presenting uncontroversial facts. If it improves the article, that's what ultimately matters. I'm sure you can appreciate the delicacy of dealing with the more controversial areas, however. Subjects like "environmental record" consist to a large degree of synthesized opinions and evaluations (some of them competing or contradictory), thus it would be largely inappropriate for BP to author such a section (and I think most people would agree with this). Requesting individual factual corrections to this section would be fine, however. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if I am missing something, but is this not exactly, to the word, what we recommend that entities and article subjects do instead of editing the articles themselves? That other editors find the proposals reasonable and acceptable means that the article subject is "getting" Wikipedia, not that it is abusing it. This page has 238 watchers, 143 of whom are active users. Risker (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

How can this editor be so out of touch? At one of the other articles with a paid editor, that editor was ready to, as s/he had been doing for some time with no comments from anyone, insert his extremely biased version of a lawsuit into an article while the ongoing suit was still in the courts. There seems to be some sort of idea that what with so many editors on an article's watch list, certainly nothing like this could go unnoticed. And yet, only two editors have made any comments on that attempt to bias that article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not noticed, Gandydancer, but this project is intended to present a neutral point of view, not one that focuses on bullying article subjects that one doesn't like. He has absolutely been doing things exactly the way he is supposed to be doing it. What happens on other articles is no excuse for the abuse being heaped on this one. There have been plenty of experienced eyes on this article, and lots of other editors actually editing the article. It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation.

Wikipedia has a well-deserved reputation for poorly sourced, badly written, slanted articles about corporations, focusing on any complaints (documented or not) about them, while skipping over key information that is also readily available. Better to start cleaning up these atrocities (I can think of dozens of them without even trying) so that corporations don't need to have to come onwiki to work with our editors to fix them. Risker (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about and why the nasty note? I certainly have not "abused" Arturo. I have stated "regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest. Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair". Furthermore, I have also stated that he has done nothing wrong and is only doing his job and I have yet to see any editor say otherwise. Your statement "It seems to me that this is a classic example of "this article doesn't say what I'd say if I was writing an article", and then blaming that on the fact that someone from the company has been carefully and forthrightly following our rules about his participation." is absurd. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It might be better described as an attempt to unbias the article. So long as some editors treat this article as a soapbox in which every piece of sourced bad news about the subject has a rightful place, there is going to be opposition from a variety of sources. A WP article is not the place to try to put right great wrongs or expose bad things and if editors continue to treat it that way there is likely to be continued conflict here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec; reply to Kaldari) The problem is that we're not in a position to judge those drafts. Determining neutrality requires being familiar with the body of source material that exists on each of the issues. Ensuring the best sources were used, that there was no cherry-picking, no omission of fact, no key sources left out, no subtle rephrasing of the material, would involve a tremendous amount of work. That BP would write this is by definition controversial, especially because – and this is the key issue – our readers didn't know they were reading BP's words. And when it comes to the environmental issues, it's even more controversial given that the company faced criminal charges.

When Microsoft paid someone to change its article, Jimbo suggested it publish its views elsewhere so that we could cite them (see "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule"). I think that would be a good way forward here; BP could publish its perspective on its website and we could link to it. If there are simple factual errors, Arturo can list them here, so that editors can fix them. But we can't have any more of BP's words being added to the article unless they're in quotations marks and attributed to the company. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaldari. In light of the recent discussion, your proposed process for the more sensitive sections of the article makes a lot of sense. In place of the draft I originally proposed, in the next couple of days I will offer some helpful comments and source material addressing the current issues with the introduction of the Environmental record section. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If an individual is prepared to take responsibility for them, all editors are equal and should be judged on the basis of the edits. If a BP staff member can make good neutral edits to this article, they should be encouraged to--placing them first on the talk page for review is all that might be necessary, and this is mainly necessary because of the abuse of the editing privilege by various editors in the past, and because of the difficult in detecting COI in little-watched articles. . Personally, I think once they've shown a degree of capability, they might as well make the edits on the article itself. BRD still applies.

I see no reason why BP would be less neutral than an environmental activist on an article such as this one. An avowed editor from BP has not only their reputation, but the company;s reputation at stake, and is not likely to do anything outrageously partisan., especially considering the general lack of sympathy here. A person with an undeclared environmentalist POV has no particular reputation at stake, is likely to be extremely partisan and may think, often rightly, that they will get away with it, considering the general sympathy of many people here to such POVs. There's something special about financial COI: it's predictable and usually obvious, and can be dealt with. The danger is the partisans, and its as much the partisans of causes I agree with as those I do not.

Certainly on the sort of topics I work on, the problem is generally the crudest sort of corporate advertising, especially the very incompetent stuff likely to come from non profit organizations such as universities, and this is easily dealt with, no matter where they put it. As for the articles likely to affected by partisans, including this one, I do not edit there except in a technical sort of way, because dealing with them is too frustrating. (This is all the more so when I too am personally an advocate for the cause, because then the COI editing really embarrasses me. When I disapprove of the cause, I tend to think, what else can be expected of them.) DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim objects that so much of the content added has been developed by an employee of a major corporation, but it appears to me that Arturo has complied fully with our guidelines, even though they are just guidelines. Editors here reviewed the content, made changes, and then implemented the revised version of Arturo's suggestion. I see nothing wrong with that. Amazingly, in spite of Arturo's heavy involvement, my impression is that the article is more negative than positive as other editors have tendentiously tried to vilify the corporation. This is not really surprising given how BP has been publicly vilified for its failure to minimize the environmental impact of its petrochemical operations. Personally, I would prefer if the "BP = Bad Petroleum" types and the COI types were not writing this article, but that is just the way it tends to work in these situations. Instead of crowing about how some parts of this article have been developed by someone who may be biased towards the company, how about we discuss how to strike a balanced approach between the two camps?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

On another part of the issue, I am not prepared to do formal approval of an article, or comprehensive fact-checking of an article edit. All I will do is look at general fairness, try to spot obvious errors and inconsistencies, and check any references or statements that seem particular unlikely. Otherwise, I might as well write the article itself, and if that's what I want to do, I do it. I'm not going to put my own reputation on the line certifying something I didn't write in a subject where I am not an expert. It's like AfC--I check that it meets the basic requirements and that it has a good chance of not being challenged at AfD--I do not do anything like a GA review. If something looks so bad that it needs to be rewritten and if it interests me and I know enough, I may possibly rewrite it. What I will do on a talk page is give advice, if I think I'm qualified. I am not here to judge, and none of us are. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the latest draft, User:Arturo at BP/Environmental record, I know it would take me days of solid work to check this. The first sentence is a red flag; it's unsourced and doesn't seem to be the way most sources describe BP's record. And things like: "it continued to draw criticism from groups including Greenpeace for its focus on increasing oil production." Was it really only criticized for this by "groups" (implying activist groups)? There are problems like this throughout the draft. A person would have to do so much reading to check this that it would be faster to write it from scratch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That first sentence is actually completely accurate. BP's reputation in the 90's was rather positive, it was a company seen as ahead of the curve and that actually worked toward proper environmental policies. Then the incidents happened in the 2000's and their reputation became more negative because of them. So, one decade is positive, another is negative. I think that's exactly what we call mixed. You seem to be focusing just on recent events and not on BP's history as a whole. Silverseren^C 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that you would find it difficult to check four paragraphs of material for issues? The current environmental record section is a complete mess and some of the material is duplicated in the "accidents" section, with far too much detail on individual incidents in both sections. While there may be some neutrality issues with Arturo's proposal, I daresay it is a step in the right direction and would not be difficult to review.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Devil's Advocate that there is at least as great a threat to the quality, neutrality, and integrity of this article from anti-BP editors than from those with a connection to BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The only way to make a fair judgement of a summary of a corporation's environmental record is to look at a summary written by their rep and to look at a summary written by one of their "green" critics along side of it. It is not just a simple matter of checking four paragraphs for "issues". Information can be presented in a manner that accents the positive and minimizes the negative, to say nothing of just leaving some things out completely. Here is another summary of BP's environmental record for comparison :[11] BTW, regarding Arturo I want to say that I certainly do like him and I've never felt that he has attempted anything sneaky or dishonest. Furthermore, all things considered, I have felt that his edit suggestions have been, as far as I could tell, accurate and fair. It's only when Arturo rewrote this more controversial section that I have become very concerned. And then when editors that have never worked on the article began to arrive to place it in the article for him I began to wonder why I have spent so many hours and endless pages of talk when a paid editor and his crew can come and insert anything they want into the article. When I saw that Silverseren had even posted a few links so that that his posse could do a quick BP for Dummies read to bring their level of understanding of what they were about to vote on up to snuff--well who wouldn't wonder if some editors had not taken the "anybody can edit" slogan too far. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the wrong approach for an encyclopedia. We are meant to be giving a general neutral view of the BP not staging a battle between BP supporters and BP critics. Let us not try here to balance out extreme views but to report only what the highest quality neutral sources say about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"his posse"

What the hell? And are you talking about the source links I gave above on criticism of BP that I thought should be included? Silverseren^C 01:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

After two days discussion there is no example provided that any policy has been violated and any edits based on these drafts (which actually may differ from drafts linked above) has been harmful. I think that discussions about theoretical harm which may be caused by following the current COI guidelines belongs to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general and not here. However, I would like to ask everybody to go through/review the BP article as a whole (and not just some parts and not drafts instead of the article itself) to find any problem there may be. The article have been in the center of extensive editing almost a year and I have a feeling that editors who have been active on this page (including me) may not always "see the forest for the trees". Therefore, any new pair of eyes and fresh look would be useful for improving a quality of this article. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to reply to Gandy's point above about liking Arturo, because this kind of thing is a big problem on Wikipedia. Arturo has been extremely polite – he wouldn't be very good in PR if he weren't polite – but we shouldn't do what a person asks because we like him, or not do it because we dislike him (Gandy, I know that wasn't your point). And people who disagree with someone who is being polite shouldn't be made to feel bad about it. I do wonder whether some of these drafts got passed because some editors didn't want to be a nuisance.

Ben Goldacre has been highly critical of GlaxoSmithKline, but the current CEO, Andrew Witty, seems to be a good person. Goldacre wrote this:

[P]eople I trust tell me ... that Andrew Witty ... is a lovely and honest man. He wants to do the right thing, they say. He bangs his fist on the table and talks of integrity. And I am entirely prepared to believe that this is true.

But it's also completely irrelevant: because this is the serious global business of health, affecting every single one of us. We cannot allow the behaviour of the pharmaceutical industry to swing on a pendulum ... with our chances of getting proper data forever at the whim of whether the person at the top is nice.

Similarly, whether Arturo has been nice is not the issue, and whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. To paraphrase Goldacre, this is the serious business of producing an article that our readers can trust. If the current rules allow BP to rewrite the article, then the current rules suck. It's not a question of fault or who is or isn't polite. It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to actually read the old discussions before you make such a condescending statement: "I do wonder whether some of these drafts got passed because some editors didn't want to be a nuisance." I can assure you that neither Petrarchan, Binksternet nor I have been bamboozled because we thought that Arturo was "nice" and the suggestion is, frankly, infuriating. My perception of Arturo has been that he is fair and honest but I've never had any stars in my eyes to where I'd think that his first duty is to Wikipedia and not to BP. Please read the the discussion at the top of this page where this topic is discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And that is the actual accusation isn't it? Not that Arturo has done anything wrong but the editors who added the contributions are. It is baseless, without any merit and just a horrible way to treat your fellow Wikipedians. This entire situation is dragging more editors through the mud than just Arturo and it is incredibly disrespectful to the entire Wikipedia community.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If my name is being dragged through the mud I am not aware of it but I certainly have done nothing to be ashamed of. Nor has Arturo. He has been doing exactly what he is being paid to do and has not, as far as I know, done anything to break the present guidelines for paid editors. If some editors really believe that paid editors are more interested in a fair and balanced article than an article that makes their corporation look good, that's neither Arturo's fault nor mine. However I am critical of the fact that it is apparently perfectly acceptable for a paid editor to post at WP:COIN with a question about what to do if their suggestions are being ignored when it results in not only an answer, but the arrival of an editor to post their rewrites as well. And I have made no secret of the fact that I am highly critical of fellow-editor Silverseren's willingness to furnish bodies to push paid editor versions into the article and I don't believe that my position is disrespectful of Wikipedia or the community. The only good thing that I can think of to say of Silverserne's actions is that he was so brazen as to be entirely honest and sincere when he told Arturo, "I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem." He has done more to hurt the case for paid editors than any number of critics could have done. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The question should not be who is writing the article, but how it is being written. If the additions are in compliance with all our rules in part and in whole then we have no real issue. Should the material being added be failing then we can and should fix it. I do not believe the spirit of the COI guideline is that you cannot have an article contain substantial contributions from the article subject, or that you can't have an article that is entirely the work of the article subject. Certainly it would be unlikely that a person close to the subject would be able to contribute completely neutral material, but that is just as true for those who have their own personal feelings about the subject and I doubt you are lacking in your opinions regarding BP. That is why we have other people check the material, to sort out what issues may exist. With all the time you have devoted to "sounding the alarm" about Arturo, I am sure you could have at least done a decent review of his most recent suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's just a silly situation that we have to try to fix. Actually, what is the situation? It was asked several times, what is exactly wrong with this article? There was no other answer than it is to much work to get know which is wrong. But how to you know that anything is wrong at all? I can understand that you don't trust Arturo as a COI editor. It is understandable because everybody should be cautious about COI editors. But notwithstanding the fact that drafts were proposed by Arturo, the actual text (which may be somehow differ from the drafts at Arturo's page) was added by other editor who don't have a COI issue (at least, I hope so). So, you did not trust these editors too? Based on what? This is a disrespect against these editors. Being one of these editors you used drafts proposed by Arturo I have a right to knew what I was made wrong. Being accused I at least want to know what is my fault. Beagel (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

...whether he has followed our rules isn't the issue either. I hope you did not mean what you wrote. What about the rule of law? Beagel (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Third party report of BP/Wikipedia article

On March 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM EDT, Natasha Lennard of The Salon wrote an article about "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia editors accuse the oil giant of editing 44 percent of page about itself."

References

Seriously? No, this is not relevant to BP's history. This is seriously the most insignificant thing anyone could find about BP. Silverseren^C 17:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Utterly trivial and recentist.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This information is now appropriately incorporated at Conflict_of_interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#2013. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, why is the reference about User:Arturo at BP rewriting Wikipedia on the list? It doesn't make sense. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The sad thing is

Even after all this, there has yet to be a single person to point out a single thing wrong with the drafts Arturo made. Silverseren^C 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of bad journalism and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHEM, especially since Arturo has never edited article space.Smallman12q (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If people don't like WP policies then they should go to the correct forum and try and change them. Arturo's behaviour here has been strictly in line with current policy, as the founder of Wikipedia has said himself. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That the rules allowed this shows there is something wrong with the rules. I can't imagine anyone outside Wikipedia arguing that it's okay for BP to write the article on itself, then have those edits inserted by others as though they were written by someone else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been noted multiple times, it doesn't matter who writes the information. All that matters is that the information is neutral. And there has been no evidence given that Arturo's material isn't neutral. Really, we should all be applauding BP for following Wikipedia's rules properly and actually managing to present a neutral description of their history that properly shows the negative information as much as the positive. Silverseren^C 21:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't have any great issue with the specific rules and policies which Arturo followed here. However I can understand that others may disagree with them. This is not the right forum to discuss them and seek to change them however. And even if they were to be changed it would not in any way be just to retrospectively attack those who followed them in good faith before they were changed. As well as contributing some excellent quality work and helping to make this article a significantly better resource, Arturo has shown honesty, integrity and a complete respect for current WP policies. Those qualities are sadly rare. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia mantra of "focus on content, not the contributor" is wildly at odds with the real world, where the professions are increasingly coming to grips with COI and the way it pollutes processes, which in turn leads to bad outcomes. You would not say, if you were sent to jail, "focus on the judgment, not the judge," if you later found out the judge was someone you had bankrupted a few years earlier.

The truth is that evaluating those 4,000 words, and making sure nothing has been left out, nothing has been carefully worded, and that the sources chosen are the most obvious sources to have used, is a huge job. And if you're going to spend time doing enough research to judge it properly, it would make more sense just to write the material yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a perfect article, certainly not on a topic as big and complex as this one. The text which Arturo drafted and was then added in to the article represented a major improvement. This was so clear and indisputable that even the very anti-BP editors active on this talk page and watching the article did not challenge the additions - and this is a heavily watched article where changes are not easily made. They didn't make the article perfect, but they did make it a lot better. I can't think of many editors who would have had the ability, knowledge, time and inclination to develop the Operations section of this article in the manner that was possible with Arturo's imput. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That's true; Arturo was having his edits checked by BP's subject-matter experts. It's certainly true that no other Wikipedian had that access, or had the time that Arturo had. Following that line of reasoning, the New York Times should just hand over space to BP to write its stories about the company, because BP has access to the insider knowledge. The Times could invite a group of volunteer readers with no specialist knowledge to review BP's drafts, and if they're okay in the opinion of those volunteers, add them to the Times using the name of one of its journalists, so that no one knows BP was the author. There's no need for anyone to know BP was involved, so long as the volunteers say those articles are accurate, right? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would we have to let the readers know about companies making suggestions and not about anti-company activists that actually edit the articles directly? Silverseren^C 22:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, BP did not ghostwrite the article in the manner you're suggesting. The additions were neutrally-words and reliably sourced to third parties, (except where BP is a better source for certain company facts). Anyone can examine who wrote the article by viewing the history, talk page and relevant editors. The main concern around COI is that edits are done covertly and in a way to detract from the quality of the article. Arturo clearly identified his COI as is evident by his username, "Arturo at BP" and on his userpage. He did not directly edit the article, rather made suggestions that were reviewed and accepted. Rather than ad hominem attacks, you should point out any perceived deficiencies that arose from the incorporation of Arturo's suggestions so they may be addressed and corrected.Smallman12q (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of critical eyes on the work of Arturo. I find this kind of abuse of a good editor very sad. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

@SlimVirgin: You're normally a pretty level headed editor. What happened? I suggest that you take a step back to reflect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia could people argue with a straight face that there is anything improper about SV's comments above—the rules say that it is ok for a major company to devote massive resources towards presenting their point of view on Wikipedia, so long as unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers think it's ok. Welcome to the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think that you've lost your perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: how can you guys crow about "unqualified and under-resourced anonymous volunteers" contributing here without your heads exploding?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's just a simple statement of the facts. Of course there are many editors who are expert in the areas in which they edit, and many more with a good understanding of their topic, but that is extremely unlikely to be the case here. When managing a major public relations problem, a company would be glad to spend literally millions of dollars to guide an article towards a favorable state (I'm sure that millions are not needed here, but that money would be available). What editors should do about this situation is of course tricky, but a good approach would be to acknowledge that SV's comments are very sensible, then argue that BP's material is nevertheless acceptable for whatever reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is nothing sensible about raising complaints regarding content that don't actually indicate any problems with the content. Certainly if Slim had just ignored this and not spammed this argument all over the place it wouldn't have been noticed by the media, presuming Slim didn't just follow with her implicit threat to raise it with the media. If the content is acceptable there is no reason for someone interested in having quality encyclopedic content to stir up a ruckus and bring the project into disrepute. Seems to me that some editors are allowing their personal feelings about BP and the environment to get in the way of what should be our core mission of providing quality encyclopedic content to as wide an audience as possible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that none of us have the background or resources to determine whether there is a problem with the material presented by the company. I have been ignoring this topic for some time, but have just now quickly reviewed a couple of pages and can see that just as SV has reason to be concerned by a company devoting unlimited resources to managing its public relations, so those arguing against SV have reason to be concerned by some of the melodramatic and unhelpful actions opposing BP's material (for example, adding excessive detail or "controversy in Wikipedia" in this article). There is no good procedure to handle a case like this, and while some will never understand the obvious, it should be quite possible for most to agree with SV's comments and at the same time argue that the BP material is ok. To provide balance, I should note that some of those supporting BP's material have also been over-the-top melodramatic in some places. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really believe that we cannot determine if there is a problem with the material. You just need someone with a good head on his or her shoulders to review the material and sourcing. Certainly, I understand where Slim is coming from, but she has only really focused on the "mixed" description of BP's environmental record by focusing on media mentions. Reality is that "mixed" is a pretty good way to describe the record of a company that has been a pioneer in terms of environmental advocacy in the corporate world and alternative energy research that also has been responsible for numerous severe ecological disasters, including the worst oil spill in history.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq, that there is need for caution but but panic. It is easy enough to spot and change material that is over promotional. As always, any editor is free to challenge material that they might be considered whitewashing of bad things, and we seem to have plenty willing to do this. We also have the option of asking Arturo to provide more independent sourcing for anything that we might consider to be based too much on unpublished documents. If he is unable or unwilling to do this we should consider removing the unsupported material.

Overall, out aim should be to fight ignorance with knowledge, that is the primary purpose of WP, and having access to someone on the inside may help us do this so long as we remain cautious and critical. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, yes, having access to people willing to point us to interesting published material is good. But these people are sources. The problem here is that the source was allowed to write the article, and have that text rely on the published sources he chose to highlight. No news organization would ever allow this, and although our mission is somewhat different, there are very good reasons that journalists keep their sources at arm's length. Those reasons apply to us too, particularly given the limited amount of volunteer time available to check anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern but there is no need to panic or take any form of drastic action. Arturo did not write the article he proposed additions that were added by others, who have reviewed the material and taken responsibility for what was added. Nevertheless, I can see the possible dangers of a subtle bias being transmitted to the article and we must be on our guard against this.

Now what about the other side of the coin? Do you see my point? There seem to be some editors who only add negative material about BP to the article. Unlike Arturo, they do not have to declare any conflict of interest, they edit the article directly, edit war, use unencyclopedic language and argue their points strongly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing should be based on unpublished material. Aside, has Arturo confirmed his identity and position with BP through OTRS or someone? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong there, it was just an impression that I got from the talk here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No one is citing Arturo or anything. It is a bit quicker for him to provide well cited material because he knows more history. The article is a dog's breakfast and any kind of help is welcome. Everything is discussed and reviewed before being added to or taken from the article. It is completely ok, transparent, fine. For example I did this removal [12] after Arturo suggested it two weeks earlier and about 30 comments were exchanged on the talk page. Go and check the talk page history if you like but the article is better for the removal. --BozMo talk 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we shouldn't just take someone's word for it that they are what they say they are, no matter how nice, polite, and helpful. Anyway, there are probably 10,000 factually accurate articles about BP that Wikipedia could be presenting to readers. Granted that this is one of them, the concern is that it's the one BP prefers on balance; otherwise Arturo at BP would suggest a change. That's as much a legitimate concern as it would be if instead of coming from Arturo at BP the contributions had come from Nigel at the Sierra Club. Also, "Wikipedia Engagement Team" in other contexts would be taken to imply off-site coordination. If that team is just Arturo's research assistants, I can only envy him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin...we are not a news organization and frankly you are actually wrong. News organizations do indeed let companies add input to there articles. How do you think they get accurate information? What...do you think they pull it out of their butts?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem that requires such aggression? Are you seriously suggesting that a reputable newspaper would take a significant body of text submitted by BP and add it to an article about BP, without mentioning the source? (Of course papers designed to sell advertorial space do that, but they are not reputable and would not even count as WP:RS.) Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't take the "Pulling it out of their butts" comment as aggression. It is an expression and yes, I am saying that Newspapers regularly take information provided by companies to incorporate into their stories without attribution of any sort. Now...when writing a book or academic journal it is almost always added to a notes section, but journalist do not have that requirement. And as I said...we are not a newspaper and we are not journalists. That is my point and I do wish to make that as strongly as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hear,hear! Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest template

The conflict of interest template was removed from the article by Rangoon11 with an edit summary describing it as 'highly dubious', reasoning that BP employee Arturo has never directly edited the article. However a conflict of interest still exists because material that he wrote has been inserted into the article without any indication that it was written by a BP employee. The Template:COI documentation is clear that the template applies to changes that are the "direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject". With a growing number of news articles ([13][14][15][16][17]) reporting on the fact that Arturo's edits make up some 40% of the article, it would be irresponsible of us not to make use of the template, at least until the extent of any bias can be ascertained. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has already stated that there is nothing wrong with what the user has done and that the information that was moved to the article was vetted by other editors, so the responsibility of the edits falls on them. So it is essentially those users' edits just as much as it is Arturo's. A COI template is only added when there is reason to believe that COI edits have made the article non-neutral. There is no reason to believe that in this instance, as the edits were properly vetted. If you have concerns about a specific section, sentence, or use of words in the article, we can talk about it, but ther eis absolutely no reason for the COI template. And, really, the COI template isn't very useful for anything, the POV template actually addresses the content of the article. Silverseren^C 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the template is offensive to those editors who added Arturo's draft text to the article - I have no connection to BP, and neither do the other editors who added Arturo's text to the article - as well as to those editors critical of BP who were watching the article at the time and were more than capable of speaking up if they had an issue with the proposed text (they certainly weren't shy in speaking up about all manner of other things, and we have had lots of debate and discussion on this talk page all through the period Arturo has been active here). Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) If you want to nominate the COI template for deletion because you think it is useless, feel free. I understand how you might be defensive, given that you are the editor who signed off on some of those edits, but a COI template is not a badge of shame. Rather, the template serves to inform readers that an impressive chunk of the article has been written by a BP employee and that, yes, there are neutrality concerns, as have been already outlined on this talk page. Per your suggestion, I've added a POV template. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 21:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren is also spot on about edit ownership, the drafts of Arturo which I added to the article I am very happy to call my edits, and to stand by them and defend them 100%. The text I added to the article which Arturo had prepared was excellent and I would have very happy to produce something of the same quality and depth, and certainly I would have struggled to find the time to do so. This article is radically better than it was two years ago, and Arturo is part of the reason for that. Those attacking him above have largely contributed nothing to this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the amateurish shambles that this article was back in 2010: [18] An embarassment to WP. A crude attack piece. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to some COI/neutrality template for the time being, so long as the discussion shifts to evaluating the actual content alongside the review of how it got there. Template:COI says:

"...Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {pov} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.... Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."

It's sound advice. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is so not what I suggested. You're only supposed to add a POV tag if there is actually POV issues with the article. Then, once those issues ar epointed out, they are fixed so that the template is removed. Templates are not meant to just sit on article pages, they are meant to be fixed. So, what exactly is POV issue here, what part of the text is POV I must ask? Silverseren^C 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

COI templates are for alerting editors to alleged issues with the content itself, not with who added it. Unless someone identifies a problem with the actual text supplied by Arturo then there is no basis for including such a template.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the transparency shown by Arturo is a breath of fresh air for wikipedia. I spend a lot of time in the even-more-contentious area of Israel/Palestine, which almost certainly includes many unidentified paid advocacy editors. Arturo's behaviour should be used as a positive example on the quest to solve the inherent COI issues on wikipedia. Unless someone can point out faults in the edits or information provided (which they haven't so far), then I don't see a COI problem given that it has been fully disclosed. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't view it that way. I read about this situation on CNet and it makes Wikipedia look bad. I agree about adding the COI notice to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And remove it when? Article tags are meant to indicate that something is wrong with the text. So, what's wrong? Unless that is identified, it can't be fixed. Silverseren^C 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that if the article is changed or rewritten so that it does not reflect significant contributions by BP, it would be time to remove the COI template. This is not intended as a reflection on any editor or group of editors, but simply my belief that Wiki's BP article should be written by people unaffiliated with BP. My feeling is that BP contributing 40% of the text, assuming that's correct, is an inherent problem even if that text is fine. I am more of an outsider than a Wikipedian, I haven't been contributing for very long, and I think that outsiders would view BP's participation in this article with revulsion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

40%? Where did that come from? Less than 4% certainly. 0.4% perhaps? --BozMo talk 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in the CNet article, 44%. [19]. Not true? I said "assuming that's correct." Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm as I understand it that figure comes from a Wikipedia contributor. Ask them how they came up with the number. I do not support the use of the COI template in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Except that the 44% number was never accurate. The vast majority of Arturo's drafts went off the information in the article, so the existing sections were the base to which he added a few sentences here and there and re-arranged a few things, along with adding better references. So, while i'm sure his drafts as a whole are indeed 44% of the article, at least 40% of that information was already in the article in the first place. Silverseren^C 06:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am very concerned that these supposed figures have been taken as real. I find them to be of such crap I can't even begin to express my disbelief in adequate terms.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The time and effort expended on the above utterly pointless discussion of behvaviour wholly in complicance with WP policies should have been directed at improving articles, adding citations etc. It is discussions like this which damage WP and waste time and energy. The focus should be on one thing alone: creating the best articles possible. If WP fails to do that it will be replaced by something else. 92.19.151.202 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the policies if they allow corporate public relations people to write and rewrite text of articles. I wish Wikipedia was as concerned about its terrible public image as BP is about its terrible public image. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The COI tag was re-added to the article without providing explanation for this. The template's documentation says: "Use this tag to indicate that an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other pov tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame." Notwithstanding multiply request, there was no evidences provide to proof that Arturo's proposals have created any serious problem with the content. Therefore, I will remove this tag. As for POV tag, I can't find at the moment, who added this and related to what issue in the article, so I will leave it now and try to find if there is any explanation. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also like to know what the POV dispute is. If we don't know why the tag was placed how can we correct the issues if there even is anything actually in dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears this was done for dubious reasons. In the edit summary no POV issue was raised, just that Sliverseren had suggested it[20]...which as you can see above, he did not. No actual dispute of Point of View issues with actual content has been raised and the tag was not properly place with a discussion of the issues to resolve. I am removing the tag.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked Arturo if he would object to placement of the COI notice on the page. I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge him, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way to diffusing the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Any addition of tags is content and requires a consensus. I think it would be dishonest to add that tag as there is no Conflict of Interest, just unfounded accusations. Also, as pointed out here. Tags are for content and are not a permanent display. The point of this would be to display the tag until such time that editor has driven out. That is not within the spirit or policy of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If there a COI template then reference should also be made to editors, who from their editing history of only adding strongly negative information about BP, would appear to have some kind of COI that impairs their ability to cooperate in the writing of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

TNK-BP

I have added a TNK-BPsection to the Environmental section. TNK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. As such, I believe that a mention of their environmental record is appropriate for this section. Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction - was. However this article does need a "Joint ventures and shareholdings" section to deal with topics such as TNK-BP, the shareholding in Rosneft, Shell-Mex and BP and the former BP Mobil European downstream joint venture.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The sale is completed? Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Shell Mex BP had been disolved for a decade when I joined Shell in 1989... so better suited to a section on history? --BozMo talk 19:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And since BP-TNK was such a major part of BP for a decade it deserves a mention in the lead as well. Yes aware that Shell Mex BP is defunct, as is TNK-BP (as a BP JV - it continues (for now) as a subsidiary of Rosneft) and BP Mobil, however these are important enough to deserve a proper treatment in a Joint ventures and shareholdings section as well as a line in the History.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon. I looked for a more recent ref than this [21] but could not find anything. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The deal only completed a couple of days ago.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Link? Gandydancer (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[22]Rangoon11 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked our BP rep for input. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The sale of TNK-BP was completed on 21 March and TNK-BP is owned now by Rosneft (RT, UPI, RFE/RL, Reuters). In addition to this, it is not correct to add TNK-BP environmental record here as that company in reality was not controlled by BP. It was discussed here. Beagel (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Rangoon11. TNK-BP belongs to the history section as other mentioned former joint ventures. I don't think they should be included in the separate section, particularly if there is a separate article TNK-BP. Beagel (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Per above, I remove the TNK-BP subsection. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This section from the "Environmental record" has been removed:

NK-BP is a joint venture between BP and a consortium of Russian oligarchs. It is the third largest oil producer in Russia, and represents a quarter of BP's global production. In 2012 Russia's environmental minister blamed TNK-BP for causing massive oil pollution in the Siberian region and using "practically all of its profit, almost $8 billion", on dividends while failing to invest in rebuilding its "rusty oil pipe infrastructure". The company reported 413 pipeline ruptures in 2011. In April 2012 it was announced that regulators would ask for damages from TNK-BP as one of the biggest polluters of the Ob and Yenisei river basins in Siberia.[296] [297]

I wonder if we need a little more discussion before this is removed? I note that when the Texas refinery was recently sold the new owners were not liable for BP's past conduct nor did we remove it from our page. Thus I wonder whether or not it is reasonable to remove all reference to this information from the BP article. Incidentally, I note that BP retains a 20% ownership. I have asked Arturo to check in on this and it seems to me that it would be prudent to wait for his input before we remove this section--with, of course, an update on the recent sale. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It was described two days ago why this does not belong to this article. There was no response. As it was already said back in last September, BP did not have control over TNK-BP during last years since dispute between BP and Russian partners in 2008 which culminated with Bob Dudley's escape from Russia. Also, the claim that BP still owns 20% of TNK-BP is incorrect. As of today, BP owns 19.75% of Rosneft's shares not TNK-BP. Rosneft owns 100% of TNK-BP International (50% bought from AAR, 50% bought from BP), which owns 95% of TNK-BP Holding (rest 5% is traded at the Moscow Exchange), which owns different operating companies (commonly known as TNK-BP). This information is all public (and some links were provided above), so I don't understand which information should be checked. Beagel (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. Yes I saw that you left a note and I was hoping that someone new to the article would give feed back now that the article has generated so much controversy. Considering that it opened a whole new area of thought, one could have done the needed research quite easily. So where are we? Complaints that Arturo is writing the article but not enough interest to present an opinion. I must say, I still have to shake my head in wonder to think that anyone would snip at me saying there's nothing to worry about here what with over a hundred article watchers. Beagel, I don't know if you are correct or not--I only know that both you and Rangoon sure know a lot more about BP than I do. I will not persist in my argument. Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week and Arturo has not bothered to respond to my request for information. Considering that various editors from other talk pages have been extremely critical of the editors that work this article, I feel I need to bring this up again. According to a 2012 report, Yury Trutnev, Russia’s natural resource minister, told a cabinet meeting chaired by president-elect Vladimir Putin that 784 “accidents” had occurred in TNK-BP’s Siberian pipeline system in 2011 and led to spills, while only 20 or 30 per year had occurred in the systems of the company’s peers, Surgutneftegaz, Lukoil and Bashneft. [23] Considering that this company was responsible for 1/4 of BPs oil production and the 784 accidents compared to only 20 or 30 from other companies--I think the year was 2011, should this information not be included in the environmental section? Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is more information on the sale.[24]. Is that what you needed? The sale was recently completed. BP had owned 50% of the joint venture, and had substantial representation on the board of the joint venture,[25] so discussion of its safety record belongs in this main article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] No I didn't need that. What I needed was more info on the environmental aspects. Just guessing, but from the reading I did it was my impression that perhaps the Russian leaders didn't give a rat's a** about the environmental problems till perhaps they used them to threaten BP... Well, it's one of those times you wish you could read Russian and that was true of another section that was deleted some time ago--I couldn't find anything in English. Anyway, my question is: Should this be included in the environmental section? Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on my Talk page last week, I have confirmed that TNK-BP no longer exists as an entity following the completion of the sale announced by BP the week before. I am still waiting for answers on who will be responsible for the repairs and pipeline replacement and hope to have something soon. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

My take on this. So many levels of difficulty here. First of all, source (FT) is good. 2nd, what it reports is... difficult. Makes it clear that there are likely political/financial reasons why the Putin government is bringing up these numbers; and that TNK-BP disputes the numbers. I think it is consensus in the West at least, that the Putin government has used all kinds of BS charges to force companies to do what it wants, even to the point of taking them over. So the validity of any data from the Russian government is suspect at worst, and hard to judge at best. For other matters. TNK-BP came into existence in 2003 and took over a bunch of existing infrastructure. BP owned 50% of the company and Bob Dudley ran it from 2003 until 2008. Russians (the AAR group) owned the other 50% and after 2008 it was run by a Russian CEO after an ugly transition, and in Oct 2012 both sides agreed to sell it to Rosnoft; that deal was completed just last month (apparently under heavy pressure from Putin - that environmental stuff was from just a few months before BP agreed to sell its shares to Resnoft!). So for TNK-BP's ~10 year history, BP 'controlled' it for the first 5 years and the Russians controlled it for the seconed 5. This is what a joint venture is like, especially with difficult partners, in a difficult environment - it is hanging on by your fingernails. I think it would be unreasonable to discuss TNK-BP's industrial accident/environmental record lumped in with BP's. TNK-BP was never under BP's direct control the way BP's own operations have been and are. So - Couple of options - have a separate section in environment/industrial accidents in which relevant information is given about JVs and companies in which BP has a significant ownernship stake; alternative is have a separate section on JVs and companies in which BP has a significant stake, and briefly mention enviro/AI record of each such company. Either of those seems fine to me... will be hard to manage weight well! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your assessment is much appreciated! Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Joint venturers should be mentioned, of course, but in case there is no BP's stake anymore and these joint ventures have their own articles, the right place for mentioning them would be the history section while more detailed information should be added to the specific articles. Beagel (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Size and weight issues

At this point, we're clearly already past the point where WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE come into effect, considering a lot of minor information is being added into the article and the article is already rather long. So we should really look into splitting sections of the article off into separate article and leaving a shorter summary here. That way, it'll be fine if more minor information is added to those other articles, because those articles are about a more specific subject, while this main article should stick with only the most general information. Silverseren^C 22:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Which minor information are you speaking of? Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, ignoring when it was added, but just speaking in general, most of the 2010 to present section. You know there's a problem when the section covering just three years is just as long as the sections covering decades of a company's history. There's way too much minor detail in the section that shouldn't be in an overview article like this. Also, the Release of Lockerbie bomber section seems incredibly minor. It's pretty much a "look at how horrible BP is" section, while the actual information has no real relevance to BP as a whole. In comparison, the Lobbying section seems way too short. Only 2 sentences? They have to have more of a lobbying history than that, every company does. And lobbying isn't a bad thing, mind you, since all groups do it, environmentalist groups included. Silverseren^C 23:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As a statement of fact, "all groups do it" is incorrect. Not every group can afford to hire a dedicated lobbyist, or afford to get their members in to see their elected representatives. But we're verging on WP:SOAP territory here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

True. I personally feel that lobbying in the sense of putting forth arguments to legislators should be allowed, but any exchange of money or gifts should be explicitly outlawed. But, again, off-topic. What do you think about the sections I mentioned? Silverseren^C 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, most of Wikipedia suffers from the same focus on recent issues. I would be surprised if this article was any different. But you know this already, so I will assume there are other reasons for your comments here. BP is a very very large company and have been involved in some very newsworthy events in recent years - why would you want that little piece of "the sum of human knowledge" downplayed? And leaving out BP's involvement with the release of the Lockerbie bomber? Are you really suggesting that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's why I suggested splitting. It is too minor for this main article beyond a few summary sentences, but would be appropriate if there was a more specific topic article on the History of BP.

And I also think that we should do our best to improve the older history sections to make it not so tilted toward recency. In truth, Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that. Reliable sources would still have to be found of course, but it's far easier to look for a source for a piece of information than to just look for sources in general without knowing what you're looking for. Silverseren^C 23:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Arturo is not needed for an elaboration about the history of BP, which has been amply covered by many authors. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, Wikipedia editors are going to work on whatever interests them, which is why we have such an imbalance in our coverage of subjects compared to a typical encyclopedia. If people want to work on expanding the history of BP, they will. It will happen when it happens, like everything else in Wikipedia. At present, I don't think the article is too long. Is there some kind of deadline that relates to this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. I want to work on improving this section now and the article is already long enough that sections should be split, so I made this discussion section to discuss what should be split. Silverseren^C 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet. In further reading there's The History of the British Petroleum Company in three volumes. It seems like that those would be the reliable sources of first resort. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Arturo would be using those same sources, like the reliable sources he's been using the entire time, he is just the expert (or has access to the experts) that know how to summarize them best. Now, back to the actual subject of this section, which is about splitting. Silverseren^C 00:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not the case that any representative of the company is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but I would assume he was chosen because he is good at doing that. And, thus far, that appears to be true, since he's been doing a great job at it. Silverseren^C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No company representative is a good choice to summarize the sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Clearly, a large amount of editors disagree with you. Silverseren^C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE] "Arturo would be the best person to ask about the older history of BP, because he can ask people that would likely have access to the information on that." Well, hope springs eternal, but the last time I asked Arturo a question it took more than three months for him to give me an answer. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to turn to Arturo for this.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Was it a question related to the history of BP or other information in the article? He may have just forgotten about the question. God knows there's a number of articles that I promised people I would work on with them and things happened and I never got around to it. Silverseren^C 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you would think that when he had to stumble over it on his talk page to answer further questions he would notice it, wouldn't you? As to whether or not it was related to the article, are you thinking that maybe I was just chatting or something? Gandydancer (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was three months ago, then I don't know what you were talking about with him. I still have stuff on my talk page that I haven't responded to (though they might be in archives by now, that shows how long I didn't respond to them for). Though, why is any of this relevant? This isn't at all about the subject of this section. Can we get back on track, please? Silverseren^C 00:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, you were the one who suggested that Arturo, an employee of BP, was "the best person to ask about the older history of BP", and that is why people are responding to your comments. In my opinion, the best person to write an article like this one would not be a random selection of Wikipedia editors, it would not be someone with an anti-BP agenda, and it wouldn't be a PR professional being paid by the very company that you are writing about. It would be someone with a significant amount of knowledge in this subject area and no ties to the oil industry. Would that not be a better choice to write this article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I just don't think such a person exists. If you have a significant amount of knowledge in the subject of companies, the only reason would be because you have a connection to them, whether it be positive or negative. Silverseren^C 03:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the ability of a sharp editor to succinctly summarize the sources after reading them. I, for one, have been able to compose or greatly improve articles on topics that were previously outside of my knowledge. I don't think you should assume previous expertise. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The history section might be split into a new article and summarized here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the history section and maybe even the operations section could be split off.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, although either History or Operations is a large enough topic for a separate article at some point, the level of treatment in this article at present does not justify break out articles, neither does the present overall length of the article. Breaking out either would leave this article even more skewed and unbalanced, with the undue and bloated laundry list attack content of the Environmental record and Accidents sections dominating the article even more. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Those should be split off as well. It's quite clear that there is way too much information in this article about them. Preferably, every major section should be split off into a subarticle, because every major section should have enough information that necessitates such a thing. And that does appear to be true. Silverseren^C 22:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but I see no point in splitting until there is sufficient content in this article to justify it, since these are not really separate topics but break outs from this one. The history section here is not especially long, and neither is the overall article. There are serious issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the bottom half of the article but the History section actually seems underdeveloped, at least the pre-2000 part. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Splitting serves the interest of BP, not the interest of our reader. As Editors, whose interest should we be concerned with? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect

It is not correct to say BP paid a 4bn fine. The fine was 1.25bn. I suspect there is a lesson here on the dangers of coming in and editing an article in a fit of righteous indignation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Please, WP:AGF. I think it was just overcompression which happens in ledes. I expanded the "$4B in fines" to "$4B in fines and penalties" which all three sources verify. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)  Done

I did AGF. The point is that we had edited this fact carefully, and crusaders against COI put the incorrect fact in. Of course they meant well. Of course they also trumpeted how they were "replacing falsehood with truth". Had they AGF'd about the previous editors, they might have taken a little more time and got it correct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

anyway we are good now, right?Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

reference to dracone barge in "environmental initiatives" section

There is text describing BP's invention of a method to clean up oil spills using booms and a tanker or dracone barge in the "environmental initiatives" section. This does not seem to be any kind of "environmental initiative nor does it seem particularly notable. Its an old and expired patent. Anybody object to deleting the paragraph? Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like an environmental initiative to me. If it's old then maybe it should be moved to a different article, since it's been deemed that this article is about the current company. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Good find. I agree that it should go. BTW, Farmbrough, what do you mean by "the current company"?Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated content in "environmental" section and "accidents" section

I see that above a conversation was started about consolidating duplicated content in "environmental" section and "accidents" section but it seemed to have bogged down. I'd like to do a quick consolidation in a section called "environmental and safety record". It is jarring to see the same events brought up twice, in such close context. Intention is not to delete any material, just to consolidate. It would improve the article while any fine-tuning is going on. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 04:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

just revised my text above -- this was hashed over, i read too fast the first time... thanks for the quick OK. will wait til tomorrow for other feedback. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideally we should have three sections, Environment, Incidents, and Safety. We do not really cover safety, as far as I know, and I have no idea if there are RS on this. Environment should cover three main areas, the impact of product, the impact of operations (referring to but not covering incidents) and innovation. Rich Farmbrough, 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't support merging these sections, Safety record/Accidents and Environmental record are quite separate topics, although there is a close connection between some aspects of the topics. However there remain major issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM in the current Environmental record and Accidents section. For example, in Accidents we only have mention of one accident pre-2005 (and that's only one and a half lines for an incident which caused 13 deaths) and yet a 2008 blow out in the Caspian, ultimately a pretty minor event, gets a whole subsection and five lines of text.

I have always favoured a section which addresses BP's safety record in the round rather than a bloated laundry list of recent accidents. I tried to get the ball rolling on this a while back by posting a draft for discussion but it proved too painful so I lost interest. I will try again below. We could then have a break out article which enables laundry listing.

Similar points apply to the Environmental record section. We have nothing pre-1993, but have a 16 line sub section devoted to the Prudhoe Bay spill 2006–2007, despite it having its own article. Its not really a description of BP's environmental record at all.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I thought it might be helpful for me to recap the previous discussion about restructuring these sections. Earlier this year, I suggested that we could bring "Environmental record" and "Accidents" together under a heading of "Environmental and safety record", like so:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental record
    • Environmental initiatives
    • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Incidents
    • Sea Gem
    • Texas City refinery
    • Prudhoe Bay
    • Deepwater Horizon
    • Other incidents

Other editors agreed with the goal, although they had concerns about the specific titles of subsections. In particular, there was discussion about whether "Incidents" was the correct term to use. Beagel put forward an adjusted version of the structure most recently in the discussion:

• Environmental and safety record
  • Environmental initiatives
  • Allegations of greenwashing
  • Safety record
  • Sea Gem accident
  • Texas City refinery explosion
  • Prudhoe Bay oil spill
  • Deepwater Horizon oil spill
  • Other major incidents

Based on this, I set up a draft version in a sub page of the BP Talk page using the material that was current in the article at that point. The draft version followed Beagel's proposed structure, with just a few small changes: I found that it helped organize the information if "Environmental initiatives" and "Accusations of greenwashing" were subsections of "Environmental record". Additionally, within "Other major incidents" I included subsections for each incident, using the headings that were current at the time. Although this created another level of section headings, these helped to break up the text and organize the information. I do still prefer the version I proposed (see above) because I think the organization is easier to follow, but most of all I would like to find consensus.

The previous discussion stalled, but I do still feel that a re-organization would help the clarity of these two sections and remove the repetition of information within them. The above linked structure draft is a proposal for one way that this could be done. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the organisation should be changed, especially to remove duplication. It might be an idea to try to separate reorganisation from rewriting. In other words we could reorganise the page using the existing (merged where necessary) text. Rewording could then be considered as a separate issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Of the two structures above I prefer the top one as I find it more logical and I can forsee the bottom one creating issues as to where some material should go, for example where to place content which is about negative aspects of BP's environmental record but not connected to a specific incident, the top structure would be more flexible in this regard.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the structure is too fragmented, every subsection is a separate mini (or even midi in same cases) story and there is no the whole picture about environmental record or safety record. Laundry list approach is not the one to create a good article and we really need to go forward with finding the best structure based on examples of FA and GA class company articles as was proposed in the separate section above. In the meantime I support the Martin's proposal that as the first stage we just should to merge these two sections without changing structure or wording (except removing duplicated information). Findind consensus about the structure and changing wording should be the next steps. Beagel (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest addition to the Deepwater Horizon section

This has just been added:

On September 8, 2010, BP released a 193-page report on its web site. The report says BP employees and those of Transocean did not correctly interpret a pressure test, and both companies neglected ominous signs such as a pipe called a riser losing fluid. Transocean, responding to the report, blamed "BP's fatally flawed well design."

Can anybody tell me its purpose? Are we trying to say that BP's well design was fatally flawed? If so we need a much more authoritative reference than the one given, if not, what is the 2-year old news agency report telling us? That a pressure test (which one, and when?) was incorrectly (how?) interpreted? There is no indication of the significance of the test, why it was incorrectly interpreted, or how much any party is to blame for this. It is just another piece of random anti-BP text with a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to round out the information on the explosion. The main article would have more particular information, though perhaps my addition could use improvement as I just took it from the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But what does it actually tell us? We have a rather prominent "BP's fatally flawed well design" but we cannot say that on the basis of a news report of another company's opinion. So now what is left? Only a vague reference to 'a pressure test', being misinterpreted. Can you really say that misinterpretation of a pressure test is worthy of mention in an article about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the section on "accidents" and the added text helps explain why the accident happened. The addition and especially inclusion of the BP report as a source is very helpful. Let it stand. However, I looked at the reference for the "fatally flawed" quote and unfortunately it is not in the cited source...I found it in others, and selected a Christian Science Monitor article to replace it. I also edited the content to clarify that while BP accepted some blame its report, it also blamed Halliburton and Transoceean, and both of them together rejected that and shifted blame back to BP.Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The added text does nothing to explain why the incident happened. The article on the subject gives seven main causes, with detailed explanations of each. We cannot do that here so why give a half-baked mention of one of the reasons. The quote is what Transocean, who were under pressure themselves, said about BP, it is not even a comment from an independent party. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback (and for your patience!) I removed any mention of a "pressure test" because I think you were right in your criticism. As for the well design wording, do you have a better idea? As for the other two blaming BP, I think it is just what one would expect--they all blame each other. I agree that the independent party's final decision on blame is the most important one. Reading the main article "Disposition of financial obligation", it is so long and involved, does anyone have an idea for a way to condense it without listing every party and every settlement? I would think that just a couple of lines would do but I have no idea how to condense it that much. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that but we still have, Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP and Transocean released a statement that blamed "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" . As you say, in a case like this everybody tries to blame someone else. The two quotes "BP's fatally flawed well design" and "cost-saving decisions that increased risk" unfairly promote Transocean's POV. remove then and all we have is Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP. I think it all should go. I agree that if we can get an overall independent apportionment of blame we should have a short summary of it in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just had a look at the "Disposition of financial obligation" and all it seems to say is that BP sued everyone it could and they all some of them settled out of court. This does not help us much. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair and reasonable. I'll remove that from the article. I still hope that someone can come up with a final closure statement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We still need some sort of closure--we can't just leave it in the air like this. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that we must add some text to this section? As I say above, an authoritative, overall, and independent apportionment of blame, would be a good thing to add to the article, but is there one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well we do have the DOJ's findings but this month was supposed to be the findings re the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act, plus of course all the civil suits. But for this section I think we need more about the final finding of blame about whose fault the explosion was. There is a lot of information here [26] but I'm not sure if it would be considered RS, and here is some recent information: [27] Gandydancer (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure what you are trying to achieve. Is it to add more detail? Is it to update facts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a subject of the court proceedings at the moment to establish "who to blame". The trial is going on at moment. Lets wait the court decision and add it then. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Safety record

In place of the current laundry list of recent accidents involving BP, which may be suited to a break out article, this article should offer a proper treatment of BP's safety record. This is a draft text which I posted here a while ago and post again. I hope that it will at least get the ball rolling on a proper Safety record section rather than present laundry list.

"Analysing the safety record of a major international oil company such as BP, and comparing it to industry averages and peers, is highly complex and fraught with subjectivity.[28][29]. The task is further hindered by a lack of standardised information in most countries. It should also be noted that any comparison between the safety record of a company such as BP and companies in other sectors is more difficult still in view of the oil and gas industry being inherently hazardous.[30]

A number of aspects of BP's safety record appear to broadly conform with industry peers.[31] In 2004 the National Journal described BP's LNG safety record as "exemplarly".[32] (p 3077) An analysis by the Financial Times in 2007 concluded that BP was "far from uniquely bad among the oil and gas ‘super-majors’ for its record of workforce deaths".[33] BP's safety record in offshore drilling and oil production in the United States is, in terms of number of leaks and fatalities over the past three decades, broadly comparable with peers and better than industry averages.[34] (p86)

However BP's activities in the United States have been involved in a number of high profile safety incidents over the past decade, most notably the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent leak, which killed 11 workers and injured 16 others and resulted in the largest accidental marine oil spill in history, the 2006 Prudhoe Bay oil spill and an explosion at the Texas City Refinery in 2005 which killed 15 workers and injured more than 170 others. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster BP's safety record in the United States received harsh criticism in the American media and from prominent American politicans. Links were drawn between incidents such as Deepwater Horizon, Prudhoe Bay and Texas City, with BP's safety culture being widely criticised as being complacent and compared unfavourably with peer ExxonMobil.[35] In "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012, investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten made a number of claims that BP's safety culure and performance was damaged during the period in which John Browne was Chief Executive due to a management approach which emphasised controlling costs over safety.[36] It has also been argued that BP inherited safety issues from Amoco, and the Texas City Refinery was originally an Amoco site.[37] (p92)" Rangoon11 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You want to replace the present section with this? The first source listed: COLIN READ is Professor of Economics and Finance at SUNY College at Plattsburgh, and a columnist for the Plattsburgh New York Press Republican newspaper hasn't even drawn any reviews nor have his other books, as far as I looked. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I just want to get the ball rolling on a long over due treatment of BP's safety record, as opposed to a mere laundry list of accidents over the past decade. Please propse additions, different sources, amendments or even an entirely new text. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The "highly complex and fraught with subjectivity" bit is ridiculous. It is clear from many sources such as the ABC piece "BP's Dismal Safety Record" that BP has been reliably accused of safety violations many times, at a rate much higher than the industry standard. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

BP has had safety issues in the US - around a third of its overall activities - over the past decade. And the parts of BP's US activities involved in those issues amount to a minority of its overall US operations. Yes those issues should be addressed, but that does not make the sentence "Analysing the safety record of a major international oil company such as BP, and comparing it to industry averages and peers, is highly complex and fraught with subjectivity" any less correct. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

'Has been accused' is not the same as 'is' and no news article is going to change that. I think Rangoon's first paragraph is an essential precursor to any serious discussion of any large oil company's safety record. It is quite obviously a very complex job to compare the safety records of very large companies and anyone who thinks otherwise does not even understand the question.

Rangoon's proposal is vastly more encyclopedic than the current list of new items. News items, by their very nature, concentrate on the bad and spectacular. You never see a paper saying, 'Nothing happened at the XXX plant today except for oil production'. I we are going to have section on BP's safety record it should be written from a genuinely neutral and objective viewpoint. You are hardly going to get that from news sources after the Deepwater Horizon incident. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The ABC source looks at US government sources and compares across the industry. For instance, it says "BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)." This kind of reporting is not changed because of a recent accident. Rather, it stays relevant for the time of the report, making BP by far the most unsafe oil company working in the US in the 2000s, with a whopping 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations. Any discussion about BP's safety record will have to include how extremely bad they were in the US in the 2000s. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes but Rangoon's references paint a different picture. I have no way of telling the real truth and neither do you. Unless we have truly authoritative and comprehensive source saying so we must not say, or imply that BP had a worse safety record than other companies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the sentiment, but I think some of the wording is argumentative, especially the first paragraph. As I have said before, I do believe this section and the environmental record section are too lengthy and there is a bit too much overlap. While I think some better wording is needed than what Rangoon suggests, my opinion is that we should have balanced summaries of the company's overall record in these areas, rather than laundry list sections.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how you can find the first paragraph argumentative. How can comparing the safety records of giant multinational companies be anything other than 'highly complex and fraught with subjectivity'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Words such as "highly" and "fraught" are problematic and the whole first sentence is a bit unnecessary as it does seem to be obvious as you say. However, I am also concerned about some of the later wording in the paragraph. I believe the point about the safety record being oversimplified can be conveyed with less suggestive wording.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If it is just the wording then I can agree with you. The point that I believe needs to be made is that discussion of a huge company's comparative safety record is not a simple matter and we cannot base our article on media reports or even court findings. Courts have the job investigating and dealing with a particular incident not comparing one company with another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm absolutely fine with rewording too. I know that the draft above needs both expansion and better sourcing too, in no way was I proposing it for copying straight into the article. Hopefully now there's more activity on this page producing something capable of consensus will be more achievable. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the wording definitely needs to be worked on. But I support the sectioning out of this subject. What might be better is to create the separate article first and then it would be easier to have a summary here, because that's how it's supposed to be. You can't have the content here be stuff that not covered in the split out article. So splitting first might be the better method. Silverseren^C 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed "accidents" to "incidents," which I think is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been changed back (not by me, I am unbothered) but incident is also broader (in that it includes intentional misbehaviour such as product dumping). --BozMo talk 08:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Where has the wording of the section title been discussed? I don't see it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it was February. There was a lot of good input but no decision was ever reached. I liked Beagel's "Major incidents" the best, though I did not have any strong feelings on it. Arturo suggested "Accidents and incidents" at one point. It's an interesting read for anyone that is interested in how important choosing the right wording can be. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to reopen that discussion. "Accidents" downplays the seriousness of the incidents described. "Incidents" is more neutral. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

'Incidents' is just more general than 'accidents'. 'Accident' would not include sabotage or a deliberate release. In the sub-headings we can be more specific with 'spill', 'leak', 'explosion' etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's untrue that a consensus to use "incidents" has been reached. Does it not make sense that a neutral term is inappropriate to describe non-neutral events? petrarchan47tc 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You've completely lost me. "Accidents" implies "mistake," as in "it was an accident," while "incident" would encompass events in which BP was at fault. To call them "accidents" whitewashes their severity. I am new to this article so I don't know if consensus was reached or not. I'm just looking at the article afresh, and the section header "accidents" stood out. I think that this should be discussed and that there should not be edit warring over this. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon has copy/pasted her previous proposal. I will copy/paste my previous response as well:

Rangoon, IMO your references are, for the most part, very problematic.

• Ref #1 compares all chemicals, Dow, for instance, in the discussion.
• Ref #2 states, it’s worth noting that these tallies are not necessarily the best measure of a company’s safety record, as they do not account for the number of accidents per worker hour, the possible differences in the way companies count deaths or many other factors.
• Ref #3 is the same as #1.
• Ref #4 - Perhaps if you want to use that book we should use this one [23] as well for an alternative viewpoint, such as calling BP the most sophisticated PR machine of all time.
• Ref #5 - One reference in a government study? I can't quite figure that one out--it seems to me to be one of those that come from the bottom of the barrel when an editor is trying to win a losing battle.
• Ref #6 Industry deaths for years 2003, 4, 5, and 6 are not very helpful.
• Ref #7 is the Colin Read book again--page 86 is not shown
• Ref #8 NYTimes, acceptable
• Ref #9 This is from Abrahm Lustgarten, the author of the book I mentioned above. But he is far from alone in his claims.
• Ref #10 - This is Colin Read again. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Accidents," "Incidents" or "????" (Disasters?)

I just found the last discussion on the titling of the "accidents" section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BP/Archive_8#New_structure_for_Environmental_record_and_Accidents.2Fsafety_record I see now that a valid objection was raised to titling the section "incidents," on the grounds that it might tend to minimize the serious events that transpired. I think that the current title, "Accidents," is worse. I favor "Environmental disasters" Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be incidents that are not disasters. Who is to decide what a disaster is? Incidents is a good generic term, the individual incident sub-headings can be more descriptive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All accidents are at the same time incidents but not all incidents are accidents. Disaster is too subjective term. Also, as it was said, not all incidents are disasters. If the term 'incidents' would be used I propose to add a word 'major' before it to avoid a false impression that this subsection covers all incidents. Beagel (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Core, thanks for your note. Check out this definition of "accident". petrarchan47tc 06:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beagel, 'Major incidents' would be a neutral, accurate, encyclopedic generic term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree with this as more neutral.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Major incidents" is marginally better than "accidents." Petrarchan47, I see what you mean, and I understand your unease with "incidents." But it concerns me that "accident" is commonly used in the "traffic accident" sense, which in this case does not seem appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In the previous discussion I said that I did not care for accident because the word often suggests something that has happened that is (often) beyond one's control, while investigations into BP's "accidents" have invariably shown that they were, in fact, "accidents waiting to happen". I prefer Bealel's suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The heading "Major incidents" makes the most sense to me, too. It describes all the types of events, is neutral and using "major" implies that only notable events will be included rather than the section becoming a long list of every possible event. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! This collaborative vetting of potential descriptive words is a template for how it should be. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Do you think it would be alright now to change it to "Major Incidents"? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be the collaborative result. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually having second thoughts about "major incidents" as a result of the points raised below. There's no hurry.Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Incident" basically just means 'event', with connotations of something minor, and something slightly negative. I think "major incidents" is absurd. This should be called either "Industrial accidents" or "Industrial disasters" with a link to that article. Both are well known terms. In either case, adding the "industrial" term makes it clear that these are not like car accidents... companies have safety policies to prevent them that are well or badly thought out, and that are used well or badly in various places and times... and after an industrial accident there are inevitably reviews of the safety procedures so that repeats can be avoided, and when the accident is found to be due to companies' having inadequate safety procedures or for not following them, they are fined on that basis. Using "industrial disasters" would help keep the article focused on major events but I worry that the BP advocates here would then start to complain that some given content doesn't rise to the level of "disaster" which would lead to endless haggling. So I prefer "industrial accidents" and we'll just rely on wikipedia's policies for notability, etc, to keep the focus on important events. And again I would prefer to see single discussions of events that are repeated in this section and in the "environmental" section; for an energy company, most industrial accidents will have environmental consequences. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "industrial accidents" is more appropriate than any form of "incident". "Industrial disasters" is exactly what is being described in the text, though. The industrial accidents resulted in environmental disasters. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that everything in the current section for certain rises to the level of "disaster" - "2006–2010: Refinery fatalities and safety violations" and "2008 Caspian Sea gas leak and blowout" are debatable.Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that your point about "incidents" is well taken. I'm not so hot on use of that term now, but I also have a problem with "accident." We need to keep thinking. "Industrial accident" doesn't advance the ball much beyond "incident." All of the events described are serious. All except one involved fatalities. The one that did not involve fatalities was very serious. I think that the uninvolved editors need to work this one out.Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "uninvolved editors". The term I am proposing is not "accident" but is "industrial accident" which is a well known term - covers everything from slip and fall up to an oil rig blowing up. As I said above we can rely on notability to keep out "slip and fall" stuff - and by definition anything that is in Wikipedia is notable and serious. I am not sure what nuance you are after with "serious" and "very serious." Industrial accidents are bad things that nobody likes - some people spend their careers, literally, thinking about how to avoid them and there are a myriad government agencies set up to ensure that they don't happen (OSHA, EPA etc) and see here http://www.ilo.org/skills/pubs/WCMS_107829/lang--en/index.htm I would be OK with "Major Industrial Accidents" if you are looking for something more "serious" but again the more qualifiers you put on the section header, the more haggling we are going to get, over what qualifies as "major" or whatever, and we already have WP:Notability to guide us. But please clarify what you are after.Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too much hung up on the word "accidents." My initial concern was that the word implied lack of fault. However, "major industrial accidents," thanks to the word "major," would probably work. By "involved" editors I meant editors employed by BP. I think this kind of editorial consensus-building should be by editors who do not have a declared COI. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the "involved editor" thing. But you are confusing me on the "fault" thing. Nobody actually wants industrial accidents to happen - they are not good outcomes for anybody and they are not intentional (unlike the dumping described in the environmental section). And following an industrial accident, one of the first questions that is always asked is, was this the result of negligence somehow (cutting corners for example), or was this a true case of Force majeure? For each IA that we list, there should be a report by some gov't body that ruled on that question, that the article should be able to report. Anyway with all that said I don't understand where you are coming from. "Major industrial accidents" implies no more fault than does "industrial accidents".Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no technical background in this whatever. I'm approaching this as a layman from the standpoint of what "sounds" to my ear most apropos. "Major," while it may not mean much to an expert, is an important distinction to the layperson. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually like the term 'industrial accidents' as this is neutral and quite well defined. There is even an international convention named Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents. The only disadvantage I see is that there was and still is a proposal to combine the current 'Environmental record' and 'Accidents' sections to remove repetitions, and as you said 'industrial accidents' does not cover a number of environmental events. The logic behind of combining these sections that in some cases (Deepwater Horizon) information is provided in both sections and it would be better to keep it in one place. But if this issue could be resolved I will prefer *industrial accidents' instead of 'major incidents'. Beagel (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree on a section title I will be happy! Glad you are liking the IA title. With respect to combining matter. Yes, some things would need to stay in a separate Enviro section, but for things that overlap, I would say, put everything in the IA section, and add a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph of the Enviro section saying ~something like~: What follows is a discussion of major environmental initiatives, events, issues, etc; others are discussed in the Industrial Accidents section below"Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I don't have any strong feelings--I'll be happy with anything. Gandydancer (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we go forward with implementing the subsection title 'Industrial accidents' and merging two sections about DWH? Beagel (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Video

An editor has reverted my addition of 2 external videos twice and told me to come to the talk page - though he has not mentioned anything here. I think this is the second set of edits I've made on the page and the second time something similar has happened. The first time I corrected an incorrect "fact" and the edit eventually stayed in the article.

I have no question that the videos will stay as well. The Frontline video, which is now back in the Environmental record section, starts out with about 20 minutes on BP's environmental record and environmental strategy, and then goes on to show how the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fits in this pattern. The Stanford video takes more of an engineering approach and examines deep water drilling in the Gulf with the Deepwater spill as the centerpiece. Both clearly related to BP's environmental record, both made by responsible organizations. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the videos build up to the topic of the Deepwater Horizon disaster by describing the background of BP engineering and the unsafe practices. Would you characterize the videos as being primarily about the Deepwater Horizon disaster, or would they be more about BP as a corporation? Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The two videos have very different starting points, but I'm tempted to say right between your two choices - the firm's environmental record. The Frontline video starts with the environmental record and the firm's strategy, and the Deepwater spill appears to emerge inevitably. On the Stanford video, I haven't gotten through all 80 minutes yet (it's tough going), but I'd say the major single point is the near impossibility of conducting fully safe drilling in the Gulf - a big part of BP's strategy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Would maintain a neutral position by also having a BP video about their safety procedures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems just a tad frivolous to me. It reminds me of this article. Or perhaps this one. But maybe I'm misinterpreting; I would welcome alternative explanations -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the videos are relevant, this comment was purely in response to Martin Hogbin's comment. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The videos are highly relevant and should be included. The article currently is unbalanced in that it provides insufficient material on that catastrophe. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because it has its own article. Going into too much detail here would be a weight issue. The Frontline video seems fine, but the second video seems far too out of place and focused on Deepwater to be proper here. It would probably work better in the Deepwater article itself. Silverseren^C 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why not restore at least the Frontline video? Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a number of issues with the addition of the box as proposed: 1. The Stanford video is not about BP per se but Deepwater and Gulf of Mexico drilling in general 2. Why place the video links in a melodramatic box with a picture of the Deepwater explosion above (and a picture which is duplicated elsewhere in the article? 3. Why place the video link at the top of the Environmental record section rather than alongside the text for Deepwater? I would agree with a link to the PBS video being included alongside the section on Deepwater. The box, the picture, the Stanford video and the box location are all out of place though.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even look at how it was being placed in the article. Did someone seriously do that? Silverseren^C 04:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Should video(s) like all other external links go to the 'External links' section rather than into the body text? Beagel (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That means in case if there is consensus for inclusion. Beagel (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Which there is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Links should not go in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the video. There is no consensus as yet. Do editors want to include or exclude the use of the video in the body of the article in any way? I support exclude at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've put the video back with a different photo

• The use of the external media template is explicitly covered in WP:EL and should be placed in the same way any other media is placed, i.e. in the relevant section - here it's about the environmental record, so it goes there.
• The photo was not a duplicate of the other one on the oil spill, but in any case I've replaced it with a different one.Have you noticed that there are 3 photos of office buildings (plus one inside an office building), 3 photos of service stations, and now 2 of the oil spill. This spill cost the company 1/3 of its value so far so there shouldn't be any question of weight - the spill is much more important than office buildings. In general some folks have serious problems with "weight" if they think the company's environmental record deserves less space.
• I think the Stanford video gives a very serious look at the causes of the spill - and much of BP's environmental record- and gives some balance to Frontline. I've looked for BP videos on the subject, but they strike me as being clearly inferior. Somebody would likely accuse me of making them look bad by the direct comparison, but if anybody has another video that they think belongs, please include it.
• There's no consensus here for removing the videos, and no credible reason given for removing them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

All content is a matter of consensus. I support the removal of the video as not having a consensus to include.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As has been stated above by more than one editor, links do not go in the body of the article. There is not consensus to ignore this policy or guideline as yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Per WPEL "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. ".--Amadscientist (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one defines consensus in a situation like this. The pros and cons seem evenly split. However, I notice that there is some sentiment among one of the "cons" to including one video. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The same way we define all consensus: what everyone can live with. If I was the only holdout on this. I would simply concede a rough consensus and live with it. We are no where near that yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ignoring all other aspects of this, because I haven't yet had the time to go through it, {{External media}} is listed as a specific exemption to the requirement that external links cannot be in the body of the article [38]. The question that must be asked is whether or not inclusion meets the criteria outlined at Template:External media#When to use. Ryan Vesey 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is excellent input. However, we must not forget that regardless of the footnote and template, it is still content which requires a consensus. But the actual question I think that is indeed important is, can this be uploaded to Wikipedia as a video file. If this is true, I wonder how much objection there wold be to include it. That may be worth attempting.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just watched the Stanford video

I have just watched the 1 hour 20 minute video all the way through. It provides a technical view of how the DWH explosion occurred. I would recommend any one interested in that subject to watch it. On thing, however, is abundantly clear; the video is not about BP. It is about the DWH explosion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend the addition of a link to the video in the appropriate place in the Deepwater Horizon explosion article but it is not about BP and has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's about BP. The Deep Water Horizon explosion is a seminal event in the history of the company. It's a long and dull academic video, and I can't fathom why it is so controversial as an addition to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you watched it? It simply is not about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the issue on how much it is about BP, you state yourself that it is a "long and dull academic video". What benefit do you claim readers get from including the video in the article? Ryan Vesey 18:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're interested in how the explosion took place, that video tells the story ad nauseum. I think it's a useful video, as it explains how an accident took place which became the defining moment in the recent history of the company. Apart from being dull and academic, I don't see the objection. Sorry, I may be dim on this subject, but I'm not seeing it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"long and dull" is in the eye of the beholder. I see no credible reason to prevent our reader from being made aware of and then, possibly, beholding the video. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're interested in how the explosion took place, they probably will look this information at the Deepwater Horizon explosion article. At least, this is what an average reader is expected to do. Beagel (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will put the link there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A reader with a greater technical background would no doubt find that video most edifying. I don't see the harm of adding it, really. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

But is it not about BP. If you disagree, please tell me what this video tells us about BP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the connection between the Deepwater Horizon disaster and BP is self-evident. Can you please explain to me how they are not related? Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is a connection, but the video is clearly not about BP, it is specifically about the DWH explosion. This article is about BP and the video tells us nothing about BP. We already have a link to the article on the explosion, where I have added a link to the video. We should not include all that article here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think that there is enough of a connection that it would be useful to readers who want to get into the weeds of the explosion. It's not my cup of tea, but I think it is beneficial to have it out there for people to examine if they wish. Are you concerned about the accuracy of the presentation? Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am not concerned about the accuracy of the presentation, that is why I added it in its proper place; the Deepwater Horizon explosion article. Anyone who wishes can look at it. In fact I think they should. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I think that article and placement is the best way to handle this. Thanks. What are other editor's thoughts on this?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with having the video focused on DWH in the DWH article. I disagree with Martin that it is not "about BP" -- of course it is about BP, in the sense that BP owned the well, hired the contractors, etc etc -- DWH is BP's doing. But it is piling on information in a section that is meant to be a stub, for the longer article on DWH. The video belongs there.Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

frontline video

The conversation on the frontline video fell off. I just watched it. I disagree strongly with smallbone's characterization of it, as being about BP's environmental record. You gotta have some serious filters to describe it that way. Rather, it is about BP's safety record -- what caused this series of accidents? It explains what happened at BP after its meteoric rise through M&A. The documentary makes the point clearly that a) BP failed to create an operational organization that could run effectively the huge company it so quickly became (in the words of Tony Hayward at Stanford: "a company that was too top down, too directive, and not good at listening... we failed to recognize that we were an operating company, we had too many people that did not understand what it took to run operations" ); and that b) in order to keep its stock price high, it kept profits high by consistently underinvesting its capital in maintenance of the infrastructure it acquired and in the projects it was building. It shows the pattern. Hayward tried to fix it - he allocated $14B to infrastructure and established a safety group, but the stock market didn't like it and so the cost-cutting started again. (BBC voice over "BP has announced a bid to cut costs, increase revenues, and improve BP's lagging performance") The industrial accidents were avoidable and BP failed to avoid them because it lacked the management to see them coming, the safety policies that could have prevented them (hayward again: "this is about a fundamental lack of leadership and management in the field of safety") and it failed to invest its capital in equipment maintenance/repair/replacement . It shows very clearly the context in which this series of industrial accidents happened. Some of which had big environmental consequences, some of which did not (the explosion at the Texas refinery, the Thunder horse near capsize that caused Lord John his job) It belongs in the article. I think it fits best in the industrial accidents section. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, my sound is not working and I haven't been able to watch the film, so your summary was just perfect for me!Gandydancer (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the main reporter in the Frontline video is investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, who is named in Rangoon's draft for the Safety section above... as is lustgarten's book, "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012. Based on the description Rangoon provides, this video and that book probably have very similar content and make similar arguments. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frontline video is an assassination, entirely unsuitable for inclusion or linking from an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Although you or I might feel that the video is selective, simplistic and one sided, it does nonetheless focus on BP and represents a widely held view of BP's safety record, thanks to the selective, simplistic and grotesquely dumbed down mainstream media of the United States. It would be good if we could find another video to balance it. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, as I noted, this is probably the same matter as the book you cited - since you cited it, can you please tell us how it differs from the video? Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We could potentially balance the Frontline video with a BP promotional video if we can find one but this is not how WP should work. WP requires us to present a neutral POV rather than two extremes. We should be looking for a quality independent reliable source that gives an authoritative assessment of BP's comparative safety record. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I have done a lot of work on controversial articles -- I have been editing the Monsanto article and the suite of genetic engineering articles for a while now, to try to create NPOV, well sourced articles. In the course of that I had to get rid of a lot of POV and untrue content and replace it with NPOV, true content, and I replaced POV sources with reliable ones, and have tried to ensure that the community that thinks Monsanto and GM are evil doesn't add back the POV and badly sourced content that was in there before. It has been hard work to find really good sources and keep the article neutral and work with editors who are passionate about the issues. So I get where you are coming from, somewhat. But I think you are being too hardcore. Like Monsanto, BP has done bad stuff but they are not evil. If you look at the Monsanto article, the bad stuff is there, clear and bright, along with the good stuff - stated in a NPOV way and well sourced. You have to let the bad stuff be here too. The Frontline show (and I assume the book that goes with it but am waiting for Rangoon to weigh in) do tell a negative story. There is a negative story to be told - in my summary above I took some care to give some quotes from Tony Hayward who frankly acknowledged those problems and tried to tackle them. PBS in general is the most widely respected source of news across the political spectrum in the US (http://ivn.us/2013/02/07/independents-reflect-trust-in-television-news-media-trends/) (look at most trusted and least trusted and subtract the results... PBS ends up way better than anybody else). Frontline is a reliable source -- you cannot just dismiss this report as a hatchet job. I agree there is more to the story (there always is) and I have been looking for a reliable secondary source on BP's efforts to run their company well and safely and profitably. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, the idea of creating "balance" by including a BP promotional video is not OK. We don't do "balance" at Wikipedia. We study reliable secondary sources and create NPOV content based on them, that describes the world as it is, the best that we can. A BP promotional video is not a reliable source and cannot be used to generate content. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken on the difference between safety record and environmental record, but of course there is a great deal of overlap. I've looked a great deal through other videos trying to explain BPs safety/environmental disasters and the frontline one is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Stanford was pretty good too in its own way. BP has 170 some videos, some with very tempting titles, but the ones I've looked at just don't make the grade: "promotional videos" is overstating their value. In any case, I've put the Frontline video in the accidents section (Texas City, witch is covered and just above the DWH section) - without Stanford this time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the questions to me above - I don't recall proposing having a link to a BP video, although I can't see that it would be a bad thing depending on the quality of the video, and I haven't read the book being discussed all the way through, just parts of it. I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the book just because I used it as a source, and I have been quite clear that the draft I posted above was not being proposed for direct copying into the article but was simply to get the ball rolling on a safety record overview. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, above you opened a new section called "Safety record" and proposed text. The last paragraph of that text states - in the text, not in the footnotes, the following: "Links were drawn between incidents such as Deepwater Horizon, Prudhoe Bay and Texas City, with BP's safety culture being widely criticised as being complacent and compared unfavourably with peer ExxonMobil.[36] In "Run to Failure: BP and the Making of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster", published in 2012, investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten made a number of claims that BP's safety culure and performance was damaged during the period in which John Browne was Chief Executive due to a management approach which emphasised controlling costs over safety.[37]" As I wrote above, the main reporter in the Frontline video is that same guy - Abrahm Lustgarten - and based on your brief description it appears that the Frontline video is making the exact same points. Since you cited the book I assume you read it, so I asked you -- does it indeed make the same points? Is the book also "selective, simplistic and grotesquely dumbed down"? If so why did you so prominently feature it? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your considered response. I have no connection to and no special love for BP but like you, I am trying to defend various articles against editors who see WP as a medium for promoting their gripes against organisations.

The suggestion of balancing the Frontline video with a BP one was mine and was not intended to be taken seriously. It was a response to Rangoon's comments, which I also suspect were not entirely serious.

I cannot see any way in which we can take an investigative journalism report as a reliable source on BP's comparative safety record within the oil industry, as Buster7 seems to think below. The producers are simply not in a position to access or process the necessary information and it clearly was not their intention to produce a balanced and neutral report on BP. It is a sensationalist news article intended to draw a large audience.

Of course, the report does tell us how some people and news media in the US see BP and I would object much less if it were presented that way.

The Stanford video starts by saying that the Deepwater Horizon project was a commercially complex project (it likened this aspect to the Apollo programs). At the moment, not unexpectedly, everybody is blaming everybody else. BP were the operators with ultimate control of the project and therefore the buck must stop with them but as yet there is no clear indication from the courts as to who was actually to blame for the accident. I find it odd though that there is none of the hysteria we see on this page on the Halliburton or Transocean pages. They are actually examples that this page might follow a bit more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frontline video is a concise clear presentation. It achieves reliability at every level. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I have not been able to watch the video but wouldn't it be better placed with the Gulf explosion section rather than the Texas section? Though I'd guess that it covers BP's long history of cost-cutting leading to accidents in general and that is the reason that you placed it at the top? Gandydancer (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, if you want to know what actually happened in the DWH explosion, explained in detail by a professor from a prestigious US university then watch the Stanford report. Some may find it rather dull but that is because it sticks to the facts rather than trying to inflame passions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

further sources on risk managment/safety

Martin and Rangoon -- more sources on BP's operating culture with respect to risk management. I am sorry to say but they are pretty much of one voice -- the company was too focused on cost cutting to increase profit and underinvested in people and equipment needed to effectively understand and manage risk. Note these are all business-oriented sources, not ones from environmental groups. http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/bp-and-public-issues-mismanagement#.UVfGgqusaYs http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/24/bp-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/ http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470950900.html

On the mildly positive side, is a very detailed report on the plan that was put in place for BP to clean up its act in its refinery operations, after the Texas explosion - makes clear (somewhat) the progress they have made and how much further they have to go.. wish it would have been more clear about $ put into those efforts: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/sustainability/safety/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/fifth_annual_report.pdf

Anyway, like I said above, sometimes the picture is just not pretty. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

All the sources are very focused on Deepwater rather than BP's overall safety record worldwide. However rather than simply pasting links on this talk page it would be far more useful if you could propose how these will be used in the text. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you that it would be useful to propose text. I very much like the section you started above and content could be generated from them to expand that. I mostly went to find them in response to your call for "balance", and proposed them to see if they would fly before starting to generate content from them. I do not agree - at all - that they are "about" DWH. They were definitely prompted by it, as part of a string of industrial accidents, but each of them goes back and looks at how we got here - at the history of BP's safety culture. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

AND - the "mildly positive" report I mentioned above is not about DWH at all -- it would be useful if you actually looked at them before you commented about what they "all" say. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

After any major disaster there will always be a rash of journalists showing that it was all an accident waiting to happen that anyone other than the management at the time could have spotted and prevented. Whatever the failings of the companies involved there was a high degree of misfortune involved in the DWH explosion. If you have not looked at the Stanford video, I suggest that you do. It us not very exciting journalism but is tells us exactly what actually happened. It was not some bit of cheap, badly-maintained, rusty old pipe that broke because nobody cared about it, which is the impression that this article gives, but a series of unexpected events and decisions which turned out to be the wrong ones.

The moon landings were politically motivated and highly risky. As it happened, fortune favoured the brave and history was made. Years later, after the Challenger disaster The Rogers Commission found NASA's organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident, NASA managers had known about a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977 but failed to address it properly, and disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures. These things need to be said but not overblown. An analysis of NASA during the Apollo missions would probably have found a higher risk-taking culture, but they got away with it.

Was BP's culture, management, and safety record significantly worse that other major oil companies at the time? That is the question we should be trying to answer in WP. It is not as easy as finding some articles that say BP were bad, we need to find independent comparative reports that are no swayed by who had the worst luck but who have reported on and compared what the found in all companies at the time. If we cannot find such reports we must be very careful of implying that guesses of what the results of such reports would have ben are actual facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, the sources that I brought all go into that. The Ivey is most explicit: "An argument could be made that a disaster like the Deepwater explosion and resulting spill could happen to any oil company, and that BP was simply unlucky. This feeling was evident when, according to the New York Times, Tony Hayward quipped to senior BP executives, “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”1 There is some truth to the argument that BP was the victim of the sort of bad luck that could have hit any oil company; drilling for oil is risky and dangerous to be sure. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that more than bad luck was involved." and goes on to say that by industry standards, BP's risk management was badly run -- policies were bad, not used well, and were underfunded in all the efforts to cut costs to boost the bottom line. While I agree that a reliable source that compared BP's policies, execution of those policies, and investment in risk management and infrastructure would be awesome to find and use, I have not been able to find one. If you can find a source that does that, please bring it. If you cannot, it would probably be most productive to let that go. What we can rely on, are industry experts, who know what industry standards are, and make judgements based on their knowledge, and discuss that in reliable sources. Things like this, from the Fortune article: "'They just did safety wrong,' says Nancy Leveson, an industrial safety expert at MIT who served on a panel that investigated BP's safety practices after its refinery explosion; she has since taught safety classes to BP executives and also advised the presidential panel that investigated the Deepwater Horizon disaster. 'They were producing a lot of standards,' she says, 'but many were not very good, and many were irrelevant.' Leveson says that she was so troubled by BP's approach that in January 2010 she told colleagues, 'They are an accident waiting to happen.'" Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need to get into this kind of discussion? I think that we have our hands full parsing the COI contributions. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That depends on whether anyone is intending to add media reports or links to them to the article. If no on has that intention, no problem, let us move on; if they do, we need to discuss it to reach a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Core, from my perspective, "this kind of discussion" is the ongoing work of wikipedia. I would say, put your energy, where you care to put it. To me the COI discussion is a non-issue and I am not participating in it. 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly but Martin is never satisfied with the extensive work that other editors have put into providing the information. See for example (one of many) Archive # 6 "Safety record overview". Binksternet has replied to Martin in that section. One of the reasons that this article has been so exhausting is that the very same issues are repeated over and over again and never resolved to the satisfaction of certain editors. Also see, for example, Rangoons previous presentation in that section. Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter how much work is put in by editors, it matters what reliable sources say. If we want to say something along the lines that US media have criticised BP for what they say is its bad safety record, that is fine, we have the sources to support it. If, on the other hand, we want to say that BP has a bad safety record then we need better sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not if they meet the standards for reliable sources, your personal opinion notwithstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Th sources need to be reliable sources for the statement we make in WP. The sources given above would be fine for us to say, 'US media have criticised BP for what they say is its bad safety record', but there are not, for the reasons given above, acceptable for us to say, 'BP has a bad safety record'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a distinction if media refers to reliable and veritable original source or if it publishes opinion of the editor/journalist. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of a journalist shooting from the hip is of limited usefulness, but an investigative report is another matter. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Was BP's culture, management, and safety record significantly worse that other major oil company? That is the question we should be trying to answer in WP' I disagree. The question we editors should be asking ourselves is this: Is this an on-line encyclopedic article about the company BP or is this an Annual Report to the Stockholders written by the company BP. Every editor should ask themselves "How am I helping or hurting the reader". BP had a marginal bad safety record, one of if not thee worst in a "safety-record challenged" industry. If our reader didnt know that coming into WP to read the article, they should know that when they leave. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Buster, you seem to take the statement, 'BP had a bad safety record' as a fact. How do you know this? Is it from media reports following the DWH disaster or have you found an independent reliable source that has actually shown that BP's safety record is worse than that of other oil companies? If you have such a source then please tell us what it is. If we have a suitable source actually showing that BP's record is significantly worse that the other supermajors then, of course, we should say that in the article. What is your source? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to see a single source state with authority that BP has or at any time has had a worse safety record than its peers across its global operations and the full range of its activities. There were undoubtedly some issues in the US post-2000 - connected in no small part to the acquistion of Amoco, which failed to invest in its asset base and had a lax culture - however the US is only one third of BP's operations, and even within the US the safety issues related to a number of quite specific parts of BP's operations, specifically some pipelines, refineries and drilling activities (the former two were closely related to underinvestment in the asset base, the latter to issues regarding placing too much faith in American contractors such as Halliburton). I haven't seen a single source state that BP's service stations in the US had a safety issue, or its tankers, or its producing wells. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask again: are we discussing the article? This is not supposed to be a discussion board on BP. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, you are somewhat right in that but this is trying to get at how to frame the content on industrial accidents and safety, and I think we are making some progress. But yes we should be trying to keep this relevant to specific content as much as we can.Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, I have started working on an industrial accident/safety section starting with your draft way up above, and I have exactly been thinking about breaking out safety as per BP's operational groups as described on its website -- upstream (eg drilling), downstream (refining and gas stations, etc), and alternative energy. And also discussing things worldwide (in searching for sources I found some reports of troubles in North Sea and Scotland from the late 1990s early 2000s but otherwise the web is remarkably quiet on other issues). The sense I am gathering is as you say - that their US operations acquired from Amoco started from a bad base - but I would add what seems to be the consensus, that these issues were exacerbated and went to crisis b/c of BP's uninderinvestment and lax management. But I am curious -- you say the thing about Amoco with authority -- what is your source for that? Thx Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The point about Amoco I remember reading in one of the sources which I found for a discussion on this page a while ago. I will try and find it but it may take a while. However Amoco was well known to be accident prone [39], Amoco Cadiz oil spill, [40], [41].Rangoon11 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BP's acquisition of Amoco was typical of BP at that time, with BP looking to take as much money as possible out of an operation that desperately needed an influx of cash. Amoco was wrung out, but BP was to wring them further. The culture of cost-cutting was BP's culture instituted by CEO Browne, as reported by many investigators. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rangoon. That source will be super important if we are going to make the degraded infrastructure from Amoco part of the US story. I will look too. Binkster, if there is a reliable source that talks about the bad infrastructure, then the content should mention as it would indeed be part -- part -- of the story. Of course BP is responsible for whatever it owns, and as I wrote above it seems that the series of industrial accidents may indeed be a combination of bad acquired infrastructure and BP's cost-cutting choices and lack of management. I think this is as far as this discussion can go until we have content with sources to work on. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

btw, Rangoon, the Frontline video makes it clear that the Texas refinery was already outdated and nasty (e.g. neglected) when BP bought it; Frontline makes a ~somewhat~ similar point about the Alaska infrastucture - the story Frontline tells about Alaska, is that the infrastructure was originally built to last for 20 years, which at the time was as long as people thought they would be drilling in Alaska. I need to check the timing on when it was built and when BP bought Amoco. Depending on those dates it might be hard to make Amoco's neglect part of the story wrt Alaska. (but again, for Binkster's sake - once BP bought all these assets the onus was completely on BP to manage them well)Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of what is being discussed here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If we are going to say or imply in the article that BP has a worse safety record than its peers then we need to find a independent quality reliable source which actually says that. If we cannot find one which actually says that than we must not say it in the article. Putting together bits and pieces from post-disaster news videos and news reports to form a view on the company as a whole is not acceptable for WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a better description would be not acceptable for BP rather than WP. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the WP two policy links that I give. I do not care whether BP like it or not but I do care what we write in WP. It must be based on what Reliable sources actually say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you have steadfastly turned your back on the many independent sources discussing how BP's North American operations were many times worse than other North American operators. Repeatedly I have brought forward "BP's Dismal Safety Record" which discusses an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) paper which documents 760 of BP's "egregious, willful" safety violations, as compared to a total of 19 such violations by the other four operators. The North American operations cannot be considered as a special case for BP, apart from BP's other operations; they must be combined with other operations around the globe. A neutral statement about BP's total global safety cannot avoid discussing the infamously poor performance in North America. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That's plain enough. It's not opinion but is based on reporting, and appears in a reliable source. Overall, it might be helpful if someone could please connect this discussion to text in the article that someone wants to change. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, your source is a short post-disaster news article. A short quote, BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), shows the level of competence and investigation that goes into what they say. They say, 'BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies'. On what basis do they make this statement? On the basis of a report by an investigative journalism organization which quotes a section from an OSHA report based only on refineries in two US states. This is not even BP's North America operations is is a news report on a quote from a report about BP's refinery operations in two US states. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You guys are free to keep at this, but from my POV you are shadow boxing now. I advise that you wait for actual content to consider, or create some yourselves for consideration! This is my last comment in this section.Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's plain that BP has a terrible safety record. That apparently has been reported so frequently in reliable sources that it's really indisputable. I don't understand the point of this discussion at all, as it seems like tilting at windmills. The section header is correct: hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hindsight includes investigative reports and jury trials. It is how the world determines stuff. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Facts to update

Following the publication of BP's annual report, I have been reading through to see if there are any updates needed to this article. I may follow up again if there are more things that I see, for instance I am aware some of the details under the U.S. operations section are now out-of-date, but for now the following details caught my eye.

In the infobox, the number of employees is now incorrect and should be updated:

• Current number of employees is 85,700. See The Wall Street Journal source below and BP Annual Report, p55

Proposed change:

85,700 (2012)

In the article's introduction:

• Production of oil equivalent is now 2.3 million barrels per day, excluding production in Russia. See The New York Times source below and BP Quarter 4 results, p9
• There are now 20,700 service stations worldwide. See BP Annual Report, p77

Proposed change:

BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 2.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, excluding production in Russia, and has around 20,700 service stations worldwide.

• Proven commercial reserves are now 17 billion barrels of oil equivalent, not 17.75 billion. See BP Annual Report, p 86

Proposed change:

As of December 2012, BP had total proven commercial reserves of 17 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

In the rest of the article:

• The total number of service stations also needs to be updated in Operations in the Downstream and Service stations subsections.

Is someone able to make these updates? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Arturo, I think that it would be better if these corrections would be vetted by people who have for two weeks posting complains over the Wikipedia how BP is rewriting the article. Being blaming for cooperating with you and helping implementing your proposals, but never being said which of my edits is inappropriate, I would really prefer that your proposals will be reviewed and vetted by these critics. I believe that their core interest is to improve the quality and creditability of Wikipedia, so certainly they will to do this. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a question of priorities, interest, and time allocation. All, or most, of us are unpaid volunteer editors who are taking time out from our jobs and paying work to improve this article. We all have various interests, dependent on the article. What interests me in this article is that I believe it provides insufficient attention to the controversies for which BP is known, and that it fails to provide a well-rounded picture of this company. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that those most interested in puffing up the "controversies" part of this article have no real interest in the core of the BP topic - its history and operations - and very little knowledge of them either. Such editors dominated the writing of this article pre-2010, leading it to become a joke article which looked like it had been written by a group of school children under the direction of an enthusiastic and well meaning but not especially bright Greenpeace activist: [42].Rangoon11 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

References

BP and Wikipedia

The section called 'BP and Wikipedia' was restored by edit descriptions "WP:UNDUE is a subset of MPOV. If there some reason to imply that this text violates NPOV, rewrite into NPOV" and "this text is notable, reasonable and NPOV, and well sourced". However, when I agree that this event is described in NPOV way and it is well sourced, I disagree with the interpretation of WP:DUE as only dealing with MPOV. The WP:DUE also says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Taking account the long history of the company, the broad scope of its operations and also broad scope of controversial aspects, this is a minor thing which does not belong in the article, particularly as a separate subsection. Therefore, based the above mentioned paragraph of WP:DUE I will remove this subsection again. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I personally removed that subsection when it was initially placed there, in the view that "undue" applies. I do think that it is a close case, and that the points you raise have some validity. However, the Wikipedia episode did receive widespread publicity in multiple reliable sources, including the CBS website and Salon, two respected and reliable sources. It originated in CNet, which is likewise reliable. Therefore, on balance and despite my initial misgivings (and belief that there are far more important priorities in this article), I have come to the view that the section on BP and Wikipedia warrants inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Core. It may belong somewhere, but not here. I will remove it if it is still here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Beagel you have not justified the removal of sourced content. There is no single item of content that would not also be excluded with your logic about the long history of the company - so this argument does not work. This is your own personal judgement. As per the essay WP:REMOVAL it is preferable that good faith edits remain in the article pending consensus so I am restoring it. You have to make a better case for deleting this. Gandydancer this section describes activity of BP that is fairly unique (and also pretty interesting wrt to general trends of marketing through social marketing and the like) -- it does belong in article about BP. Please provide more reasoning for your stance. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it belongs either. Somewhere, Yes, but not here. It was just a little bubble of gas that rose to the surface. Once it popped, it was yesterdays news. If it surfaces again, maybe as a larger discussion in society and the press, I might reconsider.```Buster Seven Talk 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Buster, but you need to provide arguments from policy. (I grant you that we live in an "etch a skeetch" world but Mitt Romney will tell you that you should not count on the short memory of the public as the basis for a game plan.)Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, it is described in the WP:UNDUE, particularly in this part which is in my first post in bold, why this does not belong to this article, particularly as a separate subsection. Please take account that this is not only me who think that this addition has undue weight but this was expressed at this talk page also earlier by other editors. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I responded to that -- you said that given the long history of BP this is a blip and even mentioning it is undue. I responded, saying that by this logic, the article would be very, very short. There are few events that stand out so much over such a long history. And we certainly should not bother making the corrections to ephemeral information that Arturo has requested -- why should we bother with how many employees BP has this year or next year - why not just describe it as currently having over 50,000 employees and be done with it? This is what happens when your reasoning is applied. So it is not a valid reason for excluding NPOV, sourced content.Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] This news item was hardly more than gossip and not newsworthy enough for this article. IMO BP should be treated with the same courtesy that we offer in our bio articles and damaging information should be deleted while the discussion is ongoing. Thus, I deleted it again.Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, i think it would be unobjectionable from any possible perspective if placed in context. See my posts below. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

For those concerned about it being out of place, one approach might be to construct a section on "BP and the Media," which could deal with BP's PR strategy and its relationship with the media. The wikipedia stuff would fit right in there. I have seen articles on far less important subjects that are much longer than this one, and I think that a section on BP's media/PR/spin strategies would be worthwhile if enough substance can be found to populate it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A curseory search on Google uncovered this Wired article on BP's social media campaign.[43]. I'm sure there's a lot more where that came from. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, think it doesn't belong in the article. And I didn't even see this mentioned in the mainstream media here in Europe. Nageh (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not how wikipedia pages are supposed to work. This is good content, well sourced, and NPOV. It is relevant to BP. I agree with Core that this could be the germ of a section on BP's larger media strategy -- this is exactly how wikipedia articles grow and evolve. The constant demand on this Talk page to create full blown well wrought sections and then add them seems to me, to be a pretty ugly delaying tactic. It is not how Wikipedia usually works - articles grow and evolve all the time, and this discourse - this crazy notion about creating whole sections - is one thing that is keeping this article frozen. Beagel, simply waving at UNDUE is not making an argument. Gandy, BP is not a living person and so WP:BLP and its quick delete policy absolutely does not apply - that is a bad leap and not one that should ever be applied on Wikipedia. And Gandy your edit note says "not notable enough." As per policy "notable" is defined by discussion in reliable, secondary sources, which this is. I cannot put the content back under 3RR but it should not have been taken down and Gandy I would appreciate it if you would restore it as per the REMOVE essay I mentioned above, while we are discussing this. And it is not "damaging" news - Arturo did nothing wrong.Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and also deplore the hair-trigger use of "revert" in this article. Yes, it sometimes seems as if on this talk page we're fretting about a hypersensitive Nobel Prize winner who once went to jail for drunk driving, and not an extremely controversial company that has dumped millions of gallons of crude oil onto the coasts of Louisiana and Alaska. This company has a massive public relations problem, and that p.r. problem in itself has been the subject of extensive media coverage during and after the recent Gulf Oil disaster. It has a full-fledged social media campaign that was the subject of the cited Wired article in 2010. I submit that that article alone, along with the Wikipedia stuff, is sufficient to build a "BP and the Media" section right now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[ed con]Jytdog, I agree that Arturo did nothing wrong but the article sure makes it sound like he and BP were involved in deceit and up to no good. As to me reverting myself, I may have made the wrong decision but I'd rather let another editor revert me as it seems right to me. As to the rest of what you said about inserting whole blocks of material, I couldn't agree more. Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, WP:BLP is policy that requires a quick delete of unsourced, damaging information in BLPs. As there is no justification for your action in policy, would you please undelete? The culture of editing on this page is broken - and one of the nasty parts of it is this quick deletion thing, which has no justification in policy. It is anti-Wikipedia. We need to be able to add content and have it grow and evolve. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I self-deleted (returning section) at 18:33 per talk page discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's another possible source. It's not peer-reviewed so not directly useable, but can help guide toward crafting the section. It's possible there is a section that could be written on the social media strategy alone.[44] Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC) And another http://www.cnbc.com/id/38414280 Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC) And Techcrunch.http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/26/bp-pr-bpglobalpr/ Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

CBS News ran a segment on "BP's PR Offensive." [45]. I'm sure there's more on the general subject, as well as on the social media component, which Wikipedia falls into. Coretheapple (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No one doubts that this has received some media coverage, as have literally tens of thousands of events in BP's history. It remains a trivial event, not even worthy of a line in the History section. A whole section on it is preposterously WP:UNDUE.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, under that criteria, we should immediately delete about half the content on this page, and we absolutely should not update the exact number of gas stations that BP owns, as per Arturo's request, but instead should just make a high level statement about BP owning gas stations. But maybe that is also trivia, as BP has owned thousands of kinds of properties. And ditto for a bunch of the other content. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Whether the article has a 2012 or 2011 number of employees is trivial. Instead of playing trivial pursuit and expending our limited energy "updating" an article as requested by a corporate employee, we need to plug the gaping holes in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OSE. Beagel (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a wholly false comparison anyhow, information about BP's most significant assets and its number of employees is central to understanding it as a topic. This is patently not.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's now part of a larger section on BP's PR efforts, which have received substantial publicity in and of themselves. I think this Wiki stuff is amply warranted as part of that section, so it's there now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's been taken out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put it back in. As was pointed out just above, this is no way to construct an article. We're treating this article like a BLP, so that an innocuous section citing reputable sources dealing with an obvious and highly publicized issue not previously dealt with - BP's image-management issues - can be dealt with. The editing culture in this article is indeed broken. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Says the editor furiously trying to impose changes to the article through edit warring. Why should I waste my time discussing issues with you if you will just edit war to impose your changes anyway? You show a complete contempt for your fellow editsor and for WP, and then two minutes later sanctimoniously whinge on here.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You should not remove an entire section from the article on the specious grounds of "attack content." This isn't a BLP and there is no urgent need to remove text saying that the subject of the article has committed a crime. This is a section that discusses the BP public relations efforts, which have been amply reported in reliable sources. I've just scratched the surface on that. That section can easily be double or triple its current size, and it's amazing that there's not a word on any of that in the article already. There was an argument to be made about the Wikipedia paragraph, and I actually took that out a few hours ago, but as part of a broader section on the PR issues that content is above reproach. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So the section isn't in fact about BP's PR efforts - which would itself be a non-standard section - but about its "image problem" i.e. about the impact of things like Deepwater and Texas City, which are already dealt with at (excessive) length in the article. So it is really just a place to put more attack content about the likes of Deepwater. Last time I checked this article wasn't called The effect of Deepwater Horizon and Texas City on BPRangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the section is about BP's PR efforts - that's its title, and I fixed my post above to reflect that. But obviously BP has had an enormous image problem since the Gulf oil spill and continues to do so. It has received a large amount of media attention focusing on its crisis management, its ad campaigns, and so on. Yet here we have an article that, until recently, did not even talk about BP's widely publicized commercial's or its CEO's comment, which received worldwide attention, that he wanted his "life back." There's something terribly wrong with an article about a major subject that does not talk about major aspects of the subject matter. I think that the post in the section below does a good job of describing how that has come to be. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who lived in the civilized world in 2010 knows that there were tens of thousands of articles written about BP CEO Tony Hayward, his "life back" comment, his Congressional testimony and BP's image problem. Not one word appeared on any of this in the article until I inserted that section that you removed. Hayward is hardly mentioned at all. Disgraceful. Let's put an end to the charade and start improving this article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Crap about BP and Wikipedia getting a paragraph in that section is not "improving" jack. The section also focuses too much on Deepwater Horizon, when the company's PR efforts go back long before that spill.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Devil, can I suggest that instead of attacking this, that you find sources and generate content from it to improve this section? This whole section started with content about BP's innovative decision to have an employee join discussions on the Talk page for the wikipedia article on the company, which I think is pretty cool. With DWH, BP had a paradigmatic situation to manage - and its choices will probably be the subject of many a business school lecture, like J&J's handling of the Tylenol tampering case have become. NPOV and well sourced content about that would add value to the article. There is lots that can be done with this section to make the BP article more complete, and better.Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to use this article to attack living persons need to be done with caution.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

agreed that we always need to be careful about matter related to WP:BLP --User:Jytdog

That's utterly fatuous, Rangoon, a completely bogus characterization of that section. Devil's Advocate, if that section needs to be increased in depth, than do so. What's been happening is that passages reflecting less than favorably on the company have been yanked out. That has to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, please be calm. Rangoon's point was well taken and said nicely to boot. Right?Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've signed your comment above. I assume that's OK? What I take umbrage about is the invocation of BLP. That's just ridiculous. The Supreme Court has said that corporations are human beings, but that doesn't apply in this situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core, Rangoon's comment was directed toward content that might be generated about Tony Hayward, who is indeed a BLP. And Rangoon's comment was in response to your post about "Hayward is hardly mentioned at all. Disgraceful". Like I said below, you use a lot of inflammatory language, and it worries people. Please be calm. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's prejudging content that hasn't even been written! That is precisely the kind of "prior restraint" and excessive hesitancy that has kept this article in a state of stasis. I'm sure that if Hayward is treated badly it won't last long. Right now he is barely even mentioned. We need to stop walking on eggshells and start discussing this company frankly and openly. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core - please be calm! It was a politely stated warning about an actual wikipedia policy. For pete's sake. And you are not hearing me -- the wild way you write sometimes makes me worry too. A happy response from you would have been, "Will do! Of course I want to abide by BLP" and then everybody moves on. Cultures are built by all the parties in them - please don't be so defensive.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core IS calm. What is to be gained by implying he is not? ```Buster Seven Talk 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that was starting to annoy me. Thanks for stepping in. By the way, Jytdog, re your "editing culture" missive below, I think that what you're describing falls under WP:OWN. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

New PR section

I just edited the new PR section, to make it more a whole PR story for BP since 2000; it would be interesting to extend it back before that but I have no more time. Interested in feedback.Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As the version 02:27, 3 April 2013 (UCT) by Jytdog there seems to be some overlapping of this section and the 'Company name' subsection. I think it would be better if the issue of the name, logo and slogans are discussed in one place. However, I don't have any concrete proposals at the moment. Beagel (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture of editing on this page

Hi

I want to talk to you all. The culture of editing on this page is all messed up. A set of behaviors has evolved here, that is making this a very unwikipedia-like place. These behaviors are used mostly to prevent the addition of content that is negative. The behaviors are in evidence above, for anybody to see. They include:

• quick deletes of NPOV and sourced information without very clear grounding in policy (e.g. WP:BLP)
• constant demands made on people who have ideas for content that is negative (especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy)
• authoritative and sometimes condescending tone used to dismiss content (hard to prove and harder yet to avoid sometimes, I know)
• lack of AGF

For example, vigorous discussion is underway in the Talk section above as I write this, but Rangoon just deleted the subject content, and the edit note says " non-standard section and an apparent coat rack for attack content)" That is wrong on three levels. There is no "standard sectioning" in wikipedia policy. And WP:AGF is a fundamental wikipedia principle. And the deletion of sourced, NPOV content that is just being developed, is without justification in policy. (Sorry to single you out, Rangoon - you just happened to make an illustrative behavior while I was writing this)

But this kind of action, and rationale, is OK in the culture of editing this page. It should not be.

Articles grow when editors add content and other editors work together to improve it. I have worked on lots of controversial articles (I am the largest contributor to the Monsanto page and cleaned out a ton of POV, and badly sourced content attacking the company) but this is the first page on which I have experienced this kind of culture. It is a bad culture. It needs to go. I hope we can change this... if not I have to explore what kind of interventions are available to get us all some help or therapy whatever. But this has got to change. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I appreciate highly how you contributed for finding very good solution in the case of incidents/accidents discussion. I also appreciate your work to mediate some other discussions here. Therefore, I am surprised about these comments. Based on yours some other comments I am assuming that the comment 'especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy' refers to my post at the 'Prudhoe Bay' section. I am really confused why expectation that information about the Prudhoe Bay oil spill should be added to the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article is 'really crazy'? It is natural to expect that detailed information should be added into the most relevant article which is in this case is the Prudhoe Bay oil spill and not BP. If you refer to the question about ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, well, that was question, not demand, which was based on my misinterpretation of the Bloomberg's news as I said in my next comment just immediately after that you are referring for. I fully agree with you that WP:AGF is a fundamental wikipedia principle and I expect that all editors will agree with this and will follow this. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! Your comment is one that I had in mind, yes. And you are right, you asked it, you did not "demand it" - I apologize for my exaggeration. Since you name that interaction, let me explain what troubled me about it and why I wrote "demand". The dynamic that got set up on this page (especially with the quick deletes happening) was that one had to come to Talk to get blessing for content before adding it (or else one would just slapped with a quick delete and all that work would be wasted). In this case, Core suggested content, and your reaction was (a) negative for this article, and (b) suggesting that content be developed in another article and then summarized here (and then added to even other articles! which you did take back.. but which you still actually wrote!) and (c) although you say "we could", I have not seen you actually step up and help make the new content happen, and you did not in this instance. In a situation where somebody will not move without a "yes", suggestions effectively become demands. And somewhat (ouch) condescending seeming ones, for a third party to read. And where the ones only asking questions don't actually step up and edit, the page ends up frozen. See what I mean? That is what I meant. Part of why I pushed hard in the section above, is that the "quick delete" thing is the mechanism at the core of the problem. Thank you again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

But please let me be clear, it was "one" of the comments I had in mind, beagel, not just yours. There is a really crazy power dynamic playing out on this page, via these behaviors. I am not saying anybody is bad and I don't think anybody is bad... I think the culture is bad on this page and the behaviors transmit it.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog said, "The culture of editing on this page is all messed up. A set of behaviors has evolved here, that is making this a very unwikipedia-like place. These behaviors are used mostly to prevent the addition of content that is negative." That is correct. When I came here on June 11, 2012 I made my first talk page note with a complaint that the article had a lengthy discussion of BP's green efforts in the lead and only one line of mention of environmental problems that didn't even mention the Gulf spill:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents.

Although Binsternet, Ptrarchan and I argued almost continually for environmental coverage in the lead, three months later, on August 11 we had only got as far as:

BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

It took another month to get the mention in the lead that it was the largest maritime spill in history. So yes, I'd certainly agree that there has been a steadfast attempt to keep anything negative out of this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, there is a maze of noticeboards and bureaucratic procedures to resolve article issues. Did you ever attempt to use them? You know the old saying about a tree falling in the forest, and whether it makes a sound if no one can hear it. I'm not blaming you if you didn't, as the ones I've seen are the pits. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core. I'm sure you are aware of how time-consuming and emotionally draining The Maze (as you so accurately call it) is. The tree falling was your fellow editors call for help. The fact that no help appeared is an example of why volunteer vetting of Corporate input just will not work. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course we did. Nothing ever came of it. We did our best, though neither Ptrar nor I had any experience in that sort of thing. What noticeboard and/or bureaucratic procedure do you think we should have used? Gandydancer (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no criticism intended. On the contrary, I wanted to know if the bureaucratic procedures are as useless as I suspected, and if the editors monitoring them were as clueless as they appear to be, and my suspicions are confirmed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[ed con] Buster, I once asked NW (my favorite! :-)) for help, telling him I was at my wit's end. My angle was that per policy the lead is supposed to reflect the article. He did make one lead edit while the edit wars were going on but one can't expect an editor as busy as NW to do the needed research to offer much help. Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add two issues which are or have been problematic:

• labelling editor pro-BP and anti-BP editors. I think this is incorrect and that kind of labelling only creates a battleground atmosphere. I am sure that all current editors believe that they are trying to make the article NPOV. The problem is that everybody has a different POV what the NPOV is for this article. Labelling other editors does not help to find a common ground.
• Commenting editors instead of their edits. Again, this is against of Wikipedia core principles and does not contribute to creation of a constructive and cooperative atmosphere.

Beagel (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

To do list

I agree with the sentiments in the section prior to this one, about the broken editing culture in this article, and I think that what's needed is a "to do" list for this article. We need a list of the aspects of this company's story that have been totally neglected. I'll start with:

1. B.P.'s public relations debacle. Its commercials, its appearances before Congress, the criticism leveled at it by local, state and federal officials. Its social media campaign and, yes, in proper proportion, the recent Wikipedia stuff. But the latter needs to be kept in proportion at its present length. The other stuff is far more significant.

2. BP CEO Tony Hayward. He was the face of BP during the Gulf oil spill, and received massive amounts of publicity that are nowhere even mentioned except for my brief reference in the section I just added.

3. Criminal and legal proceedings. These need to be fleshed out. The reader comes here for objective and comprehensive information on the company, and the massive number of legal proceedings spawned by its environmental disasters do not get adequate attention at present.

This is very superficial list, right off the top of my head. But yes, I agree, there needs to be a change in editing culture. Perhaps more use needs to be put to noticeboards and dispute-containment mechanisms. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Core if this is stuff you want to generate content on, knock yourself out. I regret that you used superlatives in the list as you did, because all that is going to do, is raise the hackles of people on this page who have a different POV than you do. They actually raised mine a little bit. Use of that kind of language just inflames the sense of 'war' here - it is neither helpful overall nor is it strategic with respect to you getting what you want. Also, when you go to generate content, I suggest that you think very hard about the sources you start with - pick ones that the "other side" cannot find fault with (e.g. use only newspapers of record and try to find business-oriented sources - and use nothing from Greenpeace etc); also make sure that you are very careful to use NPOV language in the content itself (unlike what you used above), and that you do your best to be fair and tell the whole story. If you want to get content accepted into controversial articles you have the best chance of succeeding when you try very hard to meet the highest standards of wikipedia. But generate it, and add it, already! Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually hope to find material in peer-reviewed journals wherever possible. However, first I need to do my taxes, and I have to earn a living. If you know of someone who will pay me for my editing here, please let me know. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is a very superficial list - recentist and US-centric. I know it's hard for some of our American friends to accept, but the United States is not the world, and BP has operations in 80 countries. The average reader outside the US has very little interest in a bloated attack piece which devotes huge amounts of the article to a handful of accidents in the US over the part 10 of BP's 100 years of history, whilst essentially ignoring BP's operations elsewhere. BP is for example the largest single foreign investor in Egypt. Yet there is virtually no mention of Egypt in the article, good or bad. BP is one of the largest foreign investors in China, with more than 4,000 staff and 30 JVs. Virtually no mention in the article, good or bad. BP operates the second largest refinery system in Germany, and has 2,500 service stations in the country. Virtually no mention in the article. BP is the largest single foreign investor in Russia. Little mention in the article.

BP has played a major role in the development of the North Sea and Alaska as oil producing areas. How much of this is dealt with in the artice? Very little.

Yes the article is certainly unbalanced, and you wish to make it even more so.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You know, it may be that if this content comes into the article and it gets too US-centric, that it might make sense to create a "BP in the US" subarticle, if it doesn't already exist. But I suggest, that instead of all this pre-editng, let the content flow, and if it gets unwieldy we can do a split. This pre-editing is part of what is keeping the page frozen. I understand the fear of crap getting in, Rangoon -- I have had to deal with a bunch of that at Monsanto and also with all the articles about genetic modification, which I have also edited heavily, but we need to let things flow more. With the GM stuff, I ended up gathering all the controversy and putting it one article, which has worked pretty well at letting all the negative voices speak clearly, but keeping them encyclopedic instead of consuming everything in sight. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Last autumn there was a question if we should create a separate article about one of BP's subsidiaries in America called BP Products North America, Inc. The idea was strongly opposed by some of editors then. Of course, BP Products North America is not the same as BP's operations in the United States but I have a feeling that the arguments against a separate article would be same. I don't think there is a consensus at the moment for this (although I personally think that maybe at some moment in the future it would be necessary as the BP#United_States, although very concentrated, is still too long). Beagel (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a BP America or BP United States article. It is more than notable enough and we have lots of content already.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no question that the article could be a lot longer and more global. But the aim is to provide a balanced look at the company based upon the reliable sourcing, which is not necessarily synonymous with a more flattering treatment of the subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Great so there are options if we need them, eventually! On we go... Core, please start generating some content and stop yammering about it already.  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean, based upon the sourcing in one country over three years. How much coverage was there in China about the Texas City explosion?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the coverage of anything in the Chinese media, given the controls on the press there, is indicative of anything in particular. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)