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: Has this article become a forum for anti-BP sentiment?

Some editors believe that, in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spill, this article has become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment. Other editors disagree and consider the current content to be encyclopedic and neutral.

Previous RfCs have failed to resolve this issue so comment from as wide a section of the WP community is sought to obtain a definitive decision. 09:43, 5 December 2013‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

• Patent nonsense. This article is far too vigorously defended from negative information, no matter how firmly rooted the negatives are in reliable sources. For instance, in September 2012 I tried to point the reader to published analysis of Browne's leadership, showing that a substantial vein of opinion exists that lays the blame for environmental disasters at Browne's feet, because of the corporate culture he set in place emphasizing profit above safety.[1] The response to this was immediate: reverted by Belchfire (now indef blocked). On the talk page we discussed the concerns about BLP, and I showed that Reuters UK, Fortune, Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian, CBS News and more had made this exact point. The next day I returned the material to the article, reinforced this time with more sources,[2] and it was immediately reverted by Rangoon11 (now indef blocked). We talked about the issue some more, but the quantity of argument was superior (not the quality) for this widely reported analysis to stay out of the article. This experience cemented my impression that the article's defenders were not taking a balanced and neutral approach. Despite some personnel changes at this talk page, I am doubtful the culture has shifted to one of neutrality. I find it ludicrous that Martin Hogbin is making the case here that the imbalance falls the other way. Simply astounding. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment An RfC could just as easily center around the fact that no one has updated the article with information such as the following: petrarchan47tc 22:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oil Spill Judge 'Deeply Disappointed' in BP
• Tar balls found in Gulf teeming with 'flesh-eating' bacteria the water alone had ten times as much vibrio as before the oil spill… and the tar balls themselves had 100-times more vibrio than the water
• BP and Shell face new allegations of rigging oil prices in US lawsuit

• No -- Quite the opposite is true. It seems like we've had far too many BP public relations staff at work here. I would say that given BP's level of environmental destruction, worker injuries, criminal activity, etc. that the brief and objectively written sections on these things in this article are remarkably mild compared to what a lot of resources have to say about it (I would even suggest that they are so mild that, as Binskternet points out, the article might even be considered biased in favor of BP). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Who are you claiming are, 'BP public relations staff'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

One example would be Arturo_at_BP whose user page reads: "Welcome to my user page. I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose “Arturo at BP” as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia." ... The fact that the creator of this RFC seems so interested in paid editing COI issues also seems rather suspicious to me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Please explain: "The fact that the creator of this RFC seems so interested in paid editing COI issues also seems rather suspicious to me." The creator of this RFC is Martin Hogbin. What is being said to be suspicious? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, I have indeed had a lively discussion with anther editor over paid editing and advocacy but my view remains that it is some unpaid editors who are the real problem. This article is a disgrace to WP. Over half of it article is criticism of the subject, that is without parallel in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not criticism of the subject but negative factual material appearing in reliable sources. It is not unusual for an article to contain significant negative content when the sources so dictate. That point was recently made clear to me in another article in which I raised very much the same point that you are. In fact, I could very well have started an RfC very similar to what you have done here, and I think the outcome, similarly, would have been against me. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree The article has vastly too much negative content compared with other articles. Most of it is written in overly emotional and unencyclopedic language. For a detailed analysis see User:Martin_Hogbin/BPRfC. Please place any comments or response to that analysis either here or on the associated talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• ... as nominator -- Martin, could you maybe incorporate your comment here into the introduction for this RFC? As it stands here, it looks like someone is agreeing with you, when in fact, everyone else disagrees with you, and you are merely agreeing with yourself. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is normal in RfCs for the instigator to state their opinion in the body of the RfC. The introduction should be neutral. I would be happy to move my comment to the top if you like to just below the intro, Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. An absurd statement. The article is in a state of repair after an extended period during which it was a "poster child" for COI run amok, abetted by editors who placed BP-created text in the article without even cursory vetting. In major respects the article was deficient, toeing the BP line such as by giving grossly disproportionate attention to the alternative energy division, in keeping with BP's PR line. The article for a long time incorrectly stated that alternative energy was a "main business segment" when it was not, and this serious error persisted for many months despite a PR representative scrutinizing this article regularly for every single possible lack of lack of BP spin but not noticing or seeking correction of this serious error. The sorry state of this article resulted in damaging publicity and was a major black eye for Wikipedia. As Binksternet has correctly pointed out, the process of fixing this article is an ongoing process and is as yet incomplete. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• No Saw this on the RfC page, just dropping by. After glancing over the article, with specific time given to read the section mentioned in the RfC, it strikes me as a bit ludicrous to suggest the article is too anti-BP. It reads nothing like that at all. While I think it reads fairly neutral currently, Binksternet makes excellent points that there are ongoing reliable news stories out there that are negative for BP, and are not included in the article. I think it's fair to add some of them to continue the narrative of the oil spill. Best of luck to all, GRUcrule (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Through negligence and willful misconduct, BP caused an oil spill that has been called one of the worst ecological disasters in U.S. history. The oil was in the water, on the shorelines, and in the air through evaporation and controlled burns (5% was burned) for months. According to the US Department of Justice, "Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems and can cause long-term effects years later even if the oil remains in the environment for a relatively short period of time."[3] It has been suggested (see above) that we are not permitted, per WP guidelines, to include any health related information in this article other than medical review articles. I don't believe that it is Wikipedia's intent to allow health coverage of the 9/11 disaster but disallow similar coverage of a disaster caused by a multinational corporation. I'd suggest to anyone that thinks we have inappropriate health coverage to read the health sections of the September 11 attack article. In fact, I don't see how anyone could read the 9/11 disaster article and suggest anything but that our coverage of the BP disaster is minimal. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• No I have a Pavlovian response to editing this page, and usually updates remain in my files instead of on this page because I don't want to deal with the accusations and inevitable, knee-jerk RfC's. Right now, studies are coming out regarding health and environmental effects of the BP oil spill, but if we have a meme here that editors are being unfair to BP, it serves to keep such additions off the page. I imagine other editors will agree to feeling a certain nervousness when it's time to make an update here, and would probably agree that many times they have chosen peace over updating the page. I raise my hand high. For instance: this is some expected, albeit damning data that needs to be added, replacing the outdated info we currently have. But I don't want the grief, so it remains in my file box. Having a BP PR rep looking over our shoulders has had a negative effect on this article and on Wikipedia, in my opinion. As people have noted: the page is whitewashed. petrarchan47tc 21:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• I believe in transparency, so I'm linking to User talk:Tryptofish#RFC at BP About Too Much Negative Content. Make of it what you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Trypto. petrarchan47tc 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree - Every corporation has its controversies. This article contains more controversy content than other content. I am aware that I am probably in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring theme: we should judge content here based on other articles, be it corporations, oil companies, or similar. In fact, content for any article on Wikipedia depends on RS. A review of RS turns up what others have echoed: there is a LOT of very negative information out there on this company. "Three Little Piggies" comes to mind. But the bulk of it isn't being reflected here, not by a long shot. petrarchan47tc 23:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. I hadn't looked at the article in years, but in reading through it now, I think it looks remarkably evenhanded. Yes, there's a lot of negative content. If there weren't, I'd be very concerned, considering the events of the past several years. There's also a considerable amount of positive content, and I see no glaring WP:NPOV problems with any of the content, positive or negative. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you justify 57% of the article being criticism? This is more than any other article in WP. Vastly more than the Nazi Party or Pol Pot for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't justify it, and as long as no specific evidence of undue weight has been presented, no one need justify it. While quantifying the criticism contained in an article may be an interesting exercise, it isn't necessarily a good way to identify a problem. Cherry-picking other articles for comparison doesn't prove anything; perhaps this article gets it right and those two articles get it wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no cherry picking of articles by me. I tried to find ones that would be expected to have much criticism. Can you find one with more than 57% of the text emotive and unencyclopedic criticism? I challenge you. Undue weight in the extreme. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparative ratios of negative content don't constitute evidence of undue weight. ("Undue" doesn't have a number, absolute or relative, attached to it.) Specific, qualitative examples of "emotive and unencyclopedic criticism" might indicate a problem. If you can provide any such examples, I'm sure they could be discussed constructively, although probably not in the context of this RfC. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we're categorizing history as "negative content", when it's not actually criticism, which is what we usually consider the "negative" section of a Wiki article. In this case, there have been quite a few disasters, and their coverage is not negative or positive, it's simply encyclopedic. petrarchan47tc 08:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no confusion. In the case of BP some people have chosen to fill up the article excessively with negative events from the company's history.

Rivertorch, I am still baffled that you try to defend an article that has an unprecedented 57% negative content but you can see here that not only is it excessive in volume but emotively and enencyclopedically written. What exactly do you think constiutes 'weight' of not volume of text and language? The closest article that I can come up with for negative content is Joseph Stalin with 21% negative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If the article was full of opinionated comments like "John Smith thinks BP is the most evil corporation on the planet." then I would agree with you that the article is not neutral/balanced. However, there is a difference between opinion and FACTS. In the case of this article, what you have a problem with is that there happen to be a lot of facts that you consider to be "negative", and you would like to see those facts removed so that BP isn't viewed as negatively by people who interpret these facts the same way you do. Sorry, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. You don't get to remove factual information backed by reliable sources because you don't like how it makes something look. If there is other information about BP that you think is missing, you're always welcome to contribute more to the article. But there is nothing in policy that would justify you removing factual information that you feel is "negative". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I'm neither defending nor attacking the article; I'm taking issue with your insistence on trying to gauge due weight quantitatively. While I'm at it, I'm also finding fault with your repeated, unsupported claims that the article is emotive and unencyclopedic. If you don't understand what I wrote in my comments above, I'm sorry but I can't think how to make my thoughts any clearer. Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, quantity is one perfectly good indicator of weight, what better one would you propose? Secondly, I have given examples of emotive and unencyclopedic here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. I believe due weight should be determined by reviewing the amount and the nature of coverage by reliable sources. In the case of BP, the amount of coverage is vast and its nature, despite the company's enormous efforts to put a gloss on things, is generally negative. That state of affairs is reflected in the article, and it's futile to attempt to paint it as a problem with Wikipedia. Whether it's a problem with BP or a problem with the sources (or both) is a matter of opinion. As for your purported examples of emotive and unencyclopedic content, I assume you're referring to the page in your user space. I've read that twice now, and I don't think it demonstrates what you think it does. Sorry. I've found you to be a highly perceptive editor at other articles, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Rivertorch (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we must have completely different views on the meaning of 'encyclopedic'. I take it to mean the style that you might see in a quality written encyclopedia. If WP continues like this they might make a comeback. 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fatal flaws in the RFC wording, suggest starting over. First there is the more minor point some confusion on what the actual question is. But if one takes a guess, it is whether or not the article is "vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment.". If is, I think that Martin has shot themselves in the foot with this......they are in essence asking only if the extreme situation of the entire article being a "vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment" exists. They should have asked and should ask "is this article overly biased against BP?". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the only "flaw" that I can see, from the perspective of the asker, is that the answers are overwhelmingly in the negative, and unanimously so from previously uninvolved editors. The question is clear as a bell, and the responses all deal with whether the article is overly biased. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not realise that the RfC wording would be taken so legalistically, my experience is that they wander around anyway. It is pretty clear what I am getting at, 57% of this article is criticism of BP. That is more than any other article that I can find, including ones like Nazi Party and Pol Pot. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer that. In short, it looks like your question is not whether a bias problem exists, but whether an extreme form of it exists. And I think that many have been answering the latter question. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the RFC is worded "fatally" however you are correct that the RFC diverges from the recommended need to state the issue of contention clearly and definitivly. Thing is, everyone understands the RFC inquiry regardless, so the RFC is not worded fatally, in my opinion. That's the thing, after all: The request for comment needs to be understood so that people can give relevant replies, and I think people did that. Damotclese (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes it has indeed become a vehicle for anti-BP sentiment. The first half may be relatively neutral, but the second half is just one giant hate parade, especially the eight-paragraph long section on the Deepwater Horizon spill. Oddly enough, having a paid BP representative calling the shots left the article much more neutral than it is now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Agree, the article has been turned into a WP:COATRACK. There is too much weight given to environmental and anti-corporate advocacy. The editor above me used the phrase "hate parade", which is very apt. All of the hat-noted sections linked to spin-off articles can be -should be- shortened according to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Roccodrift (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a hierarchy of hate in WP with BP at the top, then other oil and gas companies, then any big business, then everything else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense to claim that people on Wikipedia are anti-corporate, considering that the majority of the most commonly used sources on Wikipedia are from the corporate media. In fact, I'd say that the opposite is true -- most editors on Wikipedia are of the U.S./British nationalist and capitalist persuasion, and love corporations. What is generally the case, in reality, is that it is considered "biased" to include anything that contradicts the views widely expressed in the corporate media, while faithfully repeating whatever they say is considered to be "objective". It just happens in this case that BP's crimes have been so extreme, that even the corporate media can't pretend like nothing is happening, so we have a ton of "reliable sources" (i.e. "corporate media sources") talking about it. So even by Wikipedia standards (i.e. only use for-profit media sources), this article is pretty fairly balanced. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Biased editing is reflected in the result and it means absolutely nothing that editors use corporate media sources. Plenty of corporate media sources are all too happy to cater to those harboring anti-corporate hysteria. POV-pushers will use whatever they can get away with. Roccodrift (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To say that editors "hate" BP for fairly reporting, indeed underreporting the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of this company in reliable sources is just grotesquely unfair, assumes bad faith, and inaccurate. Coretheapple (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: This is an interesting question. I think the initiator means to ask, if criticism of BP's environmental impact has been given undue weight in this article. There is no policy stating that 60% of an article shouldn't be criticism, rather if sources devote 60% of their coverage to criticism then 60% is the correct weight to give to criticism in the wikipedia article on the subject. Having perused the article briefly, there would seem to be less than half devoted to criticism. This all turns on sources, so as far as I can see we'd need some kind of source-counting exercise to determine the outcome of this RFC. One possibility would be to assume that coverage of Deepwater Horizon has declined in volume and that most discussion of BP in sources is no longer devoted to it, and consequently the weigh of DH should trend slowly down as time goes by. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The article has an negative bias As noted above, I thing that the wording of the RFC is faulty and would tend to understate the level of agreement with that "negative bias" assessment. In a quick overview, the thing that gives me this impression is that even relatively small items are included if the are negative, and there is quite a collection of such. This is an immense ($388 billion / yr) worldwide company with 100 years of history, an unequal standard has been applied to include a lot of small negative sounding stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is a flawed RFC. I acknowledge the attempt at neutrality in the request but I agree with North that we should start over. Simple ask the question in one sentence without referring to what any editors believe and without explaining the need to decide this. A good RFC should not try to define the positions for and against the question and there is never a need to justify an RFC (if it matters then people will participate). Jojalozzo 03:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please, do you really think that those of us who responded are so feeble-minded? It's been a week, a bunch of editors have already answered, and you don't get a "do-over" because you don't like the way it's going. Coretheapple (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Coretheapple here. It is pretty clear what this RfC is about. I have seen many RfCs worded in the form, 'some editors believe X some others others Y' and so long as this is not formulated as a personal attack I see no problem. However if people here feel that the question should be something more like, 'Is the negative content of this article unencyclopedic and excessive in volume?' I would be happy to add that at the top. On the other hand no doubt someone would cry 'foul' if I try to change the wording half way through or start a new RfC before this one is finished. I think we should all show a little good faith here and try to resolve the content dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that Martin Hogbin accidentally hurt their own case by asking if a more extreme version of the actual problem is present.North8000 (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion The above RFC is on whether the article has "become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment." which is asking whether a severe pair of problems exists. I suggest another RFC directly on the whether or not the article has an anti-BP neutrality problem. More specifically it would ask: "Does the article have an anti-BP neutrality problem." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It says that already: Other editors disagree and consider the current content to be encyclopedic and neutral. Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

But I think that the question (or the offered alternative to "no problem") is being interpreted as whether the article has "become a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment" which includes a statement of mis-use of the article by people, a more severe and problem than simply having an anti-BP neutrality problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an awfully condescending attitude to have toward your fellow editors. I think that the RfC was formulated in a perfectly cogent manner and is being answered and interpreted in a rational and intelligent fashion by all persons answering it. Martin himself agrees with me on this. Please drop it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Quit the crap of inventing "condescending" out of my post. What I said is that editors are likely to be choosing between or commenting on the two choices given, as they are written. Unlike your false invention of "condescending", such is not a negative comment about editors.North8000 (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, editors have been commenting on the neutrality of the article. So why not just drop it? Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Drop it" implies that I'm pursuing something, which I'm not. I made a suggestion. I had an exchange for clarity with Gandydancer. Then you broke bad with your 14:30 post. North8000 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's fair to say that you're pursuing something when you've "made a suggestion" in four different threads, and continue to push it even though people (including the creator of the RFC) have made it clear that there is nothing unclear about the RFC? The editors here aren't stupid, and it's very clear that what is being asked is whether we should start censoring factual information about BP in the name of "neutrality". And it seems that the consensus is "no". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread is deteriorating; I'm not engaging further on it. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Not engaging further in it" -- Yes, I think that's what was meant by "drop it". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not making sense. The degenerating thread hadn't even occurred yet when "drop it " was mentioned. But either way, I'm not engaging on the degenerating thread. And on the overall topic, I just had suggestions and clarification on them. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, this article has not become a forum for anti-BP sentiment. It is far from unusual that the BP article contains a higher than "normal" negative content. Whatever negative content exists is contingent on the enormous volume of negative factual material appearing in reliable sources. As stated by some above, when fair-minded editors compare the enormous volume of sources which do NOT favor BP against the limited and constrained volume of negative content in the article, I think they will say there is not an imbalance toward negativity. The current article is encyclopedic and neutral. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• No. Documenting negative events is not the same as advocating a particular pro- or anti-BP position. 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)
• No. My experience in trying to edit here was that pro-BP editors would delete everything I did within minutes. My contributions were neutral and well-cited. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. The article may possibly reflect some sections of anti-BP press but as an encyclopaedic article of a major multi-national it fails completely to be neutral. It gives well over due weight to the recent negative incident. --BozMo talk 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• No. This article certainly has a lot of negative information about BP, but that information is well-sourced and factual. Checking through the available sourcing, the weight given to the negatives is very due, as the company has faced significant criticism and censure in reliable sources for its practices. If the company would not like its public record to be one of doing harmful things, it should stop doing those things. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Suggestion One idea would be to take out all of the smaller scale negative stuff. (e.g. one group suing about one thing, or allegations that something that they do is "carbon intensive" (which oil industry/fuel inherently is)). Setting a lower threshold of notability (not referring to wp:notability) for inclusion of negative stuff (and coverage is not the reason, there are mountains of positive, neutral and negative coverage that editors are selecting from) can, of course, raise concerns. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Not only is there no "small scale negative stuff" in this article, but as was described above a great deal of large-scale negative stuff is currently omitted. If anything, our threshold of notability has been skewed excessively high. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh come off it. A complaint as yet not tested even in a first line Court based on a petition signed by 474 residents in Galveston is not "small scale negative stuff" and really is notable in terms of the activities of a company which scales like the eleventh biggest country in the world (Belgium) in terms of turnover, energy usage, and employment (if you include all the subcontractors, retailers and resellers)? Get real; anything which would not be notable enough to get into the main page for a mid-sized US state should not be included here. You get a 1000 people signing a petition about a single episode of stubble burning by a local farmer. --BozMo talk 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Neither. Some here have pointed out that there is more negative commentary that needs to go in, which is true. Others point out that there is too little positive information. That is also true. Please, do not try to come to a "compromise" that cuts out valid information - that is villainous. Instead, focus on getting more information in. To begin with: the article presently describes some BP market manipulation, which is absolutely important to have in there. But the article should also have useful information about BP's overall economic strategy - how they decide what to bid on and how much, everywhere, routinely, for example. Ideally there should be enough information here, in articles and sub-articles and sub-sub-articles, that people reading Wikipedia would actually feel like they know how to run an oil company, how to compete with BP, how to work with BP as a supplier or buyer, why they are tempted to cut corners even when it is stupid and going to lead to disaster, how to regulate the industry so it doesn't happen, etc. Our information should be all things to all people, and as a huge company, it's a huge topic. To get there, we need people to add, add, add, and add more, and stop fighting to delete the other guy's stuff. Wnt (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but with the proviso that any additions should be substantial, notable, neutral, and not authored by BP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• No - The point that the negative information is well-sourced is the key. BP has an established history of substantial factual "negatives" that belong in this article. I agree with the comments by Seraphimblade, Gandydancer, Coretheapple, Buster 7, Gamaliel, Petrarchan47, Smallbones, Rivertorch, and Binksternet, all of whom make solid points. We can not allow Wikipedia to become a mere PR outlet. In my view Wnt's comment is valid as long as important material is not drowned in a flood of irrelevant information. Jusdafax 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree I was randomly selected to comment on this, and I see that there is a fairly good leaning toward opposing the suggestion that the article is some how "anti-British Petroleum." If anything the article does not contain enough accurate and informative text covering the full extent of the corporation's activities and behavior. Remember: Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, and more information is generally better than less. Since the information covering the corporation's crimes and abuses is accurate and falifiable yet is well cited then the information needs to be retained. Damotclese (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixing a DUE weight problem does not necessarily mean removing information. It can be solved by adding other information. For example: BP's assets have been nationalized in four or five countries; perhaps those major actions deserve more than four or five sentences? Earnings, profits, and dividends are barely mentioned. The number of current employees is listed (twice, and with different numbers), but there is no information about the number of employees in the past. BP produces 40% of Egypt's natural gas: maybe BP's presence in Egypt deserves more than two sentences? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• No - this article has not, as the header asks, become a forum for anti-BP sentiment. There is negative information, but it appears to be encyclopedic and on par with the prevalence of that same information in reliable sources as required. There is a lot of merit in the suggestions made above by Wnt and WhatamIdoing; expand the non-negative content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of merit to the suggestions by Wnt and WhatamIdoing. I am sure that Martin and some of the others who have long complained about bias in the article would be more than happy to improve the article with more copy that they consider neutral and/or "positive". Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. It would be a much more interesting article if we continued to add information. It seems the arguments made to keep information out of the Pedia are usually done to keep a POV on the page, that, with further evidence, would crumble. I have to admit, I did research into BP's history, and if I were BP, I would want to keep this article as short as possible. petrarchan47tc 08:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

An update of the claims process is clearly in order as well. Also a BP employee just yesterday was found criminally liable for obstruction of justice.[4] For any other company this kind of thing would go in automatically. Here we hesitate. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that that incident was immensely notable and few would argue against inclusion. The issue I think is inclusion of far less notable items unrelated to such major incidents. E.G. somebody circulated a petition or filed a court case. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but in the past such additions would set off an unholy row. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We might reasonably quibble with the claim that Wikipedia editors automatically add every conviction of every employee to articles. There are far, far too few links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Obstruction of justice for that statement to be even remotely accurate (and 100 of those mainspace links are navbox links). But I agree that this is worth describing in the subarticles, and that it's probably worth a sentence here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Thank you Martin for requesting my position on your RfC. My response is that this article is not, has not been, and doubtless never will be "a vehicle for the promotion of anti-BP sentiment." The "some editors" who share that belief are mistaken. This article provides only an incomplete glimpse at the misconduct carried out by BP in recent years. If the question were rephrased as "Is this article tilted against BP in any way, shape or form?" my response would be identical. No, it is not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Former Employee X estimated that more than 630,000 gallons of oil were spilling daily, three times BP’s estimate in public statements

And three times the spillage information that this article presents to our reader. My confidence in the reliability of BP employees editing or managing the editing of this article is lessened. Every piece of information that came from BP is now in doubt. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mother Teresa could be BP's rep here, or elsewhere, and it would still be problematic to rely upon the judgment of an employee to guide placement of facts within this or any article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Duh. petrarchan47tc 05:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Err yes? Of course that doesn't mean that anyone else is any more reliable.©Geni (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Former Employee X is the first of four current or former BP employees to be charged with spill-related crimes and the first of the four to be tried. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, a text message from one employee is a primary source. We should be relying on secondary ones.

Additionally, how would you explain this? "A single employee once casually texted that he thought it was really, really, really a heck of a lot of oil (at least at one point in time: the rate of flow may have varied over time), whereas the definitely more considered and possibly better informed official position of the company was that it was really a heck of a lot of oil"? I'm not seeing the value to an encyclopedic summary in this kind of dubious detail. I'd omit this, and focus on giving two numbers: what BP officially said at the time (recognizing that even a perfectly good-faith estimate has a high chance of being wrong), and what independent academic scholars (eventually) concluded is a reasonably accurate estimate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that what BP officially said at the time is an estimate of 1 to 5 thousand barrels, with the official estimate eventually set at 62,000 barrels, I find it hard to believe that their estimate was made in good faith. Nor did Representative Ed Markey (who headed the congressional investigation), who repeatedly called them either liars or incompetent. However, assuming that press accounts are acceptable sources, this information certainly could be in the article if other editors consider it appropriate, though I haven't seen a need to discuss the flow rate.

You said, "A single employee once casually texted that he thought it was really, really, really a heck of a lot of oil...". I'm not sure what you're getting at here--would you please explain, including why news reports would not be acceptable (if that is indeed what you are saying...). Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "casual text" must be referring to someone other than Mix, who emailed the estimate to his BP supervisors and to USG officials: "Just two days after the rig explosion, Mix emailed a projection to a supervisor estimating the runaway well could be leaking from 62,000 barrels per day to 146,000 barrels per day. Two days later, BP executives told the Coast Guard their best estimate for the leak was 1,000 barrels per day. A federal scientific group concluded after the well was capped that the flow was 62,000 barrels per day at the beginning of the disaster."

If the BP estimate still sounds like the work of good, honest scientists, consider: "Rainey was charged in November with two felony counts of obstruction of justice for lying to Congress and federal officials about internal BP attempts to measure the size of the leak." It is what it is. But are we allowed to enter this truth about BP into the encyclopedia unencumbered? Rarely. Source: HuffPo petrarchan47tc 02:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Related: Ira Liefer, of the Flow Rate Technical Group, claims that what BP called their "best quality" video recording of the flowing well (provided to the team in order to help with their flow rate estimate), was intentionally made to be blurry - it was not an original, but a shot of a blurry screen playing the video, taken with a shaky camera. More: Scientist Working with Government Says BP Restricting Access to Study Gushing Oil Well. petrarchan47tc 02:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Smith writes: "Mr. Liefer says that the team was denied quality video of the gushing well and was forced to work with BP-provided images that seemed to have been intentionally taped by pointing a camera at a high-quality computer screen. In fact, he could actually see the outlines of the screen." petrarchan47tc 03:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates and corrections

As there has been more activity on this Talk page recently than in a while, I would like to take this opportunity to remind editors about the Corrections and resources sub page, where there are a number of requests for updates and corrections that have not yet received any response. Most of these are fairly small requests, so I hope that editors will be able to address them.

These requests include:

• Updating BP's Global 500 ranking, which dropped from 5th to 6th largest company by revenue in 2013
• Correcting inaccurate information in "History"
• Updating "Operations", which currently includes incorrect employee numbers and number of refineries
• Removing a duplicated quote regarding BP's position on climate change from the "Environmental record" section

There may be other updates and corrections needed in the article, these were ones that I had noticed last year. I can continue to add anything else that I see to the sub page, if editors would prefer to keep these requests there. Alternatively, if it seems that the sub page is not being looked at, I can leave requests on this page instead where they are more likely to be seen. These requests are suggestions and I do understand if editors prefer not to make any specific change. If that is the case, please indicate that on the sub page and I will know not to remind again about the particular request. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless I'm mistaken I believe that some of the above (the "duplicate quote" in particular) have been discussed in the past. If so, we really should not have a separate "corrections and resources" subpage, in which BP's requests are given special treatment by being divorced from pertinent discussions and handled separately. If they are new and not discussed it is another matter. But if they have been discussed, I don't want them to go back into some separate subpage, to sit there until some editor wanders by and does what BP wants. We work by consensus on this talk page. We are not here to take directions from BP's public relations staff. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in a bad mood. Coretheapple (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arturo, would you be able to leave links here with the exact place the problematic text occurs in the article, and the exact text to replace it? The links are at the subpage, so that's fine. Thanks. petrarchan47tc 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Removing a duplicated quote regarding BP's position on climate change from the "Environmental record" section  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 07:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making that edit, Buster Seven. For the other requests, below I will provide the link to the text to be updated and the text that I suggest in its place, as Petrarchan has suggested. Full explanations of each request are on the sub page, so I will keep these notes brief.

BP's Global 500 ranking:

• Current text in Article introduction: the fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues,

Suggested text and citation: the sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues

• Current text in "Corporate affairs": fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues

Suggested text (current citations are already updated, just the text here needs amending): sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues

Inaccurate information in "History":

• Current text in "1979 to 2000": Prior to the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher initiated the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.

Suggested text and citations: Following the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher authorized the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.

Updates to "Operations":

• Current text in "Operations": As of December 2012, the company had a total of 79,700 employees.

Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company had a total of 85,000 employees.

• Current text in "United States": As of March 2013, the company employs approximately 21,000 people in the US,

Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company employs approximately 20,000 people in the US,

• Current text in "Oil refining and marketing": As of February 2013, BP owned or held a share in 15 refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and four were in the US.

Suggested text and citation: As of June 2013, BP owned or held a share in 14  refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and three were in the US.

If you are able to make any of these edits, let me know and I can update the sub page accordingly. Also, it seems from Coretheapple and Petrarchan's comments, that some editors might prefer that I offer suggestions and corrections here rather than on the sub page. The reason I began placing requests there was at the suggestion of SlimVirgin last year, and the idea seemed to have support from editors at the time, but I can easily make requests on this page instead if that has changed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)