Talk:BP

Corrections page

A subpage has been created at Talk:BP/Corrections and resources, where errors or omissions are noted, along with the action taken.

RFC About BP Article

There is disagreement among editors of the BP article as to how much content should be in that article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as opposed to in the the article about the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Per below, respondents to this RFC should look at the following questions:

1. The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section of this article already has sentence-long summaries for health, environmental, and economic damage, respectively. Should these be expanded into full sections?
2. Does this article in general contain too much negative information and fail in our quest to provide a neutral point of view?

Shii (tock) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

*I don't get it. This is a statement of fact. Where is the Question? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement of fact is that there is disagreement. The implied question is what the consensus is, whether to keep the level of detail about the spill that you and I consider to be excessive in this article, or to reduce the amount of detail here with the link to the spill article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just to begin this, which is fitting since I came here originally because of an RfC, I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree for the most part. That the topic of neutrality would become a matter of debate on this particular article is probably inevitable. Luckily we have another major policy principle to guide us in refining just what constitutes NPOV - go with the sources. While a company of BP's extensive history and influence is going to have no shortage of reliable sources exploring many of its facets, it's pretty clear that contemporary sources, including not just those from popular media but also scholarship of various kinds and business/legal press, are overwhelmingly, if hardly exclusively, concerned with the spill. Likewise, I think that the majority of our readers would likely consider this germane information for the article. Mind you, I don't know that a section for each of a dozen categories of consequences for the spill is necessary, but a one-sentence reference to all the ecological effects is clearly not cutting it either (those are the two extremes that have framed what I've seen of the debate above). There are plenty of places where content can be linked to the other relevant articles to keep things trim, but in general I favor an approach that is permissive of significant detail from the spill, especially in-so-far as the consequences of the spill for BP are concerned; that is certainly relevant information for this article. Snow (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to see a much wider RfC on this article concerning its encyclopedic nature. It has turned into an attack site. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this RFC can't be used for that purpose. I think that it would be confusing to have two RFCs attached to the same article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment there are three open RfC at this article, so maybe you are interested to look other two. Beagel (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I see two open RFCs. I see mine, on whether to include content on the Deepwater Horizon spill, and SlimVirgin's on whether to include the Deepwater Horizon spill template. Maybe the oldest one has been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The third one is in the second thread by the title: RfC: Clean Water Act Trial: How much detail? Beagel (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't see it because, first, it is at the top of this talk page (and so will be archived by Miszabot next week), and, second, it isn't listed as a business and economics RFC and so isn't on that page, being listed as a law RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that this has become an attack page simply as a result of editors having included information that reflects the commentary of reliable, high-profile sources is hyperbolic, contrary to an important principle of Wikipedia editing, and just all-around counter-productive. Not to mention counter-intuitive; our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand (including, or indeed especially, contentious topics) through the lens of appropriate sources, not our own personal views on the nature (or even the importance) of said topics. The particular issues of this RfC require a somewhat subtler parsing of those guidelines, yes, but we can easily proceed with the discussion about how much of the relevant information should be located here without implications of malicious editing when the information in question is immaculately sourced and well within the guidelines of appropriate content. Snow (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and expressed with admirable restraint. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

...our job her is to represent an understanding of the topic at hand... I am fully agree with this. However, there seems to be a problem with understanding what the topic is. The topic is not the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (which is a topic of the separate article), topic of this article here is BP.Beagel (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Snow Rise, Figure of Nine and the good ole Wiki guidelines - our articles should reflect the sources. How much should be included in this article regarding the Gulf spill, particularly with respect to environmental damage (is this the RfC question, it still isn't clear?). Do the math: it is the largest environmental disaster ever in the US, it is the largest oil spill of its type in the history of the petrol industry, BP used the largest ever amount of Corexit to sink the oil, without knowing the damage it would cause (and it turns out the solvent made the spilled crude 52 times more toxic than if they'd let it rise to be skimmed). More math: this spill caused BP to drop from #1 to #4 largest oil company. The spill caused a 30% drop in their stock value, which remains the case to this day, and alone justifies a good-sized section in this article. The damage to BP as a company, the damage to the gulf ecosystem, it's people and BP's cleanup workers (due to BP flat-out lying about Corexit toxicity - see here and here to catch up on this) requires an appropriately sized, well-rounded section. A major disconnect exists between editors at this page. Some like to refer to any negative details (excluding financial or legal matters) about the worst accidental oil spill in history as "attack content". Those same editors think three paragraphs about court cases and two sentences about ecological and human health damage sum up this spill perfectly. petrarchan47tc 18:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am happy that guidelines were mentioned. There are also other guidelines such as WP:POVFORK and there are policies such as WP:NPOV, part of which is WP:UNDUE. The main subject of this article is not DWH oil spill, this is the company named BP. The DWH or its different aspects is the main subject for a series of articles, inter alia Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon explosion, Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Deepwater Horizon litigation. Therefore, this article should include a summary of the BP's role in this (including its role in the accident and response) and the impact to the company, but not copy-paste the above-mentioned articles. In addition, although BP is the major actor in this accident, it is not the only one and it is not the only company under the ongoing trial. Therefore one can't say that BP and the spill is the same. Summarizing my points, this article should include the summary about BP's role and the impact to the company, taking account all relevant policies and guidelines, but it should not include other aspects of the spill which are covered in specific articles. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy too, because there is such blatant ignorance of site policies on this talk page. In fact, that is what attracted me to this article in the first place. There is an RfC on something that is just utterly obvious: yes, BP obviously warrants a reader-friendly guide to other articles on the Gulf oil spill. Then, as I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill. So now we have this great drama caused by that delusion. Yes, this article obviously requires some summary paragraphs on the Gulf oil spill. Nothing immense, but enough to be informative. No, POVFORK has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. UNDUE does because it would be undue emphasis to under-emphasize the Gulf oil spill by cheaping out a couple of sentences on the severe consequences of the spill. The problem is not with the content but with editors who want to be more Catholic than the Pope, and want to exonerate BP for the Gulf oil spill when BP itself has admitted culpability, and has pleaded guilty in a court of law. It's a kind of surrealistic atmosphere here, like nothing I've seen ever before. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"As I read further, I found a kind of delusion taking place on the page in which a cadre of editors were trying to argue that black is white, that BP is only remotely involved in the Gulf oil spill." Who are you talking about specifically? I can't find that comment anywhere on this page. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia - where some argue black is white, and where tar inexplicably becomes "oil" (regardless of what the community says). petrarchan47tc 00:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Related conversation here. petrarchan47tc 21:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with the current RfC, so I kindly request to remove it. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include sections on disasters, and disagree that there is "too much negative information". I cannot support the position that this article about BP is guilty of having "too much negative information". How much is too much? If it takes a lot of negative text to convey the right amount of information, then so be it. There should never be an externally defined determination of how much information should be positive, and how much should be negative in an article. What we do is cite reliable sources in global media, and we summarize for the reader what is said about BP. The disasters have been clearly BP's, with guilt admitted and payments made or in progress, so we write about them in some detail, especially with regard to BP's actions, inaction, and reaction. Make this article be about the corporate culture, the corporate response, the corporate culpability, and yes, about the corporation's good works, too, in proper proportion. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is too much negative information in this article, and it has too much focus on the last ten years. BP has a long and eventful history, and most of those events have been positive. There are many reliable sources which aren't represented here because they're more than 20 years old. So they are unavailable for a Google search. For every BP drilling rig that had an oil spill, there are dozens that have uneventfully operated year after year, with no spills and no incidents. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think you're saying that you agree with my attempted revision, which included 4 sections about the Deepwater Horizon disaster: summarizing the effects, actions against BP, and damage to BP. Let me know if I interpreted you wrong. Shii (tock) 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• When the negative content is more than half the content of the article, then you can quite clearly say that it is unbalanced, especially for an article on a company that has 100 years of history and the controversies focus on just the past two decades. Silverseren^C 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what it means is that the reliable sources focus on the negative aspects of the company. If the article were to be blindly weighted entirely with regard to sourcing that dwells on the negative aspects of this company, it would be probably 90% negative. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Too long and unbalanced And appropriate amount of content for all the controversies should be about 1/4th of the length of the article. Deepwater should obviously make up a larger chunk of any controversies section, with the other incidents being much smaller and, for that matter, not all of them needs to be mentioned in this article. The attempts to cram as much detail and as many incidents as possible into this article is what has unbalanced it. Silverseren^C 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It truly depends on the amount of controversy BP has been involved in. There is a good reason most of its negative events have occurred recently. If you know their history, you see it correlates directly with their growth during Browne's reign from a sluggish company to an oil giant, and the cost-cutting that funded it. But it is a mistake to categorize their accidents and environmental disasters as "controversies". They are facts, neutral, like history. They happen to be negative, but that does not make them controversies (meaning "dispute"). petrarchan47tc 08:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems completely artificial and arbitrary (and in any event, not at all supported by any policy) to set the standard at 1/4 of the total content. That the need for a controversy section is going to vary wildly between different articles is fairly obvious. In the case of BP, this spill led to monumental changes for the company not only in terms of market share and standing in global industry but also in internal structure. The company has been sued by multiple states, the federal government and numerous other parties in connection with the event, and much of this litigation is ongoing. It was additionally found criminally liable for manslaughter and lying to congress. It paid the largest set of fines in U.S. history and moving forward will likely be involved in the largest set of civil settlements in U.S. history and possibly that of industrial accidents globally. Careers of prominent persons within the company were damaged or destroyed and some employees face criminal charges. These are all examples of information that is at least as appropriate (and almost certainly more appropriate) in this article than in the article for the spill, and it's just a fraction of such information. It's pretty clear how this issue went to RfC; nobody seems willing to compromise or, most crucially, actually do the hard work of going through the content bit by bit and establishing (or proving superflous) individual points. Too many here have an all-or-nothing disposition to this issue and it's creating needless deadlock. How about we see some competing edits for the content and start some consensus building from there? All this polarization will accomplish is help assure this debate will be resurrected ad nauseum. Snow (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A logical next step, thank you Snow. petrarchan47tc

• Comment - Saying "look at the sources" is meaningless in terms of working out what proportion of the article should deal with controversies in the US over the past decade. Which sources? In which country? Over what period? And also bear in mind that online sources are skewed massively towards the last few years. It is clear that no sources in any country mention conversies in the US over the past decade since they had not yet happened. So sources covering 90% of the history of the company don't mention these things at all. Looking at sources over the past 10 years begs the primary question of in which country? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a world view not a US view. The media in the US focused on events such as Texas City, Prudhoe Bay and Deepwater massively more than did the media in China or Russia, respectively the largest countries in the world by population and land mass. And even within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media.

No single source will ever tell us how much content should be given to things like Texas City and Prudhoe Bay. We are left with Wikipedia policies and common sense. In my view both of those tell me that the article currently devotes far, far too much space to controversies in the United States over the past ten years. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A few points. First of all, the spill was certainly global news and dominated media concerning the company in most countries with robust international media for a significant period (searches of non-english sources will readily confirm this). Second, not all events are equal in terms of relevance to an understanding of the company's history and current state; there may be over a century's worth of documentation of the company, but no other single event has been treated by anywhere near as many sources, nor has any single event had such a profound influence on the company in a long, long time. And no, the prevalence with which valid sources discuss particular subjects cannot be entirely dismissed. I don't see anyone making the argument that there should be a 1:1 correspondence between the two (in other words, that the percentage of the page devoted to the spill should represent the rough percentage that it consumes amongst overall sources), but neither is this focus irrelevant, if for no other reason than that it in part reflects (and influences) the subjects which will be of interest to our readers. And lastly, there is no way you can possibly prove the statement that "within the US media one will see far more space having been devoted to these events in more sensationalist outlets such as CNN than in the financial media" with an degree of empirical validity; in fact, I suspect this is patently false and the reverse of the case as the financial media has had many different angles to approach on the financial catastrophe that the spill and its aftermath represent. And this will continue to be the case as many of these issues will be quite live and ongoing for quite some time. Snow (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The spill was covered globally, although far less outside the US than inside, and in much of the world, far, far less. We are also confusing coverage of the spill with coverage of BP. The spill was an event in and of itself and much coverage of it did not refer to BP at all or referred to it only in passing.

In articles which were written purely about BP during the period of the spill, the spill was obviously an important topic. However that period represents a fraction of BP's overall history.

Making comments about the future impact of Deepwater is purely speculative but BP was one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world pre Deepwater, and there is no reason to doubt that it wont be in five years time too, whatever the result of current trials (which are themselves highly uncertain).2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey on including Deepwater Horizon Spill content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?

---

(comment copied from above) There is disagreement among editors of the BP article as to how much content should be in that article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill as opposed to in the the article about the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in this article. Not necessary in this article if article on spill is linked, complicates maintenance, and responsibility for spill among three companies is still being resolved. Leaving content in separate article is a proper use of forking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there clearly should be a brief summary of the spill in the article but the current content (as at the date of this comment) is grossly excessive, especially bearing in mind that we have several articles on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You have already raised this exact issue in an RfC above. Does reintroducing it in another format less than 24 hours later really seem appropriate to you? It's not going to change the positions of the involved editors, it's only going to further complicate a discussion with already entrenched positions. For the record, I find it to be an absolute SNOW issue to suggest that we not include any information on the spill here; that's clearly not going to happen. And the emerging consensus from the discussions above, including your own RfC, seems to indicate that a majority of editors, if not a huge one, find the current level of detail to be roughly appropriate. You can take as many bites at this apple as you like, but this approach is unlikely to win any additional editors over to your point of view. Snow (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Snow, it is simply not true that there is a consensus for the current content. Many of those opposed to the current content have remained silent because of the recent flurry of negative additions to the article. 09:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)~

Fair enough, but regardless of how many people favour a reductionist vs. an inclusive strategy, the choice being presented in this survey is not a realistic one nor one likely to lead to a stable resolution to this issue. There are certainly plenty of details concerning the effects the spill had upon the company itself which are equally or more germane to the present article than other related pages; see some of the most recent posts in the previous thread (the RfC) for some of the more obvious example). As I've noted above, these all-or-nothing perspectives on both sides are only making the situation more intractable and this thread in particular, simply from the way it frames the debate, is only going to make things worse by drawing lines on principle. And I can fairly well guarantee that this debate is going to recycle endlessly until some effort at consensus building is made. What is needed here is a detailed, nuts and bolts discussion of the various sections, ideally with proposed drafts, not threads that inquire as to the basic positions of editors in the most general possible terms, which will only serve to divide the involved editors more strictly into two competing camps. We're meant to working together towards consensus here and surely there is room for compromise if we just slow down and take this one point at a time. Snow (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Snow, to avoid disrupting the survey I have responded in a 'Discussion' section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not the same as the other RfC's. The first one has to do with the trial coverage, and the second is about a template. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this survey into the RfC, as it covers the same subject, but if people want to revert back to the previous confusing format, go ahead. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose content not directly related to BP - Yes, DH needs to be covered; but details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed. This article should limit itself to material directly related to BP (e.g. cause, timeline, culpability, impact, etc). Details about health & env impact do not help readers of this article. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about when you say "not directly related to BP"? Oil that was ejected into the Gulf of Mexico from flying saucers? Seriously, you do realize, I hope, that BP is not disputing its liability for the oil spill, and that it has admitted to criminal conduct. These are well-settled issues. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose What does the specific information about the spill itself have to do with BP? We have it in a separate article (several articles, actually) for a reason. Silverseren^C 07:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can answer your question. It has "everything" to do with BP. BP itself admits this. Why don't you? Regardless of the liability of other parties, BP has already pleaded guilty to criminal liability. This was one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. It dominates to an extreme degree all of the reliable sourcing for this article. To claim that this is somehow remote from BP, that it was just a bystander and that the real bad guys are getting off scot free in this article, is nonsense., Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Yeah, this duplicates the RFC somewhat but it's good to make the consensus clear. Shii (tock) 08:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose - This article is, in its present condition, a crude (pardon the pun), unbalanced attack piece. It is supposed to be an article on a 100 year old multinational oil company with operations in 80 countries. Instead half the article is currently devoted to "contoversies" in just one country over a period of just 10 years. Grotesquely US-centric, recentist, unbalanced and little more than an attack piece. This sort of article makes Wikipedia look amateurish and undeserving of its high placing in Google results. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[Restored by Martin Hogbin (talk)]

Coretheapple, you cannot go around striking out everything that you disagree with because you think it is a sock. This is not one of the IP addresses mentioned in the SPI. For anything else you should get a neutral admin to take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes 2.97.215.241 is specifically mentioned in the SPI, confirmed by checkuser as a sock.Administrator finding: "Looks clear that these are all Rangoon11." This is Rangoon double-voting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rangoon11/Archive#13_May_2013 Please do not remove the strikeout from a sockpuppet double-voting in this RfC.Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that some of the editors arguing to keep this content in are doing so precisely because it so dramatically reversed the fortunes of a company of such history and scale? After-all, whatever else you feel about the spill's relevance to the company (and thus the necessity for inclusion of details here), it seems a pretty reasonable, if somewhat impressionistic, statement that this is the most significant single event for the company in decades. It has wrecked the company's profitability and reputation and the overall effect on how it does business cannot really be overstated. In any event -- and this point has been raised above but it bears repeating here -- it is really not appropriate to accuse editors of constructing an attack page when they have done nothing more than present what the sources are saying on the subject matter not only in terms of accurately portraying said content but also reflecting the overall trends in what those sources discuss; discussion of BP in both popular and professional media has been dominated by the spill more so than any other issue since it occurred. In any event, accusing another editor of malicious editing should not be done lightly, and not at all without some significant evidence of ill-intent and doing so flippantly runs contrary to our pillar civility guidelines. Please see WP:AFG if you are unfamiliar. Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater is an important event in the history of BP, but very far from the most important and no more so than, for example, the merger with Amoco, the acquisition of ARCO, the creation of TNK BP, the move into Alaska, discoveries in the North Sea, privatisation, the sale of TNK BP and acquisition of a substantial stake in Rosneft, the OPEC oil shock etc. BP is still fundamentally the same company as pre Deepwater, there have been some asset sales and restructuring of the portfolio but many are likely to have happened anyway. The most fundamental and long term changes created by Deepwater are actually in terms of internal safety processes rather than financials. BP will still be one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world in five years time, with a spread of global operations across the oil and gas industry. 2.97.215.241 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Striking sock comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rangoon11 Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

IP, you sound a lot like User:Rangoon11 who supposedly retired last week. petrarchan47tc 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - A fair and balanced reporting of the facts. Blame for these facts outweighing 90 years of history should not be laid at the door step of collaborators that see these facts as important to the reader. To not include DWH would be un-balanced toward the extreme. ```Buster Seven Talk 11:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Buster, no one is suggesting that we do not mention DWH at all and to portray the arguments of others that way is misleading. It is the excessive volume and detail that is being objected to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the question this survey explicitly asks is "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" And only one of the six people who has responded in the negative to that questions has bothered to qualify their position by saying "include a reasonable amount, but with restraint." All of the other five, yourself included, have simply stated your reason for opposing this content without bothering to mention any exceptions. So I think it's a little unfair for you to call him out for being misleading when he was simply responding to the explicit wording of the question that forms the basis of this poll and to an opposition argument that has been left unqualified and ambiguous (in this thread anyway). Snow (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Snow. In support of myself, I responded to the simplest strictest interpretation of the question. Support = some mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to "how much"). Oppose = No mention (no demarcation in the RfC question as to how little). I answered the question the way it was stated. You say no one is suggesting that DWH should not be mentioned. That is your supposition. I don't share the same interpretation. A re-read of some of the opposes causes me to think that that is exactly what is being proposed...or a VERY minimal comment about Deep Water (at the same level of importance as how many gas pumps there are in the Continental USA. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is any question regarding responses here, editors should be called back to clarify their meaning. To me it's very clear that Robert, Silver Seren and Shii want zero mention of the Gulf spill in this article. While we welcome new editors, it is interesting to note that two of these editors have never stepped foot here before, and that it is possible some canvassing went on with regard to Silver Seren. petrarchan47tc 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in RfC above, wich I hereby replicate: I think that the case is clear for a need for substantial detail on the Gulf oil spill in the article on the epicenter of the spill, which is BP. It is enough for us to know that BP is paying billions of dollars in claims related to all the elements of the Gulf oil spill, in settlement of criminal charges to which it pleaded guilty. If you examine the press coverage on the anniversary of the disaster, it overwhelmingly focused on BP, over and above any other corporate player. It is not for us to parse the evidence and decide what is related to BP and what is not. That is in effect being "more Catholic than the Pope" as BP has already accepted culpability for the entirety of the Gulf oil spill, with all of its economic, health and ecological effects. So let's stop the nonsense. An article on BP without a good discussion of the Gulf oil spill is nothing less than a whitewash article that would stand in violation of WP:NPOV and would have no place in Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This "survey" was a separate section but I have moved it up to the RfC, as it is on the same subject. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support including BP's gulf spill in this article. petrarchan47tc 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes to the question, "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?" Gandydancer (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of more than a brief summary, since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has its own article. Link that article here, and briefly summarize its content here if that content is directly related to BP. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of a brief summary, oppose inclusion of copy-paste from the main article, information not directly about BP and creating this section as a separate article with subsections and information about the spill in general. Beagel (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose current version. Eight paragraphs is way too much. Two good-sized paragraphs at best to sum up the main issues with a link to the primary article should be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Too much At 200K, the article is too bloated and should be generally pruned back. The Deepwater Horizon material can be pruned especially heavily because there's a separate article about that. Warden (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill,its consequences, and the various legal repercussions. It's not every day that one stumbles upon a company with such a positively enormous legal footprint as this one. BP has pleaded guilty to criminal charges in connection with one of the worst environmental disasters in history, and in the reliable sources that has overshadowed every other aspect of this company. When I began editing this article some weeks ago, it was a shambles, with editors scrambling to satisfy the wishes of a polite but aggressive BP employee, to the point that 44% of the article was actually written by BP itself. Some editors and their chums and the folks at CREWE seem to want the status quo ante, but that would do a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers, who already have been shortchanged by an article that was so pathetic that it actually misstated the number of BP operating divisions, so as to grossly overemphasize the importance of its tiny but hyped alternative energy division. One can't blame BP alone, through its rep here, for the terrible state of this article in past months. It was also the product of some simply terrible misjudgments on the part of many Wikipedia editors. NPOV does not mean that the information entering an article be neutral, but that the subject be treated in accordance with how it is treated in the reliable sources. Editors here are trying so hard to sanitize this article that they've forgotten that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support including a substantial discussion of the DWH oil spill. It would probably be too much here on the spill if we covered everything in similar proportion to what the news media has covered over the last 10 years - that is about 75% on the spill - but a very substantial coverage should be included. Putting a daughter article in, e.g. the on the spill, does not mean that material in the parent article needs to be deleted. If that were the case, I'd suggest an article, perhaps History of BP before 1980, and then get rid of most of that material which very, very few people care about now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose content not directly related to BP Particularly the two sub-sections "Environmental impact" and "health issues" have too many details that are not relevant for an article on BP. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is already a primary article regarding the DWH oil spill and its impact. There should only be a very brief summary paragraph in this article which is about the company itself. The summary paragraph should be as brief as possible, neutrally worded, and very well cited. If a reader wants to read about the oil spill they should be directed to the article which has the oil spill as its primary source. As noted by others, this article needs to be checked for neutrality and ensure that it isn't an attack page regarding its subject. Criticism should be included, but it should not be given undue weight either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Here per RFC - IMO have the first paragraph (On 20 April 2010 --seafood industry will never recover. [364]) & put the rest on Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Again IMO all articles should also be merged in to one. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support thorough coverage of the disaster here in this article, especially with regard to corporate action and inaction, legal ramifications, and how the disaster affected the corporation. Some overlapping coverage is to be expected between various articles which describe the disaster. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The article does not contain too much negative material and maintains a NPOV in fact it's highly flattering given the nature of the business. The section on the Deepwater Horizon is not too extensive and is nominal considering the evolution of news reporting and it's above average impact on people and the environment. No it does not deserve it's own section and should be remanded to a subsection of industrial accidents. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion about the oil spill and its consequences, but what is there right now is about the maximum needed. No need for more. There is definitely NOT "too much negative information." NPOV would be violated without such content. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It should definitely be included, and the previous version was too short. But I would reduce what's currently there, especially the environmental and health subsections. This could be done by tightening the writing, rather than removing anything of substance. For example, sentences such as "Environmental impacts continue, and research is ongoing," lack content, and quite a bit of the section is written that way. I would reduce it to the key issues, per WP:SUMMARY, particularly the issues that affect BP directly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think that you should go ahead and try some of what you suggest here. This discussion has been very difficult for me, perhaps because I have put so many hours into this and the other related articles I may have lost my perspective. At first I was against including an environmental/health section at all, but doing some work on the article I gradually came to believe that inclusion would be the way to go. But I think that some fresh eyes looking at the information would be a good thing. I am still open to whatever the group decides, including removal of the two sections with just a few sentences left. But I would like to see what you'd do with it. What do others think? Gandydancer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All I could offer would be a copy edit; I don't know enough to rewrite it. But for the benefit of the closing editor, although I support a reduction, I also support more than just a paragraph or two. I'm thinking perhaps four tightly written paragraphs would be appropriate, given how central this is to BP; two subsections – (1) what happened, and health/environmental effects, and (2) the legal proceedings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose excessive content. I think that while it's important to mention it, we don't need a section that details the environmental impact of oil, or its negative health effects. I feel like that's two steps removed from BP and doesn't belong in the article (though it certainly belongs in the main deepwater horizon article). I feel like a brief, one paragraph summary of the events along with a link to the main article is the way to go. Pvvni (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose repeated content. A complete WP:SUMMARY should be provided in BP#Environmental record or BP#Safety and health violations. ~KvnG 13:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

user:SlimVirgin contacted me and asked for elaboration of my position. I would propose a {{main}} link to Deepwater Horizon explosion be added to the BP#Safety and health violations section and a {{main}} link to Deepwater Horizon oil spill be added to the BP#Environmental record section. Each of these subsections would follow WP:SUMMARY guidelines. The simplest and least controversial way to satisfy the guidelines is to use a copy of the lead of the respective {{main}} article as the summary in the subsection. Then the BP#Deepwater Horizon well explosion and oil spill section can be merged into Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Deepwater Horizon explosion and deleted from this article. ~KvnG 23:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support detailed discussion of the spill, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) regarding the consequences for BP in terms of financial costs, legal sanctions, public image, internal restructuring, and so forth. I'm clarifying my position here with a firm vote at the request of another editor, but I would like to reiterate that I feel this discussion will not alleviate this deadlock until people begin to look at individual statements and discuss them on their own merits; we have a lot of votes here, but the tally is close and even if that weren't the case and this RfC ended conclusively, individuals would still go on parsing the meaning of the outcome due to how vaguely described the polling question is (with said ambiguity shaping the tone of all of the discussion has followed in such a way that we're basically spinning our wheels). As such, I renew my call for involved editors to start submitting specific proposed edits and working towards a consensus. There are certainly enough involved individuals who felt strongly enough to bring this debate to such a scale, but now conflict fatigue seems to have set in and no one (who is familiar enough with the subject matter and sources) seems to want to grind through that process at present, but I still feel it's our best (if not our only) way forward. Snow (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support discussion of the spill but with a substantial reduction in the length of the section from its present length. At least in the United States, BP is synonymous with Deepwater Horizon. Culture associates the two, so, even if you think the association is misguided, it still worthy of significant discussion within the article. That said, we don't need to detail specifics like the article presently does. In addition, I find that there is no tonal or POV problem with the section, only a length problem; there is no dispute that it was an environmental catastrophe. Marechal Ney (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support the discussion of the spill. In my mind it is essential.--Fox1942 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Snow, I agree that this debate is likely to recycle endlessly unless we do something to stop it but I do not think discussing each sentence individually will help while there is a fundamental difference of opinion between editors over the purpose of the article.

Some users seem to think that we should add everything we can find in the news or media about the subject, often in pursuance of some ulterior motive such as showing how bad the company have been.

I have no opinion, or serious knowledge, of how good or bad BP are but I do know that exposing bad things that an organisation has done is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We need to settle this question before we can go any further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I feel that approach is putting the cart before the horse; people are simply not going to back down at this point. And in any event, following such an over-arching principle is just going to make editors inflexible and both discussion here and the article itself will continue to suffer as a result. In my experience the best thing you can do in a case like this is stop wasting time trying to establish universal principles that are almost always going to cause things to grind to a halt in practice and begin examining the actual particulars. Not only is this the only guaranteed way to sidestep entrenched positions and hyperbole, but once the process gets started and people see that they might not be so far apart after-all, the process becomes self-sustaining. It becomes as if someone opened up a hole into something under immense pressure and it just starts to flow ceaselessly and is incredibly difficult to stop. And what could be bad about that, eh? ;) Snow (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on the question about including separate sections for health, environmental, and economic damage. I don't feel that it is appropriate for this article about BP to include these sections. I believe that the editors that have argued for including these sections have presented their arguments very well, but it could also be argued that including such a brief summary (as must be) in one sense tends to minimize the issues. But mainly, the information just seems out of place in this article, to me... Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I have improved these sections and now feel they are appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We still have yet to add the Corexit information discussed directly below. petrarchan47tc 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on how much eco/health damage to mention in this article: If you do a Google search for BP, in the middle of the first page you will see the Newsweek investigation, "What BP doesn't want you to know about the (DWH oil spill)". The investigation as well as the GAP Report made a big splash, and the revelations have not been disputed. They involve BP alone. BP told the makers of Corexit to keep their safety manuals, and Nalco was left with a roomful of them, which warned that handlers of this product must wear protective gear. BP would not allow their cleanup workers, who sprayed and worked near the dispersant, to wear respirators. Many of them are now very sick, along with coastal residents. Corexit and eco/health damage go hand-in-hand. You can't talk about one without the other. Rachael Maddow covered the Newsweek investigation last week, and said when she interviewed folks in the South during the spill, their one concern was unanimous: potential eco/health damage from Corexit. At that time we were told that no one knew whether Corexit was toxic. But it turns out BP did know, according to the investigation and the GAP Report. And because of the novel, untested use of this amount of a toxic solvent, which was again 100% BP's decision, you can't talk about this oil spill, on this page, without mentioning Corexit. And you can't mention Corexit without talking about its impact and the controversy around its use, which is not even mentioned here (they told the EPA "no" when asked to stop using the product. When mandated to cut use by 75%, use was cut by 9% instead). The story of Corexit use during the DWH spill belongs in this article (and is already covered in the BP oil spill article). At the January 2013 gathering of researchers to discuss the Gulf, the number one concern of all was health effects of the spill, which further justifies more than a mention here. As for how many sections are warranted, that can be worked out amongst editors once they've seen the sources. (As for writing drafts, which was recently suggested here, I am offering up all of my research over the past year at this page, but am unwilling to put any more work into creating content (later edit: unless there is a reasonable chance my efforts won't be entirely wasted). I have put more wasted time into this page and the related oil spill page that I'd like to admit.) petrarchan47tc 03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I do believe, and have argued in the past, that when a corporation does something the best/worst, the first/last, etc., it deserves a mention in their article. BP was the first to use such massive amounts of dispersant and it was the first to use it underwater rather than just sprayed on the water's surface. With that in mind, perhaps it is reasonable to have a small article section: Use of Corexit? Gandydancer (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this article 2 nights ago - have you see this? EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations - ProPublica - Officials said they are putting the talks on hold until they learn more about the British company's responsibility for the plume of oil that is spreading across the Gulf. Corexit is the reason for the oil plume. petrarchan47tc 17:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think Gandydancer's edit of 25-5-2013[1] has it about right. The incident already takes up a significant portion of the page. I would oppose more, if anything it can be trimmed back further, and information moved to the subpage on the incident. LK (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've examined Deepwater Horizon oil spill with the relevant sections of this article. Clearly, this article and that one need to be "synchronized," as one would do with music on an IPad, so that one does not fall behind another. With that caveat, I recommend that care be taken to ensure that this article provide a full description of the oil spill, with special emphasis on the impact on BP. Thus the "main" litigation sections need to be here, and summarized in the oil spill article. The environmental effects need to be summarized here, with the main discussion being in the oil spill article. But trims should not be made just for the sake of trimming. Summary style does not necessitate brevity. The NPOV issues raised by some commentators fall flat, because the weight of the reliable sources clearly puts the oil spill at the very top of the issues garnering coverage. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The survey question above is whether or not to mention the 2010 spill. Many answers begin with "Oppose" but don't oppose entirely. The question has confused a few people, and the answers are misleading. Personally, I wonder why we have a survey AND an RfC, but as long as we do, we should make the results more clear. It's possible we need to ask folks to come back and clarify. petrarchan47tc 02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No possible consensus can be derived from the above. 2 RfC's AND a survey....Running together (side by side STS) created the Gordian Knot above. As pointed out, one of the RfC's (If read correctly) called for strick elimination of any inclusion of DWH. But that is not how various supporting and opposing editors read it. Sorry to say but the results of these RfC's is trash and achieved only confusion rather than a cleared path to resolution. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the continuing struggle to make this article read like it was ripped off the BP website. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain where you read this or what volunteer editor expressed this opinion? Shii (tock) 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it was very poorly set up. One may gather from my post that I don't agree that the article needs to address BPs involvement in environmental or health issues but that is not at all the case. I don't believe that they should be addressed under separate headings rather than be included in the explosion/leak section. Also, as I continue to review current events, more and more I do believe that we need to add a Corexit section to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I like your suggestions. petrarchan47tc 23:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the conclusion that "these RfC's is trash". Consensus is not counting votes, it is finding the solution which is the most acceptable for different POVs. Notwithstanding if the votes says 'support' or 'oppose', most of them have also explanations what editors exactly mean. Most of participants have supported something in between not mentioning all and the current version. This seems to be a consensus for the staring point for further discussions and it is more consensus than so called "consensus" for large copy-pasted edits on 29-30 April or reverting the good faith work of user:Shii. Fact that there is no majority support for the certain POV, is not a reason to call the RfC 'thrash'. Beagel (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is one thing this RfC showed it is that there was no consensus to revert my edits. So, I make them again. I strongly advise anyone who wishes to revert them to demonstrate why they think this RfC showed a different consensus. Shii (tock) 22:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Shii, this RfC is 30 days long. The consensus won't be determined by you alone, nor will it be decided before the discussion has closed. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:NOCONSENSUS "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." petrarchan47tc 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a very important point. As the policy just cited pointed out, it would be different if this was a living person. Yes, I realize that some editors here treat BP as if it was a living person, but it is not. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the applicable language in the policy is the following: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The exception being contentious matter added to BLPs, in which lack of consensus means removal. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In first place there was no consensus for 27-29 April mass additions. They were disputed starting from day one, so f no consensus exists, the version of this section as of 27 April should be restored. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's beside the point. The "noconsensus" rule applies to additions, which remain if there is no consensus except for BLPs. The additions were the subject of this RfC, very clearly. What you're suggesting is contrary to WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is policy. Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is exactly the point as that the latest RfCs were trigged by the no-consensus copy-paste edits in that dates. Also, conclusion that there is no consensus is biased as majority of editors have said that this section should be something in between of no mentioning at all and the extensive current version. I am sorry to say this but the above arguing to preserve the preferred version of certain editors seems to contradict underlying principles of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I take back my comment about the RfC's being "trash". What I meant to say was they are a confusing mess. And User Shii's challenge...almost daring someone to edit the article...is out of line. A consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration. The fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement. To boldly step in, make drastic changes and then dare someone to change it back is outside policy. Out of fear of retaliation (and an unwillingness to waste anymore of my time) I will not revert. But I think a revert is in order. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I should disagree again that "a consensus existed prior to Shii's bold alteration." There has never been consensus about block edits made on 27-29 April. There was edit warring, there was a discussion at the talk page etc. Saying that "the fact that it was in place for quite some time at this article implies the editors were in at least temporary agreement." is misreading the situation. Beagel (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been consensus on the gulf spill section for many months, and you know this. petrarchan47tc 06:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. So, talking about the consensus of 27-29 April edits is not correct. Beagel (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it yesterday in this edit. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

His wholesale, en masse reversions were also contrary to WP:REVERTING. They were not, however, contrary to the general behavior that has hurt this article and driven away editors over quite a period of here time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As Petachan points out in his edit summary, an RfC lasts 30 days. At that time i suggest an impartial administrator should be called in to make heads or tails out of it. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I received the same advice here. petrarchan47tc 01:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC article

Editors should be aware of this article on the BBC website today, "BP to seek Cameron's help as oil spill costs escalate." It explains BP's fears about "fictitious and inflated" claims from the DWH oil spill, and that it is concerned that its financial picture may be eroded and is seeking help from the British government. I think that this article underlines the importance of the DWH spill to BP and hence to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

BP Fears Takeover Bid as Oil Spill Compensation Costs Escalate - this definitely highlights the importance of the spill to BP as a whole. petrarchan47tc 18:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If BP is taking the position that some of the claims may be inflated, and I have to say that I can't recall reading this anywhere, then I think in fairness that it should be reflected in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant to this article. Yes, they are concerned about people lying about the spill and inflating what actually happened. Silverseren^C 21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant, if they are taking that position, and if those allegedly inflated claims are hurting them in a material fashion and helping to make them a takeover target. What possible justification can there be to omit this material? Your position seems utterly bizarre. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you read those two articles or are you just reacting in knee-jerk fashion? According to this article, which is from BBC's business editor, BP has asked for assistance from the prime minister. If this isn't "relevant" to BP and to this article than nothing is. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for closing editor

The RfC was open for 30 days and has been closed by the bot. I'm about to ask on WP:AN/RFC for a formal close, and I'm listing the responses here to make things easier (I hope) for the closing editor. Robert, as you initiated the RfC, if you object to this, feel free to revert me. I'm adding it because I think the discussion might be unclear to an uninvolved editor, and it doesn't help that the result is close.

The RfC question was: "Should content on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article as well as in the article on the spill?"

By my count 28 editors responded. The issues are (1) should information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill be included in this article summary-style; (2) if yes, should all aspects of the spill be summarized (including the environmental and health consequences), or only aspects of direct relevance to BP (e.g. the financial and legal consequences for the company); and (3) what length would be appropriate? This is the current section about the spill.

• Oppose inclusion (2):

• Robert McClenon, Silverseren

• Oppose, but unclear (1):

• Shii (Shii didn't qualify his oppose in the survey, but he edited the section to look like this on 9 May (diff), and left this comment on 11 May, so he may want to see it reduced rather than removed).

• Comments prefaced with oppose, "too much," or "oppose content not directly related to BP," but supportive of minimal or much-reduced inclusion (11):

• Martin Hogbin ("a brief summary ... the current content ... is grossly excessive"), Noleander ("details about DH that are not directly related to BP should be removed"), GoodeOldeboy (a brief summary "if that content is directly related to BP"), Beagel ("support inclusion of a brief summary, oppose inclusion of copy-paste from the main article ..."), The Devil's Advocate ("two good-sized paragraphs at best"), Colonel Warden (prune back heavily), Iselilja ("Particularly the two sub-sections 'Environmental impact' and 'health issues' have too many details that are not relevant for an article on BP"), RightCowLeftCoast ("a very brief summary paragraph ... which is about the company itself"), Davey2010 (first paragraph only), Pvvni ("brief, one paragraph summary"), KvnG ("Oppose repeated content. A complete WP:SUMMARY should be provided in #Environmental record or #Safety and health violations.")

• Comments prefaced with support, or in Geremy.Hebert's case with "comment," and supportive of thorough coverage (10):

• Buster Seven, Figureofnine, petrarchan47, Coretheapple, Smallbones, Binksternet, Geremy.Hebert ("The section on the Deepwater Horizon is not too extensive ... [but it] should be remanded to a subsection of industrial accidents"), Brangifer ("what is there right now is about the maximum needed"), Snow Rise, Fox1942

• Comments prefaced with support, or in Lawrence's case with "comment," but supportive of reduced length (3):

• Lawrencehkoo (in the discussion section: "I think Gandydancer's edit of 25-5-2013[2] has it about right. The incident already takes up a significant portion of the page. I would oppose more, if anything it can be trimmed back further, and information moved to the subpage on the incident."), SlimVirgin ("four tightly written paragraphs," including health, environmental and legal issues), Marechal Ney ("with a substantial reduction in the length of the section ... there is no tonal or POV problem with the section, only a length problem")

• Yes to the RfC question, with no comment in the survey about content or length (1):

• Gandydancer (GD expanded her views in the discussion section, [3][4][5] and I believe is the author of part of the section)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is already 10 days when this RfC was closed for new comments but still no official closure by non-involved admin. Any idea what to do next? Beagel (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to find uninvolved people to close RfCs, because it can be quite time-consuming. I've asked Nathan, who closed the template RfC last month, whether he'd be interested in closing this one too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duplicated information in this article

Following the large number of edits to this article in recent weeks, some material seems to have become duplicated within sections or between different sections, as editors have worked to update or add new information. I have noticed a few pieces of information in particular that are repeated and would like to suggest removing this duplicated information. Below, the repeated information I have found is shown in bold:

Investments in green technologies

• Information about criticism of BP for "greenwashing" is now included under two sections: "Alternative energy" and "Branding and public relations" and, under each, the same detail is repeated:

In the "Alternative energy" section:

The relatively small size of BP's alternative energy operations has led to allegations of greenwashing by Greenpeace, Mother Jones and oil and energy analyst Antonia Juhasz, among others. Juhasz notes BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget prior to cutbacks. BP's 2008 budget included $20 billion in fossil fuel investment and $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy.

In the "Branding and public relations" section:

According to Democracy Now, BP's marketing campaign amounted to greenwashing given BP's 2008 budget which included $20 billion in fossil fuel investment and $1.5 billion in all alternative forms of energy. Oil and energy analyst Antonia Juhasz notes BP's investment in green technologies peaked at 4% of its exploratory budget prior to cutbacks, including the discontinuation of BP Solar and the closure of its alternative energy headquarters in London. According to Juhasz, "four percent...hardly qualifies the company to be Beyond Petroleum", citing BP's "aggressive modes of production, whether it’s the tar sands [or] offshore".

This is not duplication. It is relevant to both sections. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Figureofnine, however my concerns remain, and it's not just this particular detail that is duplicative, but in fact the AE and Branding sections overlap more generally. I would like to hear what other editors think, and I may come back to this at a later time. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

As was pointed out below, it is not appropriate for BP to meddle in the editorial process to attempt to influence the writing of this article in a manner that slants the POV of the article. Removing the text in question would remove necessary material, occasioned by the fact that BP utilizes its Alternative Energy program very heavily in its branding. That has come under criticism by virtue of the fact that its Alternative Energy program is tiny in proportion to the size of the company. This constant meddling, this micromanaging, aimed at influencing the editorial direction of the article, goes well beyond what is appropriate for a company of this size with regard to its Wikipedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo at BP: In longer articles it is customary to repeat relevant facts. That is happening here. The boldface belongs in both sections. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As the critics is not about alternative energy per se, but about using thesed investments to create the company image (slogan Beyond Petroleum etc), this information belongs to the Branding section and not to the AE section. Beagel (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it is organic to both sections, which is precisely why BP wants it downplayed. You can't discuss alternative energy without making a mention of the greenwashing criticism, nor can you discuss branding without discussing the "green" imagery. They are both intertwined. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sale of BP's wind farms

• Also within the "Alternative energy" section there is repetition of the claim that BP's sale of wind farms was part of its divestment program to raise funds following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I would also like to point out that this information is inaccurate because BP had already sold or committed to sell $38 billion in assets by the time the wind farms were offered for sale. The $38 billion divestment target was met in December 2012, while the wind farms were put up for sale in April 2013. See the this Bloomberg article from February, which states "BP reached its $38 billion divestment target a year early." (The target for the divestment had been the end of 2013.) Here is the current section:

The sale of BP's wind farms was also part of the program to raise $38 billion from assets sales meant to cover costs relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill BP said that the sale of their wind unit was "not an exit from alternative energy", citing its continued ethanol production and biofuel research. The sale of the wind business was motivated in part by the company's need to sell assets to help finance the costs of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

OSHA violations

• In the "Industrial accidents" section the information about BP's fines from OSHA related to the Texas City Refinery explosion are included twice. Once almost immediately following the section heading and again under the "2006—2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" subsection:

In the "Industrial accidents" section

BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company that operates in the United States. Between 2007 and 2010, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas accounted for 97 percent of "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). BP had 760 "egregious, willful" violations during that period, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo two and Exxon had one.

In the "2006—2010: Refinery fatalities, safety violations, and leaks" subsection:

Facing scrutiny after the Texas City Refinery explosion, two BP-owned refineries in Texas City, and Toledo, were responsible for 97% (829 of 851) of wilful safety violations by oil refiners between June 2007 and February 2010, as determined by inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Jordan Barab, deputy assistant secretary of labour at OSHA, said "The only thing you can conclude is that BP has a serious, systemic safety problem in their company."

References

 Done Thanks Gandydancer for addressing this duplication (see these edits).

Can editors take a look at removing this duplicated information? This is no rush on this, please take your time. As Buster Seven has suggested before, please mark the sections above as "done" if you make an edit. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to thank me because actually I had found the duplication when I was doing some work on those sections--it was not your suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have marked one of these requests as done, but I wanted to remind editors that there are two other requests here when you have time. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is one remaining piece of duplication that has not been commented on. I would appreciate a review of the duplication in the information about the sale of BP's wind farms, when editors have time. Also, I am interested in others' opinions regarding the duplicated detail described above under the heading Investments in green technologies. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the material in question, but Arturo I feel it isn't appropriate for you to be continually trying to shape the content of this article. If there are errors of fact or omission by all means point them out, but trying to influence how the article is written, or how BP's opponents are described, isn't appropriate. The duplication may be deliberate and needed for some reason; or it may be accidental and something that ought to be fixed (I don't know; as I say I haven't looked), but either way I can't see how it affects BP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you look above you'll see that one of my requests does relate to information that is incorrect, specifically the details about the sale of BP's wind farms. The information about the sale includes two sentences both of which suggest that the sale was part of BP's $38 billion divestment target related to Deepwater Horizon, however this is not the case. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The text about the wind farms is sourced to two independent, reliable sources, the Christian Science Monitor and The Independent. If BP has a quarrel with the news coverage, it needs to take up the matter with the news media sources in question. There is no correction appended to either of those articles. They may be incorrect or they may have their reasons for saying what they say. I agree that it is not appropriate for BP to meddle in how critics of the company are described, nitpick and micromanage on supposed "duplication" of text that BP doesn't like, and otherwise try to shape the editorial content of this article in a manner that is wholly inappropriate. BP editors are not errand boys for corporate public relations departments, so it would really be wonderful if the constant "I have checked this off and other stuff needs to be attended to" bit would terminate forthwith. If there are inaccuracies, real inaccuracies, they should be brought to the attention of editors. Anything else, not. Coretheapple (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Arturo had thanked me for working on "my own article". Perhaps it's hard for someone that edits this article for pay to realize that some of us edit for reasons of social responsibility--but some of us do. While this is Arturo's only article, it is one of several that I "watch over". As such, there is certainly no need for a corporate editor to thank me for working on one of "my" articles. I had no idea that my edit was on Arturo's list and in all truth, it is quite irritating to have a corporate rep give me a thank you. Gandydancer (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes and there is one other point that occurred to me this evening after I made my last response. I usually avoid referring to the corporate rep by his name. This is not intended to be a snub or disrespect or anything, but is a reflection of the fact that this editor is a representative of BP in this article, and is not here in a personal capacity. The difference between that editor and any of the rest of us is that we are here as individuals, and if we go it ends our presence here. However, BP is clearly here permanently. When this particular corporate rep leaves he will be replaced by someone else. Likewise, as has been discussed, there are no doubt multiple eyeballs at BP watching this article. That is an important distinction that needs to be kept in mind in dealing with this particular and, yes, irritating presence here. Coretheapple (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I am glad Arturo is here, and that he has given us a personal name rather than presenting just a bland corporate façade. As best I can tell (from a cursory perspective), Arturo has been quite respectful and constructive, and I hope BP gives him a raise and keeps him around. We shouldn't consider all BP corporate presence here as an irritant. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

At one point in excess of 40% of the article originated from drafts that BP produced. The situation, when exposed, was a major black eye for Wikipedia. Sorry if I not every editor enjoys either that indignity or all that has gone with it. Coretheapple (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It was explained several times at this talk as also in other venues where the BP COI issue was discussed that the 40% claim is incorrect. Could we stop repeating this nonsense, please? Beagel (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I may have been incorrect. I think the number was 44% but I'll have to check. Coretheapple (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The methodology how this figure was calculated was incorrect. Beagel (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's where that number originated.[6] What would you suggest to be an appropriate number? 30%? 20%? To the extent that BP is involved as a defendant in litigation concerning the very matters that were the subjects of these drafts, I think the number needs to be zero. Coretheapple (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@Arturo at BP: On the wind farms, you're asking editors to accept not only that the Bloomberg article in February was correct in saying that the divestment goal was met, but that two other sources were incorrect when they say that the wind farms were sold as part of the divestment. However, the Bloomberg article did not explicitly contradict what the other publications said. It is perfectly possible that the sale of the wind farms was concluded well in the past, and was part of the divestment program, and was announced after the divestment goals were met. For editors to disregard what is stated in two reliable sources, on the basis of one editor's say-so, would be to highly inappropriate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Figureofnine, BP only announced the wind farms were up for sale in April 2013. The sources are clear that the sale had not been completed and that BP was announcing the assets were up for sale, not that they had been sold. So, the wind farms cannot have been part of the divestment target. Platts also reported that BP had reached its divestment target of $38 billion, in this March article they state "BP has already met its $38 billion divestment target to help pay for damages from the spill a year earlier than expected." Also, in the BP Annual Report Summary Review, p8, you will see that BP CEO Bob Dudley states: "By the end of 2012 we had announced asset sales of $38 billion, essentially reaching our target a year early. Since the divestment programme began, we have sold around half our upstream installations and pipelines, and one-third of our wells – while retaining roughly 90% of our proved reserves base and production."

On Coretheapple's point, also made previously, that BP should take up the inaccuracy with the media outlets and get the stories changed, I do understand that this would be the ideal situation. However, hundreds of websites ran stories just on the wind farm sale announcement alone, so reviewing each and asking for corrections on every single inaccuracy, especially on the divestment target matter which was not even the key news reported is not practical. Where an inaccuracy is easily confirmed by comparing against other available sources, should this not be corrected in the article? As I have explained above, BP confirmed that the divestment target of $38 billion was met at the end of 2012. The announcement was made in April 2013 that the wind farms were up for sale (not yet sold), so the wind farm sale is not part of the divestment to meet the $38 billion target. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article actually separates the $38 billion in asset sales from the sale of the wind farms. It says: "BP Plc (BP/), attempting to recover from an oil spill that may cost it $42 billion, said it will sell shares in wind assets worth as much as $3.1 billion in the U.S. in another step to focus on its main oil and gas business." It then says "Chief Executive Officer Bob Dudley has sold $38 billion in oil fields, pipelines and refineries to concentrate BP on its most profitable assets after the 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico." As you can see, this source does not really support the position that the wind farms were to be sold to meet the divestment target. I don't see the problem with altering the article to make it in line with the Bloomberg article. As for a correction, I think that such a step would make difficulties such as this less trying for you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gulf spill section (rescued from archives)

Until the Gulf spill section and related RfC are squared away, it's helpful if these links remain on the talk page. They come from the archives. petrarchan47tc 03:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) ping petrarchan47tc 19:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• On dolphins, shrimp, etc..
• On seafood
• On use of Corexit - Newsweek
• On use of Corexit - GAP report
• Corexit, human health, coverup
• Louisianan update
• "Three years after BP oil spill, USF research finds massive die-off"
• "Dolphin Deaths in the Gulf Three Years After the Oil Spill"
• Commentary on NWF piece
• "Three years later, oil effects still unfolding"
• Atlantic: Three Years After the BP Spill, Tar Balls and Oil Sheen Blight Gulf Coast
• Empty nets in Louisiana three years after the massive BP oil spill
• Loss of insects in marsh due to PAHs

Reviews of Corexit/health findings

• On GAP report
• On Corexit use/health impacts
• Cleanup workers sick from Corexit
• On Corexit cover-up
• Divers say they still suffer ailments from 2010 BP oil spill

Related

• Gulf Coast still waiting for funds after spill
• US witness claims BP gas explosion cover-up

For help with summary; my comments from RfC Survey on template:

The Deepwater was an oil gusher, not spilled oil, but emanating from the seafloor where it was immediately mixed with an industrial strength solvent called "Corexit", which made the toxicity of the oil 52 times greater, and made the toxic compounds airborne and more permeable to humans, fish (chemicals that can emulsify crude oil can do a number on cell walls and anything made of lipids) and the environment. That dispersed oil, as well as tar balls and tar mats, continue to wash up, and cause massive health and ecological problems on the coasts of four US states. The air in oiled marshes is killing off the insects in Louisiana. We also don't yet know the amount of oil "spilled", as whistle-blowers with video evidence, are alleging a cover-up of the true amount. "The spill fouled 1,100 miles of beaches and marsh along the Gulf coast" source -- "from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast. Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana. Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it's still (April 2013) monitoring 165 miles of shore" source "I have seen some of the smaller islands, that birds nest on, literally disappear in the past three years. The oil killed the marsh grass and the mangrove roots leaving the islands with nothing to hold them together and now some are completely gone. As far as the amount of tar balls washing up on beaches — it varies from day to day. BP’s claims that the Gulf Coast is back to normal are simply not true." source petrarchan47tc 23:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Ping petrarchan47tc 08:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Next Step: Mediation?

What is the next step regarding the content dispute for the amount of negative information in this article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill? There obviously is no consensus. (Can anyone provide evidence that there is a consensus?) I think that no one is proposing that the negative information be deleted from the properly linked article. Since we have already gone through the RFC process as part of dispute resolution, and it has accomplished nothing, the only remaining step that I am aware of for a content dispute is mediation. Should a formal Request for Mediation be posted? Also, are the editors here willing to be involved in mediation? Another alternative would be to stub the article and rewrite it, but that is extreme, because there is a great deal of useful information in this article. Is mediation a reasonable solution, or is there some other answer, or should the article be stubbed and started over? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Stubbing doesnt appear to be a valid option, it requires that no past version of the article be useable or fixable. Whilst the 2 RfCs are ongoing, let's put this idea of evaluating the situation on hold, and reassess once they are closed. Robert, what is your reasoning for mediation and the idea of stubbing? Is this about the Gulf spill section, or about the article in general? If you wouldn't mind clarifying your complaints/observations that led you to these suggestions, it would be appreciated. petrarchan47tc 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently acquainted with mediation to have an opinion on it. Stubbing is for basket cases. It might have been an alternative when the article was 40% BP content, but today would only please "attack page" POV extremists and BP itself, not readers. Coretheapple (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In mentioning stubbing the article, I made the mistake of being sarcastic, when no one knows that you are being sarcastic on the Internet. I agree that is not really an option. We are no closer than we were to consensus. I suggest formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note and reply to Petrarchan's questions so we can understand your position. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Paging User: Robert McClenon (I think this will let him know). petrarchan47tc 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think mediation is the answer. Mediation is intended to settle disputes where there is a genuine willingness to reach agreement. I cannot see that working here.

This, in my opinion, is a dispute about the fundamental purpose of WP. In my opinion existing and long standing WP policies are being ignored in favour of news and media based approach to creating a soapbox to show how bad BP are. This is an issue at the heart of WP; either we are writing an encyclopedia or we are not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a dispute as to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. It is a dispute as to what is a neutral point of view. Presenting this dispute for formal mediation will be time-consuming, as will the mediation itself. Do we agree that we want mediation, or do we want to continue to do POV pushing? I am willing to submit the formal RfM, but only if I think that the other editors are agreeable to mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we were hoping you would respond to the question I posed above: Robert, what is your reasoning for mediation? Is this about the Gulf spill section, or about the article in general? If you wouldn't mind clarifying your complaints/observations that led you to these suggestions, it would be appreciated. petrarchan47tc 03:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Paging User: Robert McClenon petrarchan47tc 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See below. The oil spill. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there are pending RfCs, it may be premature.[7] Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support a mediation request after the current RfC is closed (preferably by an admin). I think there is a deep divide in opinons among experienced, serious contributors to this article as to how much critical/environmental-related stuff that is appropriate to include in a company article, and I think there are some principal questions here, that I for one, would like to see handled in the most comprehensible way possible at Wikipedia. It may give a precedent for similar cases. I don't know much about this mediation procedure either (neither beeen involved in any), and from a brief look at the mediation page, it appears that most requests are turned down. But we could try. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's involved in mediation, but the idea is worth exploring, as you say, once the RfCs are wound down as indeed there is clearly no consensus emerging. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I think a fair impartial mediation, supervised by a veteran administrator, is a great idea. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion about mediation previously. I was ready to participate but I did not have motivation to file mediation request myself after I got impression that some editors will accept any version but their own POV. Also nobody else went forward to file the request. Also previous DR attempt was discouraging. In general, I fully agree with Buster's comment that mediation is a great idea but it will work only if all participants are interested to find a compromise and accept the outcome of the mediation. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfM is usually the next step in attempting to seek consensus if an RfC does not achieve consensus, or if the consensus of the RfC is disputed. The problem with RfM is that it's determination is non-binding, which may still lead to disputed content with those with strong opinions. And arbitration, is the final step, and if individuals do not agree to enter into a binding arbitration, the process falls apart with usually stronger willed people who don't step away from the horse winning the day of the content dispute.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Question

My suggestion was mediation about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, not about the article in general. At some point the RfC will be closed. If, as I assume, the RfC is closed with the conclusion that there is no consensus, then mediation is the last step in a content dispute. I was not suggesting mediation about anything else, only as a way to resolve a content dispute that was not previously resolved by other steps in dispute resolution. Have I answered the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Robert, thank you. Still, I want more clarity. For instance, would you consider an update like this excessive or appropriate? If you find it to be appropriate, please consider helping to build this article (by adding this update) as well as criticizing it.petrarchan47tc 03:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert. I have just finished re-reading the above avaiable text pertaining to your RfC and it sure seemed to me that editors were responding about the article ALONG with the varied degrees of DWH spill inclusion. I support your efforts to achieve editor collaboration. Whether or not the various RfC's and surveys have or will achieve our mutual goal is up-in-the-air. But dispute resolution should help in reducing editor polarization. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Mediation is not intended to resolve disputes of this kind, which is about the fundamental purpose of WP. It is intended for cases where both parties wish to work together to resolve the dispute. I do not think that will happen here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is compelled to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, you want mediation with only one side present. That could work, at least for the side that participates. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Your implication that parties will not work together as collaborators is not fair and a bit saddening. Until you can see that it is possible that we CAN work together, you will never work toward agreement. It is not a foregone conclusion that the two sides are adversaries. A fundamental Pillar is assume good faith. Don't lose your faith just because we disagree. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The further implication that I want to start a mediation process with only one side isn't very fair either, but it does reflect the kind of combativeness that has been characterizing this page for months and months, as well as other pages related to BP, in which edits not favorable to BP have been reverted en masse. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to me. As I understand it, mediation without essential parties is sometimes rejected by whoever is in charge there. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, sometimes, maybe, it isn't necessary that editors agree. Understanding why different editors feel differently than other editors gives us insight. into them and ourselves. Often, a new-found mutual respect has potential to be born in the process, as well as genuine empathy. Those are the seeds of persuasion and compromise. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• From President Obama's 11/15/12 News Conference regarding the Fiscal Cliff::: "....fair-minded people CAN come to agreement. Compromise is hard...not everyone gets what they want." ```Buster Seven Talk 01:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin about the oil spill, that a long description of the oil spill is inappropriate in this article and should instead be in the "child" article. I don't know why he thinks that mediation is not possible, and I don't think that this is a dispute about the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. I think that everyone agrees that the purpose is to build a high-quality on-line encyclopedia. The issue is one of what is a neutral point of view, and not of whether Wikipedia should reflect a neutral point of view. The RFC on the scope of the oil spill coverage in this article will be closed, and if the conclusion is that there is no consensus, then mediation is the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are to participate in the mediation, I have to request that you answer people's direct questions, and don't ignore them as you have done twice to me. It's disrespectful. And yes, I'm willing to take part in a mediation. petrarchan47tc 07:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert, whatever NPOV is taken to mean it is being applied differently in this article from others, but it is not just NPOV it is lack of encyclopedic writing style and excessive detail. For some reason, this article is being treated completely differently from nearly all others. I cannot see how the mediators will deal with this, it is not their job to rule on WP policy, just to try to get parties to reach agreement. BY all means give mediation a try, I am perfectly willing to participate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I know some editors have a problem with excessive detail. But this is the first time I've heard mention of a problem with a lack of encyclopedic writing style. Examples please. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

~sigh~ Alright, here's the thing guys; the RfC was doomed to failure from word go simply as a result of how it was approached; the question it put forth was one which allowed each side (and indeed each individual editor) to state their position in the broadest possible terms and because of the vagueness of the question, each side (understandably) came away with the impression that their response was pretty reasonable. That type of question may be good for counting heads between the factions that grow out of these sorts of disputes, but absolutely lousy at establishing a more refined discussion about the particulars of the content and where it is consistent (or inconsistent) with policy. The result was (predictably) a long-winded thread in which everyone weighed in and yet nothing of significance was decided. And consequently, even if the RfC hadn't been as split as it was (say 90% of the editors involved had come out in favour of an inclusionist or reductionist approach), it still would have accomplished nothing since the editors in the minority could have continued to make changes and reasonably claim that their actions were consistent with the outcome of the RfC; that is, those inclined to retain content could claim "The majority of editors clearly said that a reasonable amount of material should be present", whereas those wishing to remove content could say "The majority of editors said that only a reasonable amount of material should stay." And both perspectives would be completely correct as a result of how badly the RfC was bungled and how little effort has been put in to address the actual finer points.

And now this tedious, unproductive debate has spawned an entirely new discussion on whether to request mediation, when neither side has put in any effort to do more than establish the vaguest ideological arguments. Let's be clear about a few things. One, RfM is dubiously appropriate to this context to begin with. Two, it is very likely to fall into the same pitfalls with the same cyclical arguments that dominated the last discussion. Three, it is inappropriate to waste the time of admins on commenting upon vague assertions when said admins are only going to look at the broad strokes being painted by both sides and be left with nothing to say but "Yes, a reasonable amount of content on this discussion does seem...reasonable. Now which exact points should be included and which shouldn't?" And at that point, given how I've seen this discussion evolve above, I can only surmise there will be a weighty silence. Because what I see here is a whole lot of editors more than willing to provide an opinion (and a very impassioned one at that from a number of voices) and a dearth of editors actually willing to do the hard work necessary to establish a lasting consensus on the matter. This is the very definition of useless (or indeed counterproductive) wikilawyering. The next step is not mediation. Any interested parties are welcome to try it, but I can almost guarantee the responding admin is likely to echo my sentiments here. What is truly needed here is some actual editing. Editors who feel strongly on this matter and also feel that they are well-versed in the subject matter -- and with this degree of polarization, I would hope there is some crossover between those two groups -- should do some actual editing, ideally in the form sandbox drafts, with justification for why specific passages should be included or omitted, and then the involved editors can discuss each point on its merits rather than embracing vague stances on principle. Or everyone can just continue to spin their wheels seeking a judgement from the majority or from a superior authority, neither of which is going to lead to a stable resolution to this issue if it is approached in the way it has been thus far. Snow (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Deepwater Horizon

• Under "Deepwater Horizon", the estimate of barrels of oil spilled should probably be reduced to 4.1 million given the explanation in these sources:
  • Reuters
  • Pensacola News Journal
  • Houston Chronicle

Can editors please review these and update the article as needed? There is no rush to address these issues, please take your time. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The main spill article says that the total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9 million barrels (210,000,000 US gal; 780,000 m3) with plus or minus 10% uncertainty, [8] of which over 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m3) was collected or burned before it could enter the Gulf waters.[9] To avoid confusion between different sources talking about 4.9 million barrels and 4.1 million barrels, it should be explained what is the difference. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, the sources above explain that the 4.1 million barrels estimate is the current estimate being used for the Clean Water Act trial. I also found this Houston Chronicle article that more clearly explains that the difference between the earlier government estimate of 4.9 million barrels and the 4.1 million barrel estimate is the more than 800,000 barrels that were collected from the well before they could enter the Gulf waters. It may be helpful for readers if this could be explained in the section, perhaps wording similar to "earlier government estimates for the spill were around 4.9 million barrels but this was lowered in early 2013 to a new official estimate of 4.1 million barrels, in order to exclude over 800,000 barrels that were collected before entering the Gulf". Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored this edit request as it was not done. However, this needs proper discussion. Beagel (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Beagel. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the provided sources and the text in the main article I propose to change the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Deepwater Horizon section as following:

Before the well was capped on 15 July 2010, an estimated 4.9 million barrels (780×10^³ m³) of oil was leaked with plus or minus 10% uncertainty. 810,000 barrels (34 million US gal; 129,000 m³) of oil that was collected or burned while 4.1 million barrels (650×10^³ m³) entered the Gulf waters. 1.8 million US gallons (6,800 m³) of Corexit dispersant was applied.

Beagel (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Updated per proposal above. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

The article misses the annual statistical review of world energy which has been published by BP since 1951. This is one of the most cited annual energy reviews and as such it is worth of mentioning in this article. Any suggestion where in the article it should be placed? Also, is there any suggestion for a good third-party source saying what the review is (there are plenty of the mainstream media sources saying what the review says)? Beagel (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestion where the information about the Statistical Review of World Energy should be placed? Beagel (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Statistical Review of World Energy is mentioned in the Operations section. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for figures in the introduction

Some time ago now, the details in the introduction about BP's ranking among companies worldwide and among oil and gas companies was updated to reflect the data available from 2012, but the sources for this sentence were not replaced with newer ones. As the Fortune Global 500 has not yet been published in 2013, I have found some alternative sources. These source confirm that BP is the fifth-largest energy company based on market capitalization, the fifth-largest company globally by revenue and the 6th largest oil and gas company based on production, all based on 2012 performance.

There are several ways to measure a company’s size, and the figures that I am providing are one option, so if others prefer to use different figures that would be fine too. I mainly wanted to bring attention to the out-of-date citations.

The new sources I found are:

• The PFC Energy 50
• The Oil and Gas HQ list of Top Ten oil and gas companies

I also suggest a change to the wording of the sentence to reflect these new sources. This is what I propose (with the new sources as citations):

It is the fifth-largest energy company by market capitalization, fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues, and is the sixth largest oil and gas company measured by 2012 production.

Would someone be able to update the introduction with this information? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. There is an additional issue. Information in the lead should be a summary of the information provided in the more specific sections of the article. Therefore I think that this information as also financial data in the infobox should be presented also in the 'Corporate issues' section. Beagel (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done References in the lead are updated (in addition to sources provided in this thread also source provided in this archived thread was added) and the information was included also in the 'Corporate affairs' section. Also financial data for 2012 were added and information about the total number of employees was moved into that section. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel, for making these updates in the introduction and the "Corporate affairs" section. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Third party sources

There are lot of references citing the annual report(s) or the website of the company. While that kind of sources may be useful, it would be better to find also third party sources to support the information provided by the company-related sources only. Beagel (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, for information on the company's operations the Annual Report is often the best resource since the media either tends not to report on details of that kind or they do so inaccurately. If there are specific pieces of information where you think a third-party source would be better than the Annual Report, I can help to find sources. I see that below you mention the research and development facilities in the UK. I will see if I can find an alternative source for that and if not, will let you know the page number in the Annual Report where that information can be found. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beagel that it would be better to stick to independent sources. The point of WP:UNDUE is that the article should reflect the coverage found in reliable sources. If the media or academia don't report on something, it may be better to leave it out. That doesn't have to be adhered to slavishly: primary sources are allowed and sometimes it's fine to add a detail here and there directly from the company, especially where accuracy is an issue. But doing it too much would make this page an extension of, or platform for, the company's own publications, and that's what needs to be avoided. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

R & D facilities

The current UK section says at the end of the first paragraph: "BP also has three research and development facilities in the UK." This claim has a reference to the 2011 Annual Report. However, there is no page number and therefore it is hard to find a verification in the report. It would be useful if the page number is provided (better the page number in the 2012 Annual Report and even better some reliable third party source). Beagel (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, I have found the following sources for BP's research and development centers in the UK:

BP's evidence to the UK Parliament Commons Committee on Science and Technology:

BP spends 40% of its total research & development funds in the UK and has three major research centres in Sunbury, Pangbourne and Hull. The excellence of UK academic research is a key factor in determining why companies like BP choose to site their R&D activities in the UK.

BP invests over £25 million per annum in R&D programmes with UK universities, with the greatest amounts going to Cambridge, Imperial, Manchester and Oxford. The UK university sector is a key resource for recruitment, with BP sourcing 25% of graduates globally from UK universities. The 2012 UK graduate intake has increased 50% compared to 2011.

News sources for the three research centers:

• Oil Price.com: Sunbury-on-Thames research center
• Yorkshire Today: Hull Research and Technology Centre
• Your Subsea News BP Castrol Global Technology Centre, Pangbourne

Also, here is some news coverage on research and development investment into other institutions:

• The Telegraph article on investment in the University of Manchester for the BP International Centre for Advanced Materials
• Surrey University: BP-funded research center

I hope that this is helpful to editors. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Changed reference to the Parliament website. Beagel (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Although I agree with changing the archiving time to 15 days, there was a consensus that archiving time should not to be changed without discussing it at the talk page. Also, if the archiving is reverted and the thread is restored, it should be also undone in the archive to avoid duplicated archive entries. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Once more, if the thread is restored from the archive, please also remove it from the archive. Otherwise it will be resulted with archiving the same thread several times, or even worse, archiving different versions of the same thread which creates confusion. Beagel (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petra, if you want to keep certain sections containing sources, you could move them to their own page (e.g. Talk:BP/Gulf spill sources). There's a way of adding links like that to the archive box, which would mean they'd be accessible to anyone in future who needed them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

The problem on this page is a lack of trust, which I believe preceded BP's arrival but was exacerbated by it. The only way forward is to focus on restoring enough trust so that people can work together civilly. Some things that might help:

• Arturo, it's not ideal that you're asking editors to change the direction of the article, or their description of BP's critics, and repeating requests when they're not done (perhaps they're not done because people don't want to do them). If you stick to requesting the correction of errors of fact and (important) omission, that would make for a happier editing environment. Perhaps you could create a section on talk entitled "Errors," and mark anything that's urgent; we can stop the bot from archiving it, so you wouldn't have to keep repeating requests. I created one recently for Christian Scientists to list mistakes there; see here to give you an idea. Or you could create a subpage, Talk:BP/Errors.

• It would also help if editors were to look through the article to make sure that it relies on the highest-quality sources available for the specific issue. There's a danger of turning the article into a list of every good and bad thing BP has ever done. Instead, a decision should be made about which news or academic sources are the most trustworthy and comprehensive, then just stick to what they've reported, per WP:UNDUE, rather than trying to cram everything in. The article is currently 11,456 words, so it could use some trimming. Sticking to a disinterested/encyclopaedic tone is important too, rather than anything that smacks of news-style.

• Avoid personal criticism as far as possible. If you make a comment like that, consider striking or removing it later (striking if someone has already replied).

• Page archiving: when things get hot, archive often, so that disputes don't linger.

• More RfCs: these can be very effective. If 30 days seems too long, we can announce in advance that they're closing after 14 days. Pick an issue that people are fighting over, ask a good question that respondents can make sense of, then stick to the closing consensus. And just clunk through the issues that way. If anyone wants help setting up an RfC, I'd be happy to do that.

I know this is all easier said than done, but I hope it might help anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think you make some good points here about how trust and civility have broken down on this discussion page, and I think that your suggestions are helpful for finding a way forward. In particular, I like your idea of creating a subpage for noting errors and perhaps also for listing helpful (independent) sources. If I was to create that subpage, do you have a recommendation for how this should be linked on this page so that editors know that it is there and when to look for new items?

To respond to your mention of my repeating requests, recently I began noting what requests had still to be done after I saw that Buster Seven had been asking other editors what had been done and what remained from my requests. I was not at all intending to badger editors but to make it clearer that some parts had been responded to and other parts remained unaddressed. Typically, the requests that I mention again are ones where there has been no response, and I try not to press editors if they have said they don't want to make the change. As far as I recall, I have not created a new section to repeat requests lost due to archiving but I do agree that a subpage would mean that this would not be necessary.

Although I would offer corrections (such as the duplications and erroneous detail about the wind farm sale) in that subpage, where appropriate I intend to continue to respond in discussions on this page. For example, I did not comment in any of the RfCs for the page (which specifically are about the direction of the article), but I did reply to Beagel to offer sources for a piece of information. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you create an errors subpage, we can add an archive box to the top of this talk page, which would list archives by number and topic. So one of the links would be Talk:BP/Errors (or whatever you called it). And/or we can pin it at the top of this talk page by creating a section explaining that it exists; if we don't sign the section the bot won't archive it. I added an archive box and "corrections page" section here (scroll down) so you can see what it would look like (I then reverted myself).

That would prevent this talk page from having the flavour of a "to do" list, which might improve relationships. It might also make it easier for you to keep the list updated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you've made some good suggestions. One other problem, which seems to go back a long way, has been the wholesale reversion of edits made to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's necessary – there are times when all or most of an edit is problematic – but editors occasionally get into the habit of reverting everything if there's even one thing they disagree with, which should be avoided. Is this something that used to happen, or is it continuing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a revert war prior to the recent spate of RfCs, I'd say about a month ago. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have created a sub page here: Talk:BP/Corrections and resources for any future corrections that I have to offer, or suggestions for new information for the article. For now I have simply included a few recent news articles on the announced end of the clean up in three states following the DWH spill. Since discussion is ongoing on this page regarding the duplications in the article, I will leave this request open here rather than moving it to the sub page so that there is no confusion for editors who have responded. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC (2) on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill section

Following a recent RfC, there is consensus to include a summary-style section on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. There is also consensus that the current section is too detailed and should be trimmed, per SUMMARY and UNDUE.

The questions for this RfC are: (1) should the section summarize the environmental and health consequences of the spill, as well as the financial and legal consequences for the company; or should it only summarize the financial and legal consequences for the company? If respondents have other suggestions, please elaborate. And (2) roughly how long should the section be?

Note: because this debate has been protracted, the RfC will close after 14 days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Cover Both - Roughly 1 paragraph - Dedicate 2-3 to both the health/environmental thing and 2-3 lines to financial/legal consequences. NickCT (talk)